Study Nedarim folio 5B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud 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 Talmud answers: Yes, Shmuel establish
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 shall be to you from me a document of divorce [teirukhin
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
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 anoth
§ The Talmud 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: R' Idi explained to me the so