|  |  | Previous Folio / Nedarim Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim ### Folio 6a because no man divorces his neighbour's wife;1 but do you know then, [to rule thus] elsewhere?2 An objection is raised: [If one says,] 'That is to me,' [or] 'this is to me,' he is forbidden,3 because it is an abbreviation of ['that is as a] korban [to me].'4 Thus, the reason is that he said, 'unto me,' but if he did not say, 'unto me,' it is not so:5 this refutes Abaye? — Abaye replies thus: It is only because he said, 'to me,' that he is forbidden; but if he [merely] said, 'behold, that is,' without adding 'to me' he might have meant, 'behold, that is hefker,'6 or 'that is for charity.'7 But is it not stated, 'because it is an abbreviation of, "a korban?"'8 — But answer thus: Because he said, 'to me,' he [alone] is forbidden, but his neighbour is permitted; but if he said, 'behold, that is', both are forbidden, because he may have meant,9 'behold that is hekdesh.10 An objection is raised: [If one says,] 'Behold, this [animal] is a sin-offering,' 'this is a trespass-offering,' though he is liable to a sin-offering or a trespass-offering, his words are of no effect. [But if he says,] 'Behold, this animal is my sin-offering,' or 'my trespass-offering,' his declaration is effectual if he was liable. Now, this is a refutation of Abaye!11 — Abaye answers: This agrees with R. Judah.12 But Abaye said, My ruling agrees even with R. Judah?12 — Abaye retracted. Are we to say [then] that Raba's ruling agrees [only] with R. Judah's?13 — No. Raba may maintain: My view agrees even with that of the Rabbis. Only in the case of divorce do they say that explicit abbreviations are not essential, because no man divorces his neighbour's wife; but elsewhere explicit abbreviations are required. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files I.e., even if the wording is inexplicit, the whole transaction makes its meaning perfectly clear. [This argument makes it evident that the point at issue between R. Judah and the Rabbis is mainly concerning the phrase [from me', the Rabbis being of the opinion that since no man divorces his neighbour's wife, it is clear that the Get comes 'from him' (Ran); v. Git. 85b.] Elsewhere they may agree that inexplicit allusions are invalid. To benefit from it. So Rashi and Asheri. [Alternatively: Because it is an abbreviation valid for a korban (an offering), and therefore also valid in case of a vow.] Because it is an inexplicit abbreviation. Ownerless property. V. Glos. Hence it is not an abbreviation of a vow at all. [This is difficult. The meaning apparently is that the reason that it is an abbreviation valid for a korban, (v. n. 2) ought to apply also to the declaration 'that is' by itself, since such a declaration too is valid for a korban; v. Ran.] [Where the object vowed was not fit for sacrifice; v. n. 6.] Sanctified property. V. Glos. Since in the first clause the abbreviation is invalid because it is inexplicit. V. supra 5b. Since Abaye's view agrees only with that of the Rabbis. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Nedarim 6b R. Papa enquired: Are abbreviations valid in the case of kiddushin,1 or not? Now, how does this problem arise? Shall we say thus: If one said to a woman, 'Behold, thou art betrothed unto me, and said to her companion, 'and thou too,' it is obvious that this is actual kiddushin?2 — But e.g., If one said to a woman, 'Behold, thou art betrothed unto me,' and then to her companion, 'and thou'. Do we assume that he meant 'and thou too,' and so the second is betrothed;3 or perhaps he said to her companion, 'and do thou witness it', and so she is not betrothed? But is R. Papa really in doubt? But since he said to Abaye. Does Samuel hold that inexplicit abbreviations are valid?4 it follows that he [R. Papa] holds that abbreviations are valid in the case of kiddushin? — R. Papa's question to Abaye was based on Samuel's opinion.5 R. Papa enquired: Are abbreviations binding in respect of pe'ah 6 or not? What are the circumstances? Shall we say that one said, 'Let this furrow be pe'ah. and this one too' — that is a complete [declaration of] pe'ah? — His problem arises, e.g., if he [merely] said, 'and this,' without adding 'too'.7 (Hence it follows that if one says, 'Let the entire field be pe'ah', it is so?8 — Yes. And it was taught likewise: Whence do we know that if one wishes to render his whole field pe'ah, he can do so? From the verse, [And when ye reap the harvest of thy land, thou shalt not wholly reap] the corner of the field.)9 — Do we say, Since it [sc. pe'ah] is compared to sacrifices, just as abbreviations are binding in the case of sacrifices, so in the case of pe'ah too; or perhaps, the analogy holds good only in respect of [the injunction,] than shalt not delay?10 Now, where is the analogy found? — For it was taught: - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Betrothals. V. Glos. Not an abbreviation. Lit., 'kiddushin takes hold on her companion'. In reference to kiddushin, v. Kid. 5b. Recognising that Samuel held abbreviations to be valid in the case of kiddushin. Pe'ah-the corner of the field, which was left for the poor. v. Lev. XIX, 9. [Asheri seems to have read: Did he then mean 'and this too is for pe'ah' or 'and this is for personal expenses'.] The presumption is that R. Papa's problem arises only if the first furrow alone contained the necessary minimum, for otherwise the second would certainly be pe'ah; therefore the second furrow is in addition to the requisite minimum, and becomes pe'ah, if abbreviations are binding. But if more than the minimum can be pe'ah, it follows that even the whole field can be pe'ah. And not 'the corner in thy field'. Lev. MIX, 9. I.e., if pe'ah is not given within the fixed period, this injunction is violated. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |