Nedarim

An objection is raised: [If one says,] 'That is to me,' [or] 'this is to me,' he is forbidden,  because it is an abbreviation of ['that is as a] korban [to me].'  Thus, the reason is that he said, 'unto me,' but if he did not say, 'unto me,' it is not so:  this refutes Abaye? — Abaye replies thus: It is only because he said, 'to me,' that he is forbidden; but if he [merely] said, 'behold, that is,' without adding 'to me' he might have meant, 'behold, that is hefker,'  or 'that is for charity.'  But is it not stated, 'because it is an abbreviation of, "a korban?"'  — But answer thus: Because he said, 'to me,' he [alone] is forbidden, but his neighbour is permitted; but if he said, 'behold, that is', both are forbidden, because he may have meant,  'behold that is hekdesh. An objection is raised: [If one says,] 'Behold, this [animal] is a sin-offering,' 'this is a trespass-offering,' though he is liable to a sin-offering or a trespass-offering, his words are of no effect. [But if he says,] 'Behold, this animal is my sin-offering,' or 'my trespass-offering,' his declaration is effectual if he was liable. Now, this is a refutation of Abaye!  — Abaye answers: This agrees with R. Judah.  But Abaye said, My ruling agrees even with R. Judah?  — Abaye retracted. Are we to say [then] that Raba's ruling agrees [only] with R. Judah's?  — No. Raba may maintain: My view agrees even with that of the Rabbis. Only in the case of divorce do they say that explicit abbreviations are not essential, because no man divorces his neighbour's wife; but elsewhere explicit abbreviations are required.