Study Nedarim folio 5B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
לימא קסבר שמואל ידים שאין מוכיחות לא הוויין ידים? אין, שמואל מוקים לה למתניתין כרבי יהודה, דאמר: ידים שאין מוכיחות לא הוויין ידים.
The Talmud asks: If so, should we say that Shmuel holds that ambiguous intimations are not intimations, i.e., if one employs an incomplete expression to declare a vow and the expression does not state clearly what his intention is, it does not produce a vow? The Talmud answers: Yes, Shmuel establishes the Mishnah in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, who said: Ambiguous intimations are not intimations.
דתנן, גופו של גט: ״הרי את מותרת לכל אדם״. רבי יהודה אומר: ״ודין דיהוי ליכי מינאי ספר תירוכין ואיגרת שבוקין״.
As we learned in a Mishnah (Gittin 85a–b): The essence of a bill of divorce is the sentence: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. R' Yehuda says there is an additional statement that is an essential part of the divorce document: And this should be to you from me a document of divorce [teirukhin] and a letter of dismissal. This demonstrates that according to R' Yehuda, the wording of the bill of divorce itself must clarify that the husband is divorcing his wife through the bill of divorce.
אמאי דחיק שמואל לאוקומה למתניתין כרבי יהודה? לוקמה כרבנן אף על גב דאין ידים מוכיחות?
The Talmud asks: Why does Shmuel strain to establish the Mishnah as being in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, which is a minority opinion? Let him establish it as being in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that although there are no obvious intimations in one’s statements, they are still considered vows. Consequently, if one said: I am avowed to you, even if he did not add: With regard to that which I eat, the vow takes effect.
Rava said: The Mishnah was difficult for him. Why does it teach the cases where one adds: That which I eat of yours, and: That which I taste of yours? Let it teach: That which I eat, and: That which I taste, without the additional phrase: Of yours. Since the one taking the vow is addressing another individual, it is clear to whom he is referring even without this phrase. Conclude from this that we require obvious intimations, i.e., the intent of the individual taking the vow must be indicated by his verbal statement and not merely by the context of his statement.