The Ra"n Elucidated - Daf 5

Inconclusive Partial Declarations - The Gemora concluded that the following is the explanation behind Shmuel’s statement: Since the vower said, “in that which I will eat from you,” or “in that which I will eat from you,” he is forbidden. However, if he only said, “I am vowed from you,” there is no prohibition whatsoever. What is the rationale for this? If he says, “I am vowed from you,” perhaps he only meant that he does not want to talk with him. If he says, “I am separated from you,” perhaps he meant that he does not want to conduct business with him. If he says, “I am distanced from you,” perhaps he meant that he does not want to stand within four amos of him. (These expressions are all regarded as an inconclusive yad since it is far from evident what his intention was; therefore, the vow is totally ineffective.)

The Ran explains that since his declaration can be understood in two different fashions, the vow does not effect at all. A vow can only be valid when its meaning is clear. Therefore, he is not prohibited to derive pleasure from his fellow, nor is he forbidden to talk with him.

The Ran cites an alternative explanation in the Gemora. One who declares, “I am vowed from you,” is prohibited from conversing with his fellow. One who states, “I am separated from you,” is prohibited from engaging in business with his fellow. One who vows, “I am distanced from you,” is prohibited from standing within four amos of him.

The explanation is that in respect to these prohibitions, his partial declarations are considered conclusive. When the Gemora states that this is an example of a partial declaration that is inconclusive, it is referring to the vow in respect to deriving benefit from his fellow; however; in respect to these other prohibitions, it is regarded as conclusive. The declaration of “I am vowed from you” clearly means that he does not wish to converse with his fellow.

(The Rosh challenges this explanation, for how could the Gemora prove from here that an inconclusive partial declaration is not regarded as a yad? We could say that the reason there is no prohibition in respect to deriving benefit is because his expression is clearly indicative that he does not mean that; he does mean, “I will not converse with you,” and for that reason, he is prohibited from talking with him.)