Nedarim 6a — the Talmud in English

The Sages said this only so far, that we do not require explicit yadayim -

but with regard to a bill of divorce,

since

a person does not divorce the wife of another. Therefore, the wording of the bill of divorce is wording of absolute severance, even if “from me” is not written.

.

But in general,

where there is not this absolute proof -

did you hear them say

that non-explicit yadayim are yadayim!?

A challenge is raised

against Abaye, who holds that non-explicit yadayim are yadayim, from a beraita:

As it is taught: One who says,

“Behold, it is upon me,”

“Behold, this is upon me” -

is forbidden, because it is a yad for an offering.

And the Gemara deduces:

The reason is that he said

“upon me” -

it is forbidden.

But

if

he did not say “upon me,”

but only “behold, it is” -

not

is it a vow, since it is an implicit yad!

A refutation of Abaye!

Abaye can say to you:

If he did not say “upon me,” this is not a yad at all, and therefore it does not become forbidden.

And this is what you should deduce from the beraita, and do not raise a difficulty from it against my words:

The reason is that he said

“upon me” -

it is forbidden.

But if he said

“behold, it is”

alone,

and did not say

“upon me” -

he is saying, “behold, it is ownerless,”

or

“behold, it is charity,”

he says.

And this is not at all the wording of a vow, for the wording of a vow is only when he says, “behold, it is upon me,” and not when he says, “behold, it is.” Therefore, as long as he did not say “upon me,” there is not even here a yad of a vow.

And we object:

But

the beraita is not dealing with a yad for a vow! For in the beraita it teaches: “Behold, it is upon me - it is forbidden,

because it is a yad for an offering,”

it teaches!

If so, this is not a yad for a vow, but a yad for consecrating an offering, and the complete wording of consecrating an offering is, “Behold, it is an offering.” Therefore, saying “behold, it is” is a yad for consecrating an offering.

And the reason that the saying of the yad does not consecrate the offering must be that such a saying is an “implicit yad”; therefore, the beraita says that the consecration of the offering does not take effect!

And this is a difficulty from here against Abaye, who holds that an “implicit yad” is a yad!

And on account of this difficulty the Gemara brings another explanation in order to answer the difficulty against Abaye:

Rather, say

to answer, according to Abaye, that one should deduce from the wording of the beraita as follows:

The reason is that he said

“upon me” -

he is forbidden and his fellow is permitted,

since it is the wording of a vow, and he prohibited only himself, and not his fellow.

But if he said

“behold, it is” -

both are forbidden, for perhaps

he is saying, “behold, it is consecrated,”

he says.

And the consecration takes effect.

A challenge is raised

against Abaye from another beraita:

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

“Behold, this is a sin-offering,”

or

“Behold, this is a guilt-offering” -

even though he is liable for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, he has said nothing!

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

And only if he said

“Behold, this is my sin-offering,”

or

“Behold, this is my guilt-offering” -

if he was liable

for a sin-offering or a guilt-offering,

his words stand.

But one who says, “Behold, this is a guilt-offering,” while he is liable for a guilt-offering: this is an implicit yad for “this is my guilt-offering,” and nevertheless he has said nothing. And

And

a refutation of Abaye,

who says that an implicit yad is a yad!

Abaye can say to you: This

beraita

whose opinion is it? -

According to the method of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that non-explicit yadayim are not yadayim.

And we ask:

But Abaye, he is the one

who

said: I say -

even according to Rabbi Yehuda!

And we answer:

He retracted

from these words, for he cannot hold in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Now that Abaye retracted, the Gemara discusses whether Rava, too, retracted -

And we examine it:

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

and not in accordance with the Sages!

Rava can say to you: I say even according to the Sages!

For

the Sages said only so far, that we do not require explicit yadayim -

but with regard to a bill of divorce, since a person does not divorce the wife of another,

and the matter in itself proves it.

But in general, we require explicit yadayim.