Nedarim - Daf 6
- הרי הוא עלי הרי זה עלי
The Gemara challenges Abaye’s position that ידים שאין מוכיחות הוויין ידים, from a Baraisa which states: If one says about an item, הרי הוא עלי הרי זה עלי - “It is hereby to me”, or “this is hereby to me,” it is forbidden in benefit because it is a יד for a korbon, meaning, a korbon-type vow. The Gemara infers that had he not said, “to me,” it would not take effect because it would be an inconclusive יד. After the first solution is rejected, the Gemara answers that the inference of the Baraisa should be understood that had he only said: “this is hereby,” and not added “to me,” then the item would be forbidden not only to him, like in the case where he does say “to me,” but to everyone, דדלמא הרי הוא הקדש קאמר, because perhaps he is saying “it is hereby hekdesh,” which would forbid the item to all people. Since he has surely made a valid vow, and it is unclear if he intended to prohibit the item to just himself or everyone, we rule stringently.
- יש יד לקידושין או לא
Rav Pappa asked: יש יד לקידושין או לא - are yadayim effective for kiddushin or not? The Gemara clarifies that Rav Pappa was not asking about a case where a man was mekadesh a woman, and then said to a second woman: ואת נמי - “and you as well,” because that would be a complete expression of kiddushin. The Ran explains that even though it is not the standard formula, it is a full declaration. Only when the declaration leaves open the possibility of being interpreted as something else other than kiddushin, is it considered a יד. Rather, he was asking about a case where he said to the second woman, "ואת", “and you.” מי אמרינן ואת נמי אמר לה לחבירתה- Do we say he was saying “and you, too” to her friend, and the kiddushin would be valid as a יד, או דלמא ואת חזאי אמר לה לחבירתה, or perhaps he is saying “and you watch” to her friend, and the kiddushin would not be valid. The Ran explains that since there is another (albeit unlikely) interpretation to his words, it is merely a יד, and kiddushin would not be valid through a יד even though it is conclusive. The question is left unresolved.
- יש יד לפאה או אין יד לפאה
Rav Pappa further asked: יש יד לפאה או אין יד לפאה – is a yad effective for peah or not? The Gemara again clarifies that if he had declared one patch of his field to be peah, and then said on a second, “and this one too,” that would certainly be a full expression of peah and would not be a יד. Rather, the question is where he said on the second patch והדין - “and this one.” Tosafos explain that the other possible interpretation of his words is “and this one I retain for myself,” (thereby reducing the declaration to a יד) because we are speaking where this second patch is the last remaining in his field. The Gemara explains that Rav Pappa’s question is: מי אמרינן כיון דאיתקש לקרבנות - do we say since peah is compared to korbanos (as the Gemara on Daf 7a will show), מה קרבנות יש להם יד אף פאה יש לה יד - just as korbonos have the halachah of yad, so too peah has the halacha of yad, או דלמא כי איתקש לבל תאחר הוא דאיתקש - or perhaps it is only compared regarding the prohibition of בל תאחר (do not delay) since the hekeish connecting peah to korbanos was regarding בל תאחר, as the Gemara will proceed to demonstrate. This question is also left unresolved.
