Nedarim 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised a difficulty:

Shall we say:

Does the statement of Shmuel indicate that

Shmuel holds that

the expression

“non-proving handles”

are not handles?

That is, any partial statement that does not demonstrate its intention through the statement itself is not considered a “handle.”

Rather, one must utter a statement—even a partial one—that demonstrates from the statement itself what he intends by it.

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, this is what Shmuel holds.

For

Shmuel establishes

interprets

the Mishna

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Who says: Non-proving handles

are not handles.

The Gemara cites a Mishna in which the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda dispute the matter of a “non-proving handle” in a woman’s get, and compares the law of a “non-proving handle” in a get with the law of a “non-proving handle” in vows.

As we learned

in tractate Gittin [85a]:

The essential body of

the wording of the

get is:

“Behold, you are permitted to every man.”

That is, according to the Sages, this wording written in the get is sufficient, even if the get does not specify that the husband divorces her with this get from him.

For although such wording of a get does not in itself demonstrate that the husband divorces her from him with this get, since the get says only, “Behold, you are permitted to every man,” and does not explicitly state that he is the one divorcing her from him with this get, and this wording is therefore a “non-proving handle,” nevertheless, according to the Sages, such wording is sufficient for divorcing her, since the get emerging from her possession itself constitutes proof that this get was given to her by him for the purpose of divorcing her from him [for no one would give such a document to his wife unless he were divorcing her with it].

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The wording in the get must demonstrate that the husband is the one divorcing her with this get, and it is impossible to rely on the proof that the get emerges from her possession.

Therefore, this wording must also be added to the get: “

And this

that is

to be yours from me

that it be yours from me—

a document of divorce

a document of divorce,

and a letter of release

a letter of leaving [me].”

The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages concerning the wording of the get—whether non-proving handles are handles or are not handles—is a fundamental dispute. Therefore, they will likewise dispute the matter of non-proving handles in vows, whether they are handles or are not handles.

Shmuel established our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Therefore, Shmuel said: Only if the one taking the vow adds to the expression “I am forbidden by vow to benefit from you” the words “that I eat from you” does he become prohibited by the vow, because then this wording is a “proving handle,” demonstrating that he intends to prohibit upon himself by vow his fellow’s food.

But if he says only, “I am forbidden by vow to benefit from you,” which is a non-proving handle, since his intention could also be interpreted as being that he will not speak with him, he does not become prohibited—following the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raised a difficulty:

Why did Shmuel find it necessary to establish

interpret

the Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

and not in accordance with the Rabbis?

Let him establish it

interpret it

in accordance with the Rabbis,

who hold that

even though there are no

the get is not written in the wording of

proving handles,

it is sufficient that the get emerging from her possession demonstrates that he divorced her with this get, and the wording of the get itself need not demonstrate it. The same should apply here: It should be sufficient for him to say, “I am forbidden by vow to benefit from you”!?

Rava said:

The wording of the

Mishna

posed a difficulty to him, to Shmuel:

Why

Why did the tanna teach,

why did the tanna state in the Mishna

“that I eat”

“from you,”

“that I taste”

“from you”?

Let him teach

“that I eat”

alone, or

“that I taste”

alone!?

Rather,

infer from this that proving handles are required.

Therefore, if he does not add the word “from you,” since it is not demonstrated from the statement itself that he is prohibiting himself from the person to whom he is speaking, he is not prohibited from benefiting from him, even though the fact that he is speaking to him demonstrates that he is prohibiting himself from benefiting from him.

And since Shmuel demonstrated that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that non-proving handles are handles, he agreed with him and established our Mishna in a manner consistent with Rabbi Yehuda’s view. Therefore, Shmuel said: In all of them, the vow does not take effect until he adds and says, “that I eat from you.”

It was stated: Non-proving handles—

Abaye said: They are handles.

And Rava said: They are not handles.

Rava said: Rabbi Idi explained the basis of the matter to me,

explaining to me the source of this matter.

For

the verse says

[Numbers 6]:

“A nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.”

The verse draws an analogy

between

the handles of naziriteship

which are derived above, on 3a, from “to consecrate oneself”

and explicit naziriteship,

which is fully stated.

And we learn from this analogy:

Just as naziriteship

is

with

explicit declaration,

as naziriteship must be accepted through an “explicit declaration,” stated expressly and clearly, and one cannot accept uncertain naziriteship—for example, if a person sees his fellow passing before him and says, “I will be a nazirite if my fellow is a nazirite,” his naziriteship does not take effect even if his fellow is a nazirite, because when he accepted naziriteship he did not know whether his fellow was a nazirite, and this was not explicit naziriteship—

so too, the handles of naziriteship

must be

with an explicit declaration,

so that his statement is explicit and demonstrative. If the handle is not demonstrative, this is not an explicit declaration.

And since the handles of vows are derived by analogy from the handles of naziriteship, a “non-proving handle” in a vow is not considered a handle.

And we raised a difficulty:

Shall we say

that Abaye and Rava

are disputing the same issue as Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis?

As we learned: The essential body of a get is: “Behold, you are permitted to every man!”

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It must also contain:

“And this is to be yours from me, a document of divorce, a bill of release, and a letter of leaving.”

Abaye speaks in accordance with the Rabbis, and Rava speaks in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda!

The Gemara rejects this: Abaye and Rava did not disagree over this matter. Rather—

Abaye could say: What I said applies

even according to Rabbi Yehuda.

For

Rabbi Yehuda stated that far only

that

we require proving handles

with regard to a get,

since

we require

severance,

so that the get itself effects the severance, and the severance cannot depend on proof that is not written in the get.

And there is no

“severance” in this get, since it says only, “Behold, you are permitted to every man,” which is not wording that effects complete severance, because the wording of the get does not demonstrate that he is the one divorcing her or that he is divorcing her with this get.

But elsewhere,

where “severance” is not required—

do you hear him say

that according to Rabbi Yehuda the language itself must demonstrate the matter, and that it is insufficient for the matter itself to provide the proof!?

And Rava said: What I said applies—

even according to the Rabbis.