Nedarim 6b — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa raised a question:

whether

there is a

“yad”

for kiddushin, or not?

And Rav Pappa’s question was even concerning an explicit yad .

The Gemara discusses in what manner Rav Pappa raised his doubt:

What are the circumstances?

If you say,

if we say that the doubt is in a case such as

that he said to one woman, “

Behold, you are betrothed to me,” and

he said to her companion, “

And you as well,”

without adding “betrothed” —

it is obvious

that his companion is also betrothed to him, since such an expression

is

an expression of

the kiddushin itself, and this is not a yad!

, and this is not a hand!

Rather,

the doubt is in a case

such as that he said to one woman, “

Behold, you are betrothed to me,” and

he said to her companion, “

And you.”

And this expression is not a complete expression of kiddushin; rather, it is a “yad.”

And the doubt is:

Do we say

that there is a yad for kiddushin, and therefore, “

And you as well

shall be betrothed to me” —

he said to her companion.

That is, this is the expression of kiddushin, since there is a yad for kiddushin.

And

if so,

the kiddushin of her companion takes effect through it

by means of the utterance of the “yad.”

Or perhaps

there is no yad for kiddushin, and this expression is not an expression of kiddushin, but rather: “

And you, look [

you should look and see how I am betrothing your companion]” —

he said to her companion.

And

according to this side,

the kiddushin of her companion does not take effect through her.

And the Gemara is astonished:

And does Rav Pappa require

a question as to whether there is a yad for kiddushin or not?

But from what Rav Pappa said to Abaye

in tractate Kiddushin [5b], in a language of astonishment:

Does Shmuel think

that

unexplicit yadayim are yadayim

in kiddushin? —

This

implies

that Rav Pappa was astonished only concerning yadayim that are not explicit, but he did not express astonishment in this way concerning explicit yadayim; from this you learn

that Rav Pappa holds that there is an explicit yad

for

kiddushin!

And we answer: Rav Pappa himself raises his doubt even concerning an explicit yad, for it is possible that even an explicit yad is nothing in kiddushin.

However, Shmuel may hold that an explicit yad is a yad, and there is no contradiction to this from his statement elsewhere. Therefore, Rav Pappa did not ask Abaye in tractate Kiddushin, “Does Shmuel perhaps hold that an explicit yad is a yad?” for it is possible that Abaye is correct, that Shmuel holds that an explicit yad is a yad.

Therefore, Rav Pappa, only concerning

one

[unexplicit yadayim],

through

the fact that

Shmuel holds

in general [that both explicit yadayim and unexplicit yadayim are yadayim] —

said

in astonishment

to Abaye.

That is, only concerning the detail that Abaye said there, that according to Shmuel even an unexplicit yad is a yad, like an explicit yad, did Rav Pappa express astonishment, since this contradicts it.

Rav Pappa raised a question:

If you find it said that there is no yad for kiddushin, because they do not resemble vows — whether

there is a yad for peah,

because Scripture compared peah to the vow of a sacrificial offering,

or there is no yad for peah,

despite the comparison of peah to the vow of a sacrificial offering?

The Gemara also discusses concerning this question how Rav Pappa raised his doubt:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that he said,

the one harvesting the field: “

This furrow,

this garden bed

shall be peah, and this one as well,

and also this garden bed,” but he did not continue and say “peah” concerning the second garden bed —

That one —

is fully valid peah!

Rather,

when Rav Pappa’s question arises,

in a case

such as that he said, “

And this” [

“and this”],

and he did not say “

as well” — —

What?

What is the law of the second garden bed? Is there a yad for peah, and it becomes peah, or is there no yad for peah, and it is not peah?

The Gemara interrupts its explanation of the question in the middle, in order to discuss the novel point implied by Rav Pappa’s question:

It follows

from Rav Pappa’s question, in which he raised his doubt only concerning the law of a yad, that if he were to say an explicit expression, he could make an additional garden bed peah as well, and he is not limited to only one garden bed —

you learn,

that when he says, “

The entire field shall be peah” —

it becomes peah!

And is this indeed the halakha!?

The Gemara explains:

Yes,

this is indeed the law.

And it was taught in a beraita,

a proof for this:

From where is it derived that if a person wishes

to

make his entire field peah, he may do so? —

The verse says: [Leviticus 19] “

”

the corner of your field.”

That is, from the fact that the Torah said “the corner of your field” and did not say “peah in your field,” it follows that even the entire field may be set aside as peah.

The Gemara now continues its explanation of Rav Pappa’s question:

Do we say: Since peah was compared

to

the

vows of

sacrificial offerings,

we should say:

Just as

the vows of

sacrificial offerings have a yad, so too peah has a yad.

Or perhaps, since peah was compared

to a sacrificial offering, it was compared only

to

the matter of

“do not delay,” and that is the matter to which it was compared,

but not with regard to the taking effect of the vow!

And now the Gemara explains the comparison of peah to a sacrificial offering —

And where was peah compared

to a sacrificial offering?