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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 24, 2022 | ืœืณ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Nedarim 30

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of Aryeh Schupak who was murdered in yesterday’s terror bombing and for a refuah shleima to all the injured.ย 

Some sages tried to compare Bar Pada’s understanding of the Mishna to a case of a man who betroths a woman by saying “With this, I will betroth you today and with this, I will betroth you after I divorce you,” to say that she will be automatically betrothed after the divorce. However, Rabbi Yirmia responded that they are not comparable as our Mishna is a case where the owner redeemed it themselves and the betrothal case is considered as if others redeemed her and therefore the second betrothal would not be able to happen automatically. The next few Mishnayot relate to the specific language used to relate to a group of people in the vow to whom the person vowing is forbidding oneself, and explains what the scope of that particular language is. The cases brought are seafarers, those who live on dry land, those who see the sun, dark-headed people, those who are born, and those who will be born. The language of ‘noladim,’ will be born, discussed in the Mishna is compared to the same word used in the Torah/Prophets where the word is used to mean both has been born and will be born. So why is the Mishna understanding that it refers to the future? The answer is that vows follow the common usage of the word at the time the vow is made, not necessarily the way it is used in the Tanach.

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ื˜ื•ืช ืœืืฉื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื”ืชืงื“ืฉื™ ืœื™ ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื‘ืื—ืช ื”ืชืงื“ืฉื™ ืœื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืื’ืจืฉื™ืš ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™

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 Paddaโ€™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.

ืื™ืชืขืจ ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื“ืžื™ืชื•ืŸ ืคื“ืืŸ ื”ื•ื ืœืคื“ืื•ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืคื“ืืŸ ื”ื•ื ื—ื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ืคื“ืื•ื ืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ื•ืืฉื” ื›ืคื“ืื•ื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™ื

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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืคื“ืืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืคื“ืื•ื ืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช

It was also stated that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ืžื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ืืกื•ืจ ืžื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ืฉื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ืœื ื›ืืœื• ืฉื”ื•ืœื›ื™ื ืžืขื›ื• ืœื™ืคื• ืืœื ื‘ืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืœืคืจืฉ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ื—ื“ ืžืชื ื™ ืืจื™ืฉื ื•ื—ื“ ืžืชื ื™ ืืกื™ืคื ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืืจื™ืฉื ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื™ื‘ืฉื” ื”ื ื‘ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืœื ื›ืืœื•

GEMARA: With regard to the mishnaโ€™s definition of seafarers, there is a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav Aแธฅa, 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

ื”ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ื ืžืขื›ื• ืœื™ืคื• ื“ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืืœื ืžืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœืคืจืฉ

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.

ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืืกื™ืคื ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื™ื‘ืฉื” ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืืœื• ื”ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ื ืžืขื›ื• ืœื™ืคื• ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืœืคืจืฉ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื‘ืฉื” ืกืœื™ืง

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืจื•ืื™ ื”ื—ืžื” ืืกื•ืจ ืืฃ ื‘ืกื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื ืชื›ื•ื•ืŸ ื–ื” ืืœื ืœืžื™ ืฉื”ื—ืžื” ืจื•ืื” ืื•ืชืŸ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžื“ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ื

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืฉื—ื•ืจื™ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืงืจื—ื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœื™ ืฉื™ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืงืจืื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืœื ืื ืฉื™ื

MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that have dark heads [sheแธฅorei 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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžื“ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืžื‘ืขืœื™ ืฉืขืจ

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.

ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืงืจืื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืœื ืื ืฉื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื ืฉื™ื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื›ืกื• ืจื™ืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื’ืœื• ืจื™ืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ื ืฉื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื™ื›ืกื• ื•ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื™ื’ืœื•

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 womenโ€™s heads are always covered, and childrenโ€™s heads are always uncovered, and the expression dark heads is referring to men whose hair is sometimes seen.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžืชื™ืจ ืืฃ ื‘ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื ืชื›ื•ื•ืŸ ื–ื” ืืœื ื‘ืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืœื”ื•ื•ืœื“

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืืœื ืžืžืืŸ ืืกื•ืจ

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 mishnaโ€™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.

ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ื“ืžืชื™ื™ืœื“ืŸ ืžืฉืžืข ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ืš ื”ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืœืš ื‘ืืจืฅ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืื™ืชื™ื™ืœื“ืŸ ื”ื•ื

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

ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืœื™ื“ื• ืžืฉืžืข ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื ื” ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื™ืืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉืžื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื•ื”ื ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื ืฉื” ืœื ื‘ื ืืœื ืžืฉืžืข ื”ื›ื™ ื•ืžืฉืžืข ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื‘ื ื“ืจื™ื ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

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: โ€œBehold, a son shall be born [nolad] to the house of David, Josiah by nameโ€ (Iย 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.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื ืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืœื ืžืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืœื”ื•ื•ืœื“ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ืขื•ืคื•ืช

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 motherโ€™s womb.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 29-35 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing the power of the spoken word. When someone makes a vow against benefiting from...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 30: Utterly Extreme Vows

A whole lot of mishnayot. One: A person who swore off benefit from seafarers. Or land-dwellers. But who's included in...

Nedarim 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 30

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ื˜ื•ืช ืœืืฉื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื”ืชืงื“ืฉื™ ืœื™ ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื‘ืื—ืช ื”ืชืงื“ืฉื™ ืœื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืื’ืจืฉื™ืš ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™

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 Paddaโ€™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.

ืื™ืชืขืจ ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื“ืžื™ืชื•ืŸ ืคื“ืืŸ ื”ื•ื ืœืคื“ืื•ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืคื“ืืŸ ื”ื•ื ื—ื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ืคื“ืื•ื ืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช ื•ืืฉื” ื›ืคื“ืื•ื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™ื

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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืคื“ืืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืคื“ืื•ื ืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื“ื•ืฉื•ืช

It was also stated that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ืžื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ืืกื•ืจ ืžื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ืฉื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ืœื ื›ืืœื• ืฉื”ื•ืœื›ื™ื ืžืขื›ื• ืœื™ืคื• ืืœื ื‘ืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืœืคืจืฉ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ื—ื“ ืžืชื ื™ ืืจื™ืฉื ื•ื—ื“ ืžืชื ื™ ืืกื™ืคื ืžืืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืืจื™ืฉื ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื™ื‘ืฉื” ื”ื ื‘ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืœื ื›ืืœื•

GEMARA: With regard to the mishnaโ€™s definition of seafarers, there is a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav Aแธฅa, 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

ื”ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ื ืžืขื›ื• ืœื™ืคื• ื“ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืืœื ืžืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœืคืจืฉ

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.

ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืืกื™ืคื ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ ื™ื‘ืฉื” ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืืœื• ื”ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ื ืžืขื›ื• ืœื™ืคื• ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืœืคืจืฉ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื‘ืฉื” ืกืœื™ืง

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืจื•ืื™ ื”ื—ืžื” ืืกื•ืจ ืืฃ ื‘ืกื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื ืชื›ื•ื•ืŸ ื–ื” ืืœื ืœืžื™ ืฉื”ื—ืžื” ืจื•ืื” ืื•ืชืŸ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžื“ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ื

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืฉื—ื•ืจื™ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืงืจื—ื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœื™ ืฉื™ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืงืจืื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืœื ืื ืฉื™ื

MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that have dark heads [sheแธฅorei 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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžื“ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืžื‘ืขืœื™ ืฉืขืจ

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.

ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืงืจืื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืœื ืื ืฉื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื ืฉื™ื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื›ืกื• ืจื™ืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื’ืœื• ืจื™ืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ื ืฉื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื™ื›ืกื• ื•ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื™ื’ืœื•

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 womenโ€™s heads are always covered, and childrenโ€™s heads are always uncovered, and the expression dark heads is referring to men whose hair is sometimes seen.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžืชื™ืจ ืืฃ ื‘ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื ืชื›ื•ื•ืŸ ื–ื” ืืœื ื‘ืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืœื”ื•ื•ืœื“

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืืœื ืžืžืืŸ ืืกื•ืจ

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 mishnaโ€™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.

ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืœื•ื“ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ื“ืžืชื™ื™ืœื“ืŸ ืžืฉืžืข ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ืš ื”ื ื•ืœื“ื™ื ืœืš ื‘ืืจืฅ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืื™ืชื™ื™ืœื“ืŸ ื”ื•ื

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

ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืœื™ื“ื• ืžืฉืžืข ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื ื” ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื™ืืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉืžื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื•ื”ื ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื ืฉื” ืœื ื‘ื ืืœื ืžืฉืžืข ื”ื›ื™ ื•ืžืฉืžืข ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื‘ื ื“ืจื™ื ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

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: โ€œBehold, a son shall be born [nolad] to the house of David, Josiah by nameโ€ (Iย 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.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื ืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืœื ืžืžื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืœื”ื•ื•ืœื“ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ื“ื’ื™ื ื•ืขื•ืคื•ืช

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 motherโ€™s womb.

Scroll To Top