Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 23, 2015 | 讜壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Nedarim 30

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 诇讗砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讘讗讞转 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讘讗讞转 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗讙专砖讬讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬转注专 讘讛讜 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转讜谉 驻讚讗谉 讛讜讗 诇驻讚讗讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讚讗谉 讛讜讗 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讚讜砖讜转 驻讚讗讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讚讜砖讜转 讜讗砖讛 讻驻讚讗讜讛 讗讞专讬诐 讚诪讬讗

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖驻讚讗谉 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 驻讚讗讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讚讜砖讜转

It was also stated that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讬讜砖讘讬 讛讬讘砖讛 诪讬讜砖讘讬 讛讬讘砖讛 讗住讜专 诪讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 砖讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 讘讻诇诇 讬讜砖讘讬 讛讬讘砖讛 诇讗 讻讗诇讜 砖讛讜诇讻讬诐 诪注讻讜 诇讬驻讜 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖讚专讻讜 诇驻专砖

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.

讙诪壮 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讞讚 诪转谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 讜讞讚 诪转谞讬 讗住讬驻讗 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讬讜砖讘讬 讬讘砖讛 讛讗 讘讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 讗住讜专 讜诇讗 讻讗诇讜

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 definition of seafarers, there is a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav A岣, 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

讛讛讜诇讻讬诐 诪注讻讜 诇讬驻讜 讚讛诇讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬 讛讬讘砖讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讚专讻谉 诇驻专砖

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.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗住讬驻讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪讬讜砖讘讬 讬讘砖讛 讗住讜专 讘讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讗诇讜 讛讛讜诇讻讬诐 诪注讻讜 诇讬驻讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬 砖讚专讻讜 诇驻专砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻讜 诇讬讘砖讛 住诇讬拽

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪专讜讗讬 讛讞诪讛 讗住讜专 讗祝 讘住讜诪讬谉 砖诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讝讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖讛讞诪讛 专讜讗讛 讗讜转谉

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪谉 讛专讜讗讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚讙讬诐 讜注讜讘专讬诐

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪砖讞讜专讬 讛专讗砖 讗住讜专 讘拽专讞讬谉 讜讘注诇讬 砖讬讘讜转 讜诪讜转专 讘谞砖讬诐 讜讘拽讟谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞拽专讗讬谉 砖讞讜专讬 讛专讗砖 讗诇讗 讗谞砖讬诐

MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that have dark heads [she岣rei 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪讘注诇讬 砖注专

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.

讜诪讜转专 讘谞砖讬诐 讜讘拽讟谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞拽专讗讬谉 砖讞讜专讬 讛专讗砖 讗诇讗 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗谞砖讬诐 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬讻住讜 专讬砖讬讬讛讜 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讙诇讜 专讬砖讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 谞砖讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 诪讬讻住讜 讜拽讟谞讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 诪讬讙诇讜

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鈥檚 heads are always covered, and children鈥檚 heads are always uncovered, and the expression dark heads is referring to men whose hair is sometimes seen.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬诇讜讚讬诐 诪讜转专 讘谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛讬诇讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪转讬专 讗祝 讘讬诇讜讚讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讝讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛讜讜诇讚

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.

讙诪壮 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 谞讜诇讚讬诐 讗诇讗 诪诪讗谉 讗住讜专

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鈥檚 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.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬诇讜讚讬诐 诪讜转专 讘谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讬诇讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讬诇讜讚讬诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬诇讜讚讬诐 诪讜转专 讘谞讜诇讚讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚谞讜诇讚讬诐 讚诪转讬讬诇讚谉 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖谞讬 讘谞讬讱 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诇讱 讘讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬转讬讬诇讚谉 讛讜讗

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: 鈥淵our two sons who were born [noladim] to you in the land of Egypt鈥 (Genesis 48:5), does it also mean those who will be born? The verse is referring to Manasseh and Ephraim, who were already alive.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讬讬诇讬讚讜 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讛 讘谉 谞讜诇讚 诇讘讬转 讚讜讚 讬讗砖讬讛讜 砖诪讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讛 讜讛讗 注讚讬讬谉 诪谞砖讛 诇讗 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪砖诪注 讛讻讬 讜诪砖诪注 讛讻讬 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

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: 鈥淏ehold, a son shall be born [nolad] to the house of David, Josiah by name鈥 (I聽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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛讜讜诇讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚讙讬诐 讜注讜驻讜转

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鈥檚 womb.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 30

