## Nedarim Daf 6a

###### Nedarim 6a:1
[Nedarim 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/6a:1)

דְּאֵין אָדָם מְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא — מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as a man does not divorce the wife of his fellow,** so it is obvious that he is writing the bill of divorce to his wife. **However, did you hear them** state **generally** that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations?


###### Nedarim 6a:2
[Nedarim 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/6a:2)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״הֲרֵי הוּא עָלַי״, ״הֲרֵי זֶה [עָלַי]״ — אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָד לְקׇרְבָּן. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ — הוּא דְּאָסוּר, אֲבָל לָא אָמַר ״עָלַי״ — לָא. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** based upon the following *baraita*: If one says with regard to an object lying before him: **It is upon me,** or: **This is hereby upon me,** it **is forbidden, because it is an intimation** that he is rendering the object forbidden to himself like **an offering.** This *baraita* indicates that **the reason it is forbidden is** that **he** specifically **said: Upon me. However,** if **he did not say: Upon me, no,** it is not forbidden, because this expression is an ambiguous intimation. This is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye,** who holds that even ambiguous intimations are valid intimations.


###### Nedarim 6a:3
[Nedarim 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/6a:3)

אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי: טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ — הוּא דְּאָסוּר. אֲבָל אָמַר ״הֲרֵי הוּא״, וְלָא אָמַר ״עָלַי״, ״הֲרֵי הוּא דְּהֶפְקֵר״ ״הֲרֵי הוּא דִּצְדָקָה״ קָאָמַר. וְהָא ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָד לְקׇרְבָּן״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Abaye** could have **said to you** that **the reason it is forbidden is** that he specifically **said: Upon me. However,** if **he said: It is hereby, and did not say: Upon me,** his statement is not considered an intimation of a vow at all, as he could have been **saying: It is hereby ownerless** property, or: **It is hereby charity.** The Gemara asks: **But** the *baraita* **teaches** that the object is forbidden **because** his statement **is an intimation** that he is rendering the object forbidden to himself like **an offering.** With regard to consecrating an offering, even the statement: This is, without the additional phrase: Upon me, is considered an intimation. Nevertheless, the *baraita* indicates that if one does not say: Upon me, the vow does not take effect. This must be because an ambiguous intimation is not a vow.


###### Nedarim 6a:4
[Nedarim 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/6a:4)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ — הוּא אָסוּר וַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּתָּר, אֲבָל אָמַר ״הֲרֵי הוּא״ — שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין, דְּדִלְמָא ״הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** the following: **The reason is that he** specifically **said: Upon me;** consequently, **he is prohibited** from benefiting from the object, **but another** person **is permitted** to benefit from it. **However,** if **he said: It is hereby,** and did not add the expression: Upon me, **both of them are prohibited** from benefiting from it **because perhaps he is saying: It is hereby consecrated** property. In other words, there is concern that he may have actually consecrated the object rather than taking a vow that it is forbidden to him as though it were consecrated.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ חַטָּאת״ ״הֲרֵי זוֹ אָשָׁם״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״הֲרֵי זוֹ חַטָּאתִי״ ״הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲשָׁמִי״, אִם הָיָה מְחוּיָּב — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּאַבָּיֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to this on the basis of the following *baraita*: If one says: **This is hereby a sin-offering,** or: **This is hereby a guilt-offering,** then **even if he is liable** to bring **a sin-offering or guilt-offering he has said nothing,** as this is an ambiguous intimation. However, if he said: **This is hereby my sin-offering,** or: **This is hereby my guilt-offering,** then **if he was liable** to bring that offering **his statement takes effect,** because this is an obvious intimation. This is **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Abaye.**


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

אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. וְהָא אַבָּיֵי הוּא דְּאָמַר: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי — אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Abaye** could have **said to you:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that ambiguous intimations are not intimations. The Gemara asks: **Wasn’t it Abaye who said: I say** that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations **even according to** the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: **He retracted** this statement and admitted that Rabbi Yehuda holds that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations.


###### Nedarim 6a:7
[Nedarim 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/6a:7)

אֶלָּא לֵימָא, רָבָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But shall we say** that just as Abaye retracted his statement that his opinion can be stated even according to Rabbi Yehuda, **Rava, who said** that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations, also retracted his initial statement and admitted that his opinion is only **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** and is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?


###### Nedarim 6a:8
[Nedarim 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/6a:8)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי — אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן דְּלָא בָּעִינַן יָדַיִם מוֹכִיחוֹת אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי גֵּט, דְּאֵין אָדָם מְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ. אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא בָּעִינַן יָדַיִם מוֹכִיחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rava** could have **said to you: I say** my statement **even according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis. The Rabbis say that we do not require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce, as a man does not divorce the wife of his fellow,** so it is obvious that he is writing the bill of divorce to his wife. **However, generally we require obvious intimations.**