Nedarim 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma:

whether

there is a

“hand”

with regard to betrothal, or not?

And Rav Pappa’s dilemma applied even to a conclusive hand

The Gemara discusses the circumstances of Rav Pappa’s doubt:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that

the doubt concerns a case in which

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 her companion is also betrothed to him, since such an expression

is

an expression of

betrothal itself

, and this is not a hand!

Rather,

the doubt concerns

a case in which he said to one woman

“Behold, you are betrothed to me,” and

he said to her companion

“And you.”

This expression is not a complete expression of betrothal; rather, it is a “hand.”

And the doubt is:

Do we say that

there is a hand with regard to betrothal, and therefore,

“And you as well

shall be betrothed to me” —

he said to her companion.

That is, this is an expression of betrothal, since there is a hand with regard to betrothal.

And

if so,

betrothal takes effect with regard to her companion

through the utterance of the “hand.”

Or perhaps

there is no hand with regard to betrothal, and this expression is not an expression of betrothal; rather,

“And you, look” “You should look and see how I am betrothing your companion” —

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

he said to her companion.

And

according to this view,

betrothal does not take effect with regard to her through the betrothal of her companion.

The Gemara challenges this:

And does Rav Pappa need to inquire

whether there is a hand with regard to betrothal or not?

But from the fact that Rav Pappa said to Abaye

in tractate Kiddushin [5b], rhetorically:

“Did Shmuel think

that

unconclusive hands are hands

with regard to betrothal?” —

It is

apparent

from this that Rav Pappa challenged only the status of unconclusive hands, but did not challenge conclusive hands in this manner; you can infer

that Rav Pappa held that there is a hand

that is conclusive

with regard to betrothal!

And we answer: Rav Pappa himself raised a doubt even concerning a conclusive hand, for it is possible that even a conclusive hand is ineffective with regard to betrothal.

However, it is possible that Shmuel held that a conclusive hand is a hand, and there is no contradiction to this from his statement elsewhere. Therefore, Rav Pappa did not ask Abaye in tractate Kiddushin, “Does Shmuel really hold that a conclusive hand is a hand?” For it is possible that Abaye was correct, and that Shmuel held that a conclusive hand is a hand.

Therefore, Rav Pappa challenged Abaye only concerning

one matter [unconclusive hands],

[unexplicit yadayim],

by virtue of

the fact that

what Shmuel held

in general [that both conclusive and unconclusive hands are hands] —

he said

as a challenge

to Abaye.

That is, Rav Pappa challenged only the specific point that Abaye stated there: that according to Shmuel, an unconclusive hand is a hand just like a conclusive hand. Rav Pappa maintained that this was contradicted by another statement.

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma:

If you say that there is no hand with regard to betrothal, because betrothal does not resemble vows —

is there a hand with regard to pe'a,

since Scripture compared pe'a to a vow concerning an offering,

or is there no hand with regard to pe'a

, despite the comparison of pe'a to a vow concerning an offering?

The Gemara also discusses with regard to this question the circumstances of Rav Pappa’s doubt:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that he said

the person harvesting the field:

“This furrow,

this planting bed,

shall be pe'a, and this one as well,”

and he did not continue and say “pe'a” with regard to the second planting bed —

That

is fully valid pe'a!

Rather,

Rav Pappa’s dilemma is

concerning

a case in which he said

“And this” [“and this”],

“and this”],

but did not say

“as well.” —

What

is the status of the second planting bed? Is there a hand with regard to pe'a, and does it become pe'a, or is there no hand with regard to pe'a, and is it not pe'a?

The Gemara interrupts its explanation of the dilemma in order to discuss a novel implication of Rav Pappa’s dilemma:

It follows

from Rav Pappa’s dilemma that he questioned only the law of a hand; but if he were to use an explicit expression, he could designate an additional planting bed as pe'a as well, and is not limited to only one planting bed —

you can infer:

when he says

“Let the entire field be pe'a,”

it is pe'a!

And is this indeed the halakha!?

The Gemara explains:

Yes,

that is indeed the law.

And it was taught in a beraita

, as proof of this:

From where

do we know that if a person wishes

to make his entire field pe'a, he may do so? —

The verse states: [Leviticus 19]

”

“The pe'a of your field.”

That is, since the Torah says “the pe'a of your field” rather than “pe'a in your field,” it implies that even the entire field may be designated as pe'a.

The Gemara now resumes its explanation of Rav Pappa’s dilemma:

Do we say: Since pe'a was compared

to

the

vows of

offerings, we should say:

we should say:

just as

the vows of

offerings have a hand, so too pe'a has a hand.

Or perhaps, since pe'a was compared

to an offering, it was compared only

to

the matter of

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

, and not to the matter of the vow taking effect!

The Gemara now explains the comparison of pe'a to an offering —

And where was pe'a compared

to an offering?