## Nedarim Daf 5b

###### Nedarim 5b:1
[Nedarim 5b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/5b:1)

לֵימָא קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת לָא הָוְויָין יָדַיִם? אִין, שְׁמוּאֵל מוֹקֵים לַהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת לָא הָוְויָין יָדַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **shall 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 Gemara answers: **Yes, Shmuel establishes the mishna in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Ambiguous intimations are not intimations.**


###### Nedarim 5b:2
[Nedarim 5b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/5b:2)

דִּתְנַן, גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְדֵין דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִינַּאי סֵפֶר תֵּירוּכִין וְאִיגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 85a–b): **The essence of a bill of divorce** is the sentence: **You are hereby permitted to** marry **any man. Rabbi Yehuda says** there is an additional statement that is an essential part of the divorce document: **And this shall be to you from me a document of divorce [*teirukhin*] and a letter of dismissal.** This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the wording of the bill of divorce itself must clarify that the husband is divorcing his wife through the bill of divorce.


###### Nedarim 5b:3
[Nedarim 5b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/5b:3)

אַמַּאי דָּחֵיק שְׁמוּאֵל לְאוֹקוֹמַהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? לוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן אַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵין יָדַיִם מוֹכִיחוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** does **Shmuel strain to establish the mishna** as being **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi 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.


###### Nedarim 5b:4
[Nedarim 5b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/5b:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ; אַמַּאי תָּאנֵי ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ״ ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ״? לִיתְנֵי ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל״ ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם״! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּעִינַן יָדַיִם מוֹכִיחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The mishna 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.


###### Nedarim 5b:5
[Nedarim 5b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/5b:5)

אִיתְּמַר, יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: הָוְויָין יָדַיִם, וְרָבָא אָמַר: לָא הָוְויָין יָדַיִם. אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי אִידִי אַסְבְּרָא לִי: אָמַר קְרָא ״נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַה׳״, מַקִּישׁ יְדוֹת נְזִירוּת לִנְזִירוּת. מָה נְזִירוּת בְּהַפְלָאָה — אַף יְדוֹת נְזִירוּת בְּהַפְלָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara addresses more fully the issue mentioned in passing in the previous discussion. **It was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed with regard to **ambiguous intimations. Abaye said: They are** valid **intimations, and Rava said: They are not** valid **intimations. Rava said: Rabbi Idi explained to me** the source of this ruling. **The verse states:** “The vow of a **nazirite, to consecrate himself [*nazir lehazir*] to the Lord”** (Numbers 6:2). The verse **juxtaposes intimations of naziriteship,** derived earlier (3a) from the doubled term “*nazir lehazir*,” **to naziriteship.** This indicates that **just as** accepting **naziriteship** must be expressed **with a distinct articulation, so too, intimations of naziriteship** must be expressed **with a distinct articulation** as opposed to ambiguous intimations.


###### Nedarim 5b:6
[Nedarim 5b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/5b:6)

לֵימָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי? דִּתְנַן: גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם״, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְדֵין דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִינַּאי סֵפֶר תֵּירוּכִין וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִין וְאִיגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין״. אַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן, וְרָבָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes: **Let us say that** these *amora’im* **disagree with regard to the** tannaitic **dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. As we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 85a–b): **The essence of a bill of divorce** is the sentence: **You are hereby permitted to** marry **any man. Rabbi Yehuda says** that there is an additional statement that is an essential part of the divorce document: **And this shall be to you from me a document of divorce, a bill of release, and a letter of dismissal.** One could suggest that **Abaye,** who holds that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations, **said** his statement **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, and Rava,** who holds that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations, **said** his statement **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Nedarim 5b:7
[Nedarim 5b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/5b:7)

אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בָּעִינַן יָדַיִם מוֹכִיחוֹת אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי גֵּט, דְּבָעִינַן כְּרִיתוּת, וְלֵיכָּא. אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא — מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Abaye** could have **said to you: I say** my statement **even in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda says** that **we require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce, as we require** full **severance** of the relationship, **and there is not** full severance unless the bill of divorce clearly states that the husband is divorcing his wife through that document. **However, did you hear him** state **generally** that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations?


###### Nedarim 5b:8
[Nedarim 5b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/5b:8)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן דְּלָא בָּעִינַן יָדַיִם מוֹכִיחוֹת אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי גֵּט,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** could have **said: I say** my statement **even in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis. The Rabbis say that we do not require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce,**