לימא קסבר שמואל ידים שאין מוכיחות לא הוויין ידים אין שמואל מוקים לה למתניתין כרבי יהודה דאמר ידים שאין מוכיחות לא הוויין ידים

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.

דתנן גופו של גט הרי את מותרת לכל אדם רבי יהודה אומר ודין דיהוי ליכי מינאי ספר תירוכין ואיגרת שבוקין

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.

אמאי דחיק שמואל לאוקומה למתניתין כרבי יהודה לוקמה כרבנן אף על גב דאין ידים מוכיחות

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.

אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה אמאי תאני שאני אוכל לך שאני טועם לך ליתני שאני אוכל שאני טועם שמע מינה בעינן ידים מוכיחות

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.

איתמר ידים שאין מוכיחות אביי אמר הוויין ידים ורבא אמר לא הוויין ידים אמר רבא רבי אידי אסברא לי אמר קרא נזיר להזיר לה׳ מקיש ידות נזירות לנזירות מה נזירות בהפלאה אף ידות נזירות בהפלאה

§ 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 nazirite-ship must be expressed with a distinct articulation, so too, intimations of naziriteship must be expressed with a distinct articulation as opposed to ambiguous intimations.

לימא בפלוגתא דרבי יהודה ורבנן קמיפלגי דתנן גופו של גט הרי את מותרת לכל אדם רבי יהודה אומר ודין דיהוי ליכי מינאי ספר תירוכין וגט פטורין ואיגרת שבוקין אביי דאמר כרבנן ורבא דאמר כרבי יהודה

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.

אמר לך אביי אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבי יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה בעינן ידים מוכיחות אלא גבי גט דבעינן כריתות וליכא אבל בעלמא מי שמעת ליה

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?

ורבא אמר אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן דלא בעינן ידים מוכיחות אלא גבי גט

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,