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 诇讗砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讘讗讞转 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讘讗讞转 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讬 诇讗讞专 砖讗讙专砖讬讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬转注专 讘讛讜 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转讜谉 驻讚讗谉 讛讜讗 诇驻讚讗讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讚讗谉 讛讜讗 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讚讜砖讜转 驻讚讗讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讚讜砖讜转 讜讗砖讛 讻驻讚讗讜讛 讗讞专讬诐 讚诪讬讗

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖驻讚讗谉 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 驻讚讗讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讚讜砖讜转

It was also stated that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讬讜砖讘讬 讛讬讘砖讛 诪讬讜砖讘讬 讛讬讘砖讛 讗住讜专 诪讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 砖讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 讘讻诇诇 讬讜砖讘讬 讛讬讘砖讛 诇讗 讻讗诇讜 砖讛讜诇讻讬诐 诪注讻讜 诇讬驻讜 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖讚专讻讜 诇驻专砖

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.

讙诪壮 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讞讚 诪转谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 讜讞讚 诪转谞讬 讗住讬驻讗 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讬讜砖讘讬 讬讘砖讛 讛讗 讘讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 讗住讜专 讜诇讗 讻讗诇讜

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 definition of seafarers, there is a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav A岣, 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

讛讛讜诇讻讬诐 诪注讻讜 诇讬驻讜 讚讛诇讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬 讛讬讘砖讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讚专讻谉 诇驻专砖

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.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗住讬驻讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪讬讜砖讘讬 讬讘砖讛 讗住讜专 讘讬讜专讚讬 讛讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讗诇讜 讛讛讜诇讻讬诐 诪注讻讜 诇讬驻讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬 砖讚专讻讜 诇驻专砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻讜 诇讬讘砖讛 住诇讬拽

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪专讜讗讬 讛讞诪讛 讗住讜专 讗祝 讘住讜诪讬谉 砖诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讝讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖讛讞诪讛 专讜讗讛 讗讜转谉

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪谉 讛专讜讗讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚讙讬诐 讜注讜讘专讬诐

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪砖讞讜专讬 讛专讗砖 讗住讜专 讘拽专讞讬谉 讜讘注诇讬 砖讬讘讜转 讜诪讜转专 讘谞砖讬诐 讜讘拽讟谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞拽专讗讬谉 砖讞讜专讬 讛专讗砖 讗诇讗 讗谞砖讬诐

MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that have dark heads [she岣rei 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪讘注诇讬 砖注专

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.

讜诪讜转专 讘谞砖讬诐 讜讘拽讟谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞拽专讗讬谉 砖讞讜专讬 讛专讗砖 讗诇讗 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗谞砖讬诐 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬讻住讜 专讬砖讬讬讛讜 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讙诇讜 专讬砖讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 谞砖讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 诪讬讻住讜 讜拽讟谞讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 诪讬讙诇讜

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鈥檚 heads are always covered, and children鈥檚 heads are always uncovered, and the expression dark heads is referring to men whose hair is sometimes seen.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬诇讜讚讬诐 诪讜转专 讘谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛讬诇讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪转讬专 讗祝 讘讬诇讜讚讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讝讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛讜讜诇讚

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.

讙诪壮 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 谞讜诇讚讬诐 讗诇讗 诪诪讗谉 讗住讜专

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鈥檚 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.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬诇讜讚讬诐 诪讜转专 讘谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讬诇讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讬诇讜讚讬诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬诇讜讚讬诐 诪讜转专 讘谞讜诇讚讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚谞讜诇讚讬诐 讚诪转讬讬诇讚谉 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖谞讬 讘谞讬讱 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 诇讱 讘讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬转讬讬诇讚谉 讛讜讗

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: 鈥淵our two sons who were born [noladim] to you in the land of Egypt鈥 (Genesis 48:5), does it also mean those who will be born? The verse is referring to Manasseh and Ephraim, who were already alive.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讬讬诇讬讚讜 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讛 讘谉 谞讜诇讚 诇讘讬转 讚讜讚 讬讗砖讬讛讜 砖诪讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讛 讜讛讗 注讚讬讬谉 诪谞砖讛 诇讗 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪砖诪注 讛讻讬 讜诪砖诪注 讛讻讬 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

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: 鈥淏ehold, a son shall be born [nolad] to the house of David, Josiah by name鈥 (I聽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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛讜讜诇讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚讙讬诐 讜注讜驻讜转

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鈥檚 womb.

Scroll To Top