Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 5a

We learnt: [If one says to his neighbour,] 'Behold! I am herem¹  to you,' the muddar²  is forbidden.³  But the maddir²  is not [forbidden]?⁴  — E.g., if he explicitly states, 'but you are not [herem] to me'. [But does it not continue,] 'You are herem to me', the maddir is forbidden, [implying,] but not the muddar? — E.g., if he explicitly states, 'but you are not [herem] to me.' But what if it is not explicit: both are forbidden? But since the final clause teaches,' I am [herem] to you and you are [herem] to me,' both are forbidden, it is only in that case that both are forbidden, but in general he is forbidden while his neighbour is permitted?⁵  But this is how R. Jose son of R. Hanina's [dictum] was stated: [If one says to his neighbour,] 'I am under a vow in respect of you,' both are forbidden; 'I am debarred from you by a vow,' he is forbidden but his neighbour is permitted. But our Mishnah teaches, 'FROM YOU, yet our Mishnah was explained according to Samuel that in all cases he must say, 'in respect of aught that I might eat of yours or that I might taste of yours' — only then is he [alone] forbidden while his neighbour is permitted, but in the case of, 'I am debarred from you by a vow,' both are forbidden? But this is what was originally stated in Samuel's name: It is only because he said, 'in respect of aught that I might eat of yours or that I might taste of yours,' that he is forbidden only in respect of eating. But [if he only said,] 'I am debarred from you by a vow,' he is forbidden even benefit. If so, let Samuel state thus: But if he did not say, 'In respect of aught that I might eat of yours or that I might taste of yours,' even benefit is forbidden to him?⁶  But this is what was stated: Only if he says, in respect of aught that I might eat of yours or that I might taste of yours', is he forbidden; but if he [merely] says, 'I am debarred from you by a vow,' it does not imply a prohibition at all. What is the reason? 'I am debarred from you,' [implies] 'I am not to speak to you; 'I am separated from you' [implies] 'I all, to do no business with you'; 'I am removed from you' implies, 'I am not to stand within four cubits of you'.

1. V. Glos.
2. Muddar is the object of the vow; maddir is the man who makes the vow.
3. Infra 47b.
4. This contradicts Samuel's dictum that without the addition the incidence of the vow is reciprocal.
5. Which contradicts R. Jose b. R. Hanina.
6. So the text as amended by BaH.

Shall we say Samuel holds the opinion that inexplicit abbreviations are not abbreviations?¹  — Yes. Samuel makes the Mishnah agree with R. Judah, who maintained: Inexplicit abbreviations are not abbreviations. For we learnt: The essential part of a Get²  is, 'Behold, thou art free unto all men'. R Judah said: [To this must be added] 'and this [document] shall be unto thee from me a deed of dismissal and a document of release.'³  Now, what forced Samuel to thus interpret the Mishnah, so as to make it agree with R. Judah: let him, make it agree with the Rabbis, that even inexplicit abbreviations [are binding]?⁴  Said Raba: The Mishnah presents a difficulty to him: Why state, IN RESPECT OF AUGHT THAT I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS OR THAT I MIGHT TASTE OF YOURS, let him teach, IN RESPECT OF AUGHT THAT I MIGHT EAT OR THAT I MIGHT TASTE [and no more]? This proves that we require explicit abbreviations.

It was stated: Inexplicit abbreviations — Abaye maintained: They are [valid] abbreviations; while Raba said: They are not [valid] abbreviations. Raba said: R. Idi explained the matter to me. Scripture says, [When either a man or a woman shall] explicitly law a vow of a nazirite, to separate themselves unto the Lord: abbreviations of neziroth are compared to neziroth: just as neziroth must be explicit in meaning, so must their abbreviations be too.

Are we to say that they differ in the dispute of R. Judah and the Rabbis? For we learnt: The essential part of a Get is the words, 'Behold, thou art free unto all men.' R. Judah said: [To this must be added,] 'and this [document] shall be unto thee from me a deed of dismissal and a document of discharge and a letter of release': [Thus] Abaye rules as the Rabbis, and Raba as R. Judah? — [No.] Abaye may assert: My opinion agrees even with R. Judah's. Only in divorce does R. Judah insist that abbreviations shall be explicit, because 'cutting off'⁵  is necessary, and this is lacking;⁶  but do you know him to require it elsewhere too? Whilst Raba can 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,

1. I.e., invalid. For the above forms are such, and Samuel maintains that they impose no prohibition at all without the explanatory clauses.
2. V. Glos.
3. Otherwise it is not clear that the divorce is to be effected by the Get. Thus he holds that inexplicit abbreviations are invalid.
4. [For unless Samuel had cogent reasons to make the Mishnah agree only with R. Judah, he himself would not have accepted the view of R. Judah in preference to that of the majority of Rabbis (Ran).]
5. [Referring to Deut. XXIV, 3: 'And he shall write unto her a writ of cutting off' (so literally).]
6. If the abbreviation is inexplicit the severance is not complete.