Nedarim 30
תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּבָעֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַנּוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת לְאִשָּׁה וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״בְּאַחַת הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי הַיּוֹם, וּבְאַחַת הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֲגָרְשֵׁיךְ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּהָווּ קִידּוּשֵׁי.
resolve the dilemma from here, as Rav Hoshaya asked: In the case of one who gives two perutot to a woman and says to her: With one of them be betrothed to me today and with one be betrothed to me after I divorce you, what is the halakha? Rav Hoshaya was uncertain whether the second betrothal is effective after the divorce. Bar Padda holds that if he redeems the consecrated saplings, they again become consecrated. Apparently, he holds that upon the redemption, the second consecration immediately goes into effect. From bar Padda’s opinion, one could say: So too, here, after the first marriage is ended by the bill of divorce, the second betrothal that was previously performed takes effect, and it should be a valid betrothal.
אִיתְּעַר בְּהוּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי קָא מְדַּמֵּיתוּן פְּדָאָן הוּא לִפְדָאוּם אֲחֵרִים? הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פְּדָאָן הוּא — חוֹזְרוֹת וּקְדוֹשׁוֹת, פְּדָאוּם אֲחֵרִים — אֵין חוֹזְרוֹת וּקְדוֹשׁוֹת. וְאִשָּׁה כִּפְדָאוּהָ אֲחֵרִים דָּמְיָא.
Rabbi Yirmeya, who had been dozing, woke up when he heard their conversation and said to them: For what reason are you comparing where he redeemed them to where others redeemed them? The halakhot are not similar. This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If he redeemed the saplings, they become consecrated again, but if others redeemed them before they were cut they do not become consecrated again, since they are not in his possession anymore, and the case of a woman given a bill of divorce from her husband is considered as if others redeemed her. This is because upon divorce she is completely independent, and the second marriage can therefore take effect only with her consent. But if she refuses, the betrothal is not valid.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפְּדָאָן הוּא, אֲבָל פְּדָאוּם אֲחֵרִים — אֵין חוֹזְרוֹת וּקְדוֹשׁוֹת.
It was also stated that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught only that bar Padda holds that the saplings become consecrated again when he redeemed them himself, but when others redeemed them they do not become consecrated again for he cannot consecrate them after they have been in the possession of others, and it no longer depends on his intent.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם — מוּתָּר בְּיוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה. מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה — אָסוּר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם, שֶׁיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם בִּכְלַל יוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה. לֹא כְּאֵלּוּ שֶׁהוֹלְכִים מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ, אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ.
MISHNA: In the case of one who takes a vow that he will not derive benefit from seafarers, he is permitted to benefit from those who live on dry land. But if he takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who live on dry land, he is also prohibited from deriving benefit from seafarers, because seafarers are included within the category of those who live on dry land. The mishna now defines seafarers: Not like those that travel by ship from Akko to Jaffa, which is a short trip, but rather one who customarily departs [lefaresh] to distant locations, e.g., foreign countries.
גְּמָ׳ רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא, חַד מַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא וְחַד מַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא. מַאן דְּתָנֵי אַרֵישָׁא, מַתְנֵי הָכִי: הַנּוֹדֵר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם — מוּתָּר בְּיוֹשְׁבֵי יַבָּשָׁה, הָא בְּיוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם — אָסוּר, וְלֹא כְּאֵלּוּ
GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s definition of seafarers, there is a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika. One teaches this statement with regard to the first clause of the mishna, and one teaches it with regard to the latter clause. The Gemara explains: The one who teaches it with regard to the first clause teaches it like this: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from seafarers is permitted to derive benefit from those who live on dry land. But he is prohibited from deriving benefit from seafarers, and seafarers are not like those
הַהוֹלְכִים מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ, דְּהָלֵין יוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה נִינְהוּ, אֶלָּא מִמִּי שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְפָרֵשׁ.
who travel from Akko to Jaffa, for they are treated like those who dwell on the land. Rather, the term seafarers means he took a vow that deriving benefit from those who customarily depart out to sea is forbidden to him.
וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא, מַתְנֵי הָכִי: הַנּוֹדֵר מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי יַבָּשָׁה — אָסוּר בְּיוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם, וְלֹא בְּאֵלּוּ הַהוֹלְכִים מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ, הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לְיַבָּשָׁה סָלֵיק.
And the one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause of the mishna teaches in this manner: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who dwell on dry land is prohibited from deriving benefit from seafarers, and this is the halakha not only with regard to those who travel from Akko to Jaffa, who are certainly not considered seafarers, but even with regard to one who customarily departs to great distances. Why is such a person also considered a dweller on dry land? Since eventually he will go up onto dry land. No one lives his entire life at sea. Eventually, one will reach dry land, so all people are called dwellers on dry land.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מֵרוֹאֵי הַחַמָּה — אָסוּר אַף בַּסּוֹמִין, שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּון זֶה אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁהַחַמָּה רוֹאָה אוֹתָן.
MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who see the sun is prohibited from deriving benefit even from the blind, although they see nothing. This is because he meant only to include all those that the sun sees, i.e., shines upon with light.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדְּלָא קָאָמַר ״מִן הָרוֹאִין״. לְאַפּוֹקֵי דָּגִים וְעוּבָּרִים.
GEMARA: The Gemara explains why the mishna states that blind people are included: What is the reason for this? Since he did not say: From those who see, which would exclude blind people. Instead, he employed the phrase: Those who see the sun, which comes to exclude fish and fetuses, who do not see the sun. Consequently, the vow is interpreted to refer to those who are exposed to the sun, including the blind.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִשְּׁחוֹרֵי הָרֹאשׁ — אָסוּר בַּקֵּרְחִין, וּבַעֲלִי שֵׂיבוֹת. וּמוּתָּר בַּנָּשִׁים וּבַקְּטַנִּים, שֶׁאֵין נִקְרָאִין ״שְׁחוֹרֵי הָרֹאשׁ״ אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים.
MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that have dark heads [sheḥorei harosh] is prohibited from deriving benefit from those that are bald, although they have no hair at all, and from the elderly who have white hair. This is because the term is not to be understood in its simple meaning but rather in a broader manner. But he is permitted to derive benefit from women and from children, because only men are called: Those with dark heads.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא — מִדְּלָא קָאָמַר ״מִבַּעְלֵי שֵׂעָר״.
GEMARA: What is the reason that the term dark heads does not exclude those that are bald? Because it does not say: From those with hair.
וּמוּתָּר בְּנָשִׁים וּבִקְטַנִּים, שֶׁאֵין נִקְרָאִין ״שְׁחוֹרֵי הָרֹאשׁ״ אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים. מַאי טַעְמָא — אֲנָשִׁים זִימְנִין דְּמִיכַּסּוּ רֵישַׁיְיהוּ וְזִימְנִין דְּמִגַּלּוּ רֵישַׁיְיהוּ. אֲבָל נָשִׁים לְעוֹלָם מִיכַּסּוּ, וּקְטַנִּים לְעוֹלָם מִיגַּלּוּ.
The mishna states: But he is permitted to derive benefit from women and from children, because only men are called: Those with dark heads. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? Men sometimes cover their heads and sometimes uncover their heads. They can be called dark heads since, for the most part, they have dark hair which is often uncovered. But women’s heads are always covered, and children’s heads are always uncovered, and the expression dark heads is referring to men whose hair is sometimes seen.
מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיְּלוּדִים — מוּתָּר בְּנוֹלָדִים. מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים — אָסוּר מִן הַיְּלוּדִים. רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַתִּיר אַף בַּיְּלוּדִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון זֶה אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִוּוֹלֵד.
MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that are born [yeludim] is permitted to derive benefit from those who will be born [noladim] after the time of the vow. But if one takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who will be born, he is also prohibited from deriving benefit from those that are already born at the time of the vow. Rabbi Meir permits deriving benefit even from those that are already born at the time of the vow because he holds that the one taking the vow was precise in prohibiting only those that will be born. And the Rabbis say: He intended to include with this expression only one whose nature is to be born. Therefore, both those who will be born and those who were already born are included in the vow.
גְּמָ׳ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא נוֹלָדִים. אֶלָּא מִמַּאן אָסוּר?
GEMARA: The Gemara comments: According to Rabbi Meir, in the case of one who takes a vow that deriving benefit from those who will be born is forbidden to him, the halakha is that he is permitted to derive benefit even from those who are already born at the time of the vow. And the mishna’s use of the term: Even, indicates that it is not necessary to say that those who will be born are permitted to him. The Gemara asks: However, if that is the case, from whom is he prohibited to derive benefit? The vow appears to have no effect.
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיְּלוּדִים — מוּתָּר בַּנּוֹלָדִים, מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים — אָסוּר בַּיְּלוּדִים, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים מוּתָּר בַּיְּלוּדִים, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנוֹדֵר מִן הַיְּלוּדִים מוּתָּר בַּנּוֹלָדִים.
The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching like this: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that are born is permitted to derive benefit from those who will be born after the time of the vow. But if one takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who will be born, he is also prohibited from deriving benefit from those that are already born at the time of the vow. Rabbi Meir says: Even one who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who will be born is permitted to derive benefit from those who are already born, just as one who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who are born is permitted to derive benefit from those who will be born, because Rabbi Meir claims that the one taking the vow was precise in his words.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְמֵימְרָא דְּ״נוֹלָדִים״ דְּמִתְיַילְּדָן מַשְׁמַע? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״שְׁנֵי בָנֶיךָ הַנּוֹלָדִים לְךָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְאִיתְיַילְדָן הוּא?
With regard to the distinction between the terms in the mishna, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Is this to say that the word noladim means those who will be born in the future? But if that is so, it says in the verse: “Your two sons who were born [noladim] to you in the land of Egypt” (Genesis 48:5), does it also mean those who will be born? The verse is referring to Manasseh and Ephraim, who were already alive.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי דִּיילִידוּ מַשְׁמַע, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה דִּכְתִיב ״הִנֵּה בֵן נוֹלָד לְבֵית דָּוִד יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ שְׁמוֹ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דַּהֲוָה? וְהָא עֲדַיִין מְנַשֶּׁה לֹא בָּא? אֶלָּא מַשְׁמַע הָכִי וּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי, וּבִנְדָרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The Gemara responds: But rather, what should one say; that the expression means those already born? However, if that is so, that which is written: “Behold, a son shall be born [nolad] to the house of David, Josiah by name” (I Kings 13:2), is the meaning also that he is already born? But Manasseh had not yet come into this world, and certainly not his grandson Josiah. Rather, sometimes the word means this, those already born, and sometimes means that, those who are not yet born, and with regard to vows, follow the colloquial language, in which the word noladim is used to mean those who are not yet born, so the vow is interpreted in this manner.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּין זֶה אֶלָּא מִמִּי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִוּוֹלֵד. לְאַפּוֹקֵי מַאי — לְאַפּוֹקֵי דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת.
The mishna states: And the Rabbis say: He intended to include with this expression only one whose nature is to be born. The Gemara asks: What does this term exclude? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude fish and birds, which are not born but are hatched from eggs, whereas the word noladim means those born from their mother’s womb.
