Nedarim 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages said that conclusive indicators are not required only -

in the case of a bill of divorce,

since

a person does not divorce another man's wife.

Therefore, the wording of the bill of divorce expresses an absolute severance even if it does not say, “from me.”

But elsewhere,

where this absolute proof is absent -

who has heard them say

that inconclusive indicators qualify as indicators?!

Meytivi

to Abaye, who holds that inconclusive indicators qualify as indicators, from a beraita:

As it is taught: One who says,

“It is upon me,”

“This is upon me” -

is forbidden, because this is an indicator for a sacrificial offering.

The Gemara infers:

The reason is that he said “

upon me” -

that is why it is forbidden.

But

if

he did not say “upon me,”

but said only, “It is” -

not

does this constitute a vow, since it is an inconclusive indicator!

A refutation of Abaye!

Abaye could say:

Without saying “upon me,” this is not an indicator at all; therefore, it does not become forbidden.

This is how one should infer from the beraita, and one should not raise an objection from it against my words:

The reason is that he said “

upon me” -

that is why it is forbidden.

But if he said “

It is”

alone,

and did not say “

upon me” “

It is ownerless,”

or “

It is for charity,”

he is saying.

This is not vow language at all, for vow language is only when one says, “It is upon me,” and not when he says, “It is.” Therefore, as long as he has not said “upon me,” there is not even an indicator for a vow here.

We object:

But

the beraita is not discussing an indicator for a vow! For in the beraita it says, “It is upon me - it is forbidden,

because this is an indicator for a sacrificial offering,”

it teaches!

If so, this is not an indicator for a vow but an indicator for consecrating a sacrificial offering, and the full wording for consecrating a sacrificial offering is, “It is a sacrificial offering.” Therefore, saying, “It is,” is an indicator for consecrating a sacrificial offering.

The reason that saying this indicator does not consecrate the sacrificial offering is necessarily that such a statement is an “inconclusive indicator”; therefore, the beraita says that the consecration of the sacrificial offering does not take effect!

This is difficult for Abaye, who holds that an “inconclusive indicator” qualifies as an indicator!

On the basis of this objection, the Gemara offers another explanation to resolve the difficulty for Abaye:

Rather, say

to resolve the matter according to Abaye that the beraita should be understood as follows:

The reason is that he said “

upon me” -

he is forbidden, but the other is permitted,

since this is vow language, and he prohibited only himself, not the other person.

But if he said “

It is” -

both are forbidden, as perhaps

he is saying, “It is consecrated,”

he is saying.

And the consecration takes effect.

Meytivi

to Abaye from another beraita:

It is taught in the Tosefta [Temura, chapter 3]: One who says about an animal,

“This is a sin-offering,”

or

“This is a guilt-offering” -

even though he is obligated to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, he has said nothing!

The reason is that a person cannot bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering on his own unless he consecrates the offering for his sin-offering or for his guilt-offering.

Only if he said,

“This is my sin-offering,”

or

“This is my guilt-offering,” -

if he was obligated

to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering,

his words are valid.

Yet one who says, “This is a guilt-offering,” while being obligated to bring a guilt-offering: this is an inconclusive indicator for “This is my guilt-offering,” and nevertheless he has said nothing.

And

a refutation of Abaye,

who says that an inconclusive indicator qualifies as an indicator!

Abaye could say: This

beraita,

whose

method is it? -

It is according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that inconclusive indicators do not qualify as indicators.

And we object:

But Abaye, is he

the one

who said: I say -

even according to Rabbi Yehuda!

And we answer:

He retracted

from these words, for he cannot maintain the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

Now that Abaye has retracted his position, the Gemara considers whether Rava likewise retracted his position -

And we raise the matter:

Rather, let us say that Rava holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

and not in accordance with the Sages!

Rava could say: I say even according to the Sages!

For

the Sages said that conclusive indicators are not required only -

in the case of a bill of divorce, since a person does not divorce another man's wife,

and the matter itself proves the meaning.

But elsewhere, conclusive indicators are required.