Nedarim 12

R. Papa enquired: Are abbreviations valid in the case of <i>kiddushin</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Betrothals. V. Glos. ');">¹</span>

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 <i>kiddushin</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not an abbreviation. ');">²</span>

— 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'kiddushin takes hold on her companion'. ');">³</span>

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to kiddushin, v. Kid. 5b. ');">⁴</span>

it follows that he [R. Papa] holds that abbreviations are valid in the case of <i>kiddushin</i>? — R. Papa's question to Abaye was based on Samuel's opinion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Recognising that Samuel held abbreviations to be valid in the case of kiddushin. ');">⁵</span> R. Papa enquired: Are abbreviations binding in respect of <i>pe'ah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pe'ah-the corner of the field, which was left for the poor. v. Lev. XIX, 9. ');">⁶</span> or not? What are the circumstances? Shall we say that one said, 'Let this furrow be <i>pe'ah</i>. and this one too' — that is a complete [declaration of] <i>pe'ah</i>? — His problem arises, e.g., if he [merely] said, 'and this,' without adding 'too'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Asheri seems to have read: Did he then mean 'and this too is for pe'ah' or 'and this is for personal expenses'.] ');">⁷</span> (Hence it follows that if one says, 'Let the entire field be pe'ah', it is so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The presumption is that R. Papa's problem arises only if the first furrow alone contained the necessary minimum, for otherwise the second would certainly be pe'ah; therefore the second furrow is in addition to the requisite minimum, and becomes pe'ah, if abbreviations are binding. But if more than the minimum can be pe'ah, it follows that even the whole field can be pe'ah. ');">⁸</span> — Yes. And it was taught likewise: Whence do we know that if one wishes to render his whole field <i>pe'ah</i>, 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. <i>pe'ah</i>] is compared to sacrifices, just as abbreviations are binding in the case of sacrifices, so in the case of <i>pe'ah</i> too; or perhaps, the analogy holds good only in respect of [the injunction,] than shalt not delay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if pe'ah is not given within the fixed period, this injunction is violated. ');">¹⁰</span> Now, where is the analogy found? — For it was taught: