Nedarim 5b — the Talmud in English

And we raise it:

shall we say,

that in light of these words of Shmuel we must say that

Shmuel holds

that “

hands that are not conclusive”—

are not hands!

That is to say, any partial utterance that does not demonstrate its intention through that utterance is not considered a “hand.”

Rather, he must utter an utterance, even a partial one, through which the utterance itself demonstrates what his intention is in his utterance.

And we answer:

yes,

indeed, this is what Shmuel holds.

For

Shmuel establishes it,

establishing

the Mishna—

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

For he says: hands that are not conclusive—

are not hands.

And the Gemara brings a Mishna, in which there is a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda concerning an “inconclusive hand” in the wording of a woman’s get, and it compares the law of an “inconclusive hand” in a get with the law of an “inconclusive hand” in vows.

For we learned

in tractate Gittin [85a]:

the body of

the wording of the language of the

get: “

Behold, you are permitted to every person.”

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

For although such language of a get does not, in itself, demonstrate that the husband divorces her from him with this get, since it says in the get only, “Behold, you are permitted to every person,” and it does not explicitly say in it that he is the one who divorces her from him with this get, and this language is in the category of an “inconclusive hand,” nevertheless, according to the Sages, such language is sufficient to divorce with it, since the get emerging from under her hand is itself the proof that this get was given to her by him for the purpose of divorcing her from him [for no person gives such a document to his wife unless he divorces her with it].

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is necessary that language demonstrating that the husband is the one who divorces her with this get be written in the wording of the get, and it is impossible to suffice with the proof that the get emerges from under her hand.

And therefore, it is also necessary to add this language to the wording of the get: “

And this

and this is

that shall be for you from me,

that it shall be for you from me—

a document of divorce,

a document of divorce,

and a letter of release,

a letter of departure [from me].

And the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages concerning the wording of the get, whether hands that are not conclusive are hands or are not hands, is a fundamental dispute; therefore, they will also disagree concerning hands that are not conclusive in a vow, whether they are hands or are not.

And Shmuel established our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And therefore Shmuel said: Only if the one taking the vow adds to the expression “I am forbidden by vow from you” the words “that I eat of yours” is he forbidden by a vow, for then this language will be a “conclusive hand” that his intention is to forbid to himself by a vow the foods of his fellow.

But if he says only, “I am forbidden by vow from you,” which is an inconclusive hand, since it is also possible to interpret his intention as being that he will not speak with him, he is not forbidden, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raise it:

Why did Shmuel trouble himself to establish it,

to establish

the Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

and not in accordance with the Sages?

Let him establish it

let him establish it

in accordance with the Sages,

who hold that

even though there is no

the get written in the wording of

conclusive hands,

it is sufficient that the proof from the get emerging from under her hand shows that he divorced her with this get, and it is unnecessary for the wording of the get itself to demonstrate it; and here too, it is sufficient that he say, “I am forbidden by vow from you”

”!? Rava said:

the wording of

the Mishna—

was difficult to him,

to Shmuel:

why did he teach,

why did the tanney teach in the Mishna, “

that I eat—

of yours,” “

that I taste—

of yours”?

Let him teach “

that I eat”

alone, or “

that I taste”

alone!?

Rather,

conclude from it: we require conclusive hands.

And therefore, if he does not add the word “of yours,” since it is not demonstrated from the body of this utterance that he forbids himself with regard to the person to whom he is speaking, he is not forbidden with regard to him, although the fact that he is speaking to him demonstrates that he forbids himself with regard to him.

And since Shmuel demonstrated that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that hands that are not conclusive are hands, he held like him and established our Mishna in a manner that accords 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 of yours.”

It was stated: hands that are not conclusive—

Abaye said: they are hands.

And Rava said: they are not hands.

Rava said: Rabbi Idi explained it to me,

he explained to me the source of this matter.

For

the verse says [Numbers 6]: “

[Numbers 6]:

A nazirite, to vow a nazirite vow to Hashem.”

The verse equates

the verse

the hands of naziriteship [

taught above, 3a] from “ to vow a nazirite vow” from—

to naziriteship

explicit.

And we learn from the equation:

Just as naziriteship

is

with “

explicit declaration,”

such that one must accept naziriteship in an explicit, clear manner, and it is impossible to accept uncertain naziriteship—for example, if a person said, upon seeing his fellow passing before him, “I am a nazirite if my fellow is a nazirite,” his naziriteship does not take effect even if his fellow is a nazirite, because at the time he accepted the naziriteship he did not know whether his fellow was a nazirite or not, and this was not explicit naziriteship—

so too the hands of naziriteship

must be

explicit,

such that his utterance is explicit and conclusive. And if the hand is not conclusive, this is not an explicit declaration.

And since the hands of vows are learned by an equation from the hands of naziriteship, an “inconclusive hand” in a vow is not considered a hand.

And we raise it:

shall we say,

that Abaye and Rava

disagree in the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages!

For we learned: the body of a get: “Behold, you are permitted to every person!”

Rabbi Yehuda says:

it must also be written in it:

“And this shall be for you from me a document of divorce, a bill of release, and a letter of departure.”

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

And the Gemara rejects this, that Abaye and Rava did not disagree about this. Rather—

Abaye could say to you: what I say—

is even in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

For

Rabbi Yehuda said

that

we require conclusive hands—

only concerning a get,

since

we require “

cutting off,”

that the get itself effect the cutting off, and that the cutting off not depend on proof that is not written in the get.

And there is no

“cutting off” in this get, since only “Behold, you are permitted to every person” was written in it, which is not language of absolute cutting off, because the language of the get does not demonstrate that he is the divorcer and that he divorces with this get.

But elsewhere,

where “cutting off” is not required

— have you heard him say

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

And Rava said: what I say—

is even in accordance with the Sages.