ח אמר לך רבא אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן דלא בעינן ידים מוכיחות אלא גבי גט דאין אדם מגרש את אשת חבירו אבל בעלמא בעינן ידים מוכיחות
8 But is it not stated, 'because it is an abbreviation of, "a korban?"'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is difficult. The meaning apparently is that the reason that it is an abbreviation valid for a korban, (v. n. 2) ought to apply also to the declaration 'that is' by itself, since such a declaration too is valid for a korban; v. Ran.] ');"><sup>8</sup></span> — 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Where the object vowed was not fit for sacrifice; v. n. 6.] ');"><sup>9</sup></span> 'behold that is hekdesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanctified property. V. Glos. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in the first clause the abbreviation is invalid because it is inexplicit. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> — Abaye answers: This agrees with R. Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 5b. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> But Abaye said, My ruling agrees even with R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 5b. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> — Abaye retracted. Are we to say [then] that Raba's ruling agrees [only] with R. Judah's?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Abaye's view agrees only with that of the Rabbis. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> — 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.