Nedarim - Daf 5
- When one נדר forbids both parties from benefiting from each other
The Gemara suggests a second possibility to explain Shmuel’s statement from the previous Daf, that only if one added the phrase שאני אוכל לך – “in that which I eat of yours, “would he limit the prohibition to his benefiting from his friend, but if he only said מודרני הימך - “I am vowed from you,” then they are both forbidden from benefiting from one another, in line with a statement from Rebbe Yose bar Chanina. However, the Gemara proves from a Mishnah that such a vow only forbids him to benefit from his friend, and not vice versa, and therefore the Gemara revises Rebbe Yose bar Chanina’s statement to read: If one says, מודר אני לך שניהם אסורים - “I am vowed to you,” they are both forbidden to benefit from each other, but if one says: מודרני הימך הוא אסור וחבירו מותר - “I am vowed from you,” he is forbidden to benefit from his friend, but his friend is permitted. The Ran explains that the term “לך” can mean both “to you” and “yours,” so the vow includes a prohibition in both directions. The Gemara points out that this revision cannot be used to explain Shmuel’s statement, since Shmuel was speaking in the context of the Mishnah’s case, which discusses מודרני לך, and not מודרני הימך.
- The Gemara’s final interpretation of Shmuel’s statement
The Gemara concludes that Shmuel did mean to say that only if one adds the phrase שאני אוכל לך, is the vow effective, but if he only says מודרני ממך – “I am vowed from you,” the vow is ineffective. Here, the Gemara explains that the reason is לא משמע דאמר אסור - it does not imply that he is saying a prohibition. The reason for this is, מודר אני ממך לא משתעינא בהדך משמע - “I am vowed from you” can instead imply “I will not speak with you”. מופרשני ממך – “I am separated from you” can mean, “I will not do business with you.” מרוחקני ממך– “I am distanced from you” can mean that “I will not stand within four amos of you”. The Ran explains that since the implication of his vow is not conclusive, no vow takes effect at all, and he is also not prohibited from speaking with his friend. The Gemara concludes from this that Shmuel holds, שאין מוכיחות לא הויין ידים ידים – yadayim which are inconclusive are not valid yadayim.
- מחלוקת aboutידים שאין מוכיחות
The Gemara records a machlokes between Abaye and Rava about ידים שאין מוכיחות- yadayim which are inconclusive. Abaye says they are valid ידים, and Rava says they are not. Rava brings support for his position from a hekeish between נזירות and ידות נזירות: מה נזירות בהפלאה אף ידות בהפלאה - just as nezirus must be clearly expressed, so too ידות must be clearly expressed, i.e., they must be conclusive. The Gemara asks that this dispute seems to reflect a machlokes Tannaim regarding a get, for it was stated in a Mishnah: גופו של גט הרי את מותרת לכל אדם- the essence of a get is: “You are thus permitted to anyone.” Rebbe Yehudah says, the get must include: ודין דיהוי ליכי מינאי ספר תירוכין וגט פטורין ואיגרת שבוקין- "and this will be yours from me, a document of expulsion, and a letter of release, and a letter of abandonment.” We see that Tannaim have already disagreed about how clear a partial expression must be for a valid get!? The Gemara answers, that Abaye can conform even with Rebbe Yehudah, because only by a get are conclusive ידים required, דבעינן כריתות - because complete severing is needed, as opposed to elsewhere. Rava can conform with the Rabbanon because only by a get do the Rabbanon hold ידים שאין מוכיחות are sufficient, because אין אדם מגרש את אשת חבירו - a man does not divorce his friend’s wife, i.e., it is obvious for whom the get is intended, but elsewhere, they can agree that ידים שאין מוכיחות are inadequate. The Gemara will retract the point regarding Abaye, on the next Daf.
