Nedarim

Are abbreviations binding in the case of charity or not? How does this arise? Shall we say, that one said, 'This zuz  is for charity, and this one too,' that is a complete [declaration of] charity! — But, e.g., If one said, '[And] this,' omitting 'too'. What then: did he mean, 'and this too is for charity,' or, 'and this is for my personal expenditure,' his statement being incomplete?  Do we say, Since this is likened to sacrifices, as it is written' [That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a free-will offering according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised] with thy mouth, which refers to charity:  hence, just as abbreviations are valid for sacrifices, so with charity; or possibly the comparison is in respect of 'Thou shalt not delay' only? Are abbreviations valid in respect of hefker or not? But that is charity?  — This problem is based on a presupposition:  Should you rule, abbreviations are valid in the case of charity, because there is no analogy by halves,  [what of] hefker?  Do we say: Hefker is charity; or possibly charity differs, charity being for the poor only, whilst hefker is both for the rich and the poor? Rabina propounded: Are abbreviations effective in respect of a privy or not?  How does this arise? Shall we say, that he declared, 'Let this place be for a privy, and this one too,' then obviously it is one? — But e.g., if he declared, 'and this,' omitting 'too'. What then? Does '[and] this' mean 'and this too shall be a privy,' or perhaps, what is meant by 'and this'? In respect of general use? Now, this proves that it is certain to Rabina that designation is valid for a privy. But Rabina propounded: What if one designates a place for a privy' or for baths; is designation effective or not?  — Rabina propounded this problem on an assumption. [Thus:] Is designation effective or not, should you answer, Designation is effective, are abbreviations valid or not?  This question remains. I AM BANNED TO YOU,' etc. Abaye said: R. Akiba admits in respect to lashes, that he is not flagellated;  for otherwise, let [the Mishnah] state, R. Akiba gave a stringent ruling.  R. Papa said: With respect to, 'I am isolated [nedinah] from you,' all agree that he is forbidden; 'I am accursed [meshamatna] from you,' all agree that he is permitted. Wherein do they differ?