Nedarim

R. Papa enquired: Are abbreviations valid in the case of kiddushin,  or not? Now, how does this problem arise? Shall we say thus: If one said to a woman, 'Behold, thou art betrothed unto me, and said to her companion, 'and thou too,' it is obvious that this is actual kiddushin?  — But e.g., If one said to a woman, 'Behold, thou art betrothed unto me,' and then to her companion, 'and thou'. Do we assume that he meant 'and thou too,' and so the second is betrothed;  or perhaps he said to her companion, 'and do thou witness it', and so she is not betrothed? But is R. Papa really in doubt? But since he said to Abaye. Does Samuel hold that inexplicit abbreviations are valid?  it follows that he [R. Papa] holds that abbreviations are valid in the case of kiddushin? — R. Papa's question to Abaye was based on Samuel's opinion. R. Papa enquired: Are abbreviations binding in respect of pe'ah  or not? What are the circumstances? Shall we say that one said, 'Let this furrow be pe'ah. and this one too' — that is a complete [declaration of] pe'ah? — His problem arises, e.g., if he [merely] said, 'and this,' without adding 'too'.  (Hence it follows that if one says, 'Let the entire field be pe'ah', it is so?  — Yes. And it was taught likewise: Whence do we know that if one wishes to render his whole field pe'ah, he can do so? From the verse, [And when ye reap the harvest of thy land, thou shalt not wholly reap] the corner of the field.)9 — Do we say, Since it [sc. pe'ah] is compared to sacrifices, just as abbreviations are binding in the case of sacrifices, so in the case of pe'ah too; or perhaps, the analogy holds good only in respect of [the injunction,] than shalt not delay?  Now, where is the analogy found? — For it was taught: