you may solve the problem of R. Hoshaia. Viz., what if one gives two perutahs to a woman, saying to her, 'Be thou betrothed unto me for one of these to-day. and for the other be thou betrothed unto me after I divorce thee'?1 [Now, from Bar Pada's ruling you may deduce that the second] is indeed [valid] kiddushin.2 This the first the former is duly effective, I would think that it is so even if this concurrent sanctity was imposed only in a supplementary statement. Hence the need for the second clause, viz., that if the second sanctity was not (at the very outset) imposed concurrently with the first, it cannot come into effect. roused R. Jeremiah, and he said to them, Why do you compare redemption by the owner to redemption by others? Thus did R. Johanan say: If he himself redeems them, they revert to their sanctity; but if others redeem them, they do not.3 Now a [divorced] woman may be compared to the case of redemption by others.4 It was stated likewise: R. Ammi said in R. Johanan's name: Only if he himself redeems them was this taught [that they revert to their sanctity]; but when others redeem them, they do not revert to their sanctity.
MISHNAH. HE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM SEAFARERS, MAY BENEFIT FROM LAND-DWELLERS; FROM LAND-DWELLERS, HE IS FORBIDDEN [TO BENEFIT] EVEN FROM SEAFARERS, BECAUSE SEAFARERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TERM LAND-DWELLERS'; NOT THOSE WHO MERELY TRAVEL FROM ACCO TO JAFFA,5 BUT THOSE WHO SAIL AWAY GREAT DISTANCES [FROM LAND].
GEMARA. R. Papa and R. Aha son of R. Ika — one referred it [the last statement] to the first clause, and the other to the second. Now, he who referred it to the first clause learnt thus: HE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM SEAFARERS MAY BENEFIT FROM LAND-DWELLERS. Hence, he may not benefit from seafarers; NOT THOSE WHO MERELY
Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
- Is the second betrothal valid?
- For, just as the plants after redemption revert to their sanctity in virtue of an earlier declaration, so the woman, after being freed by a divorce, will revert to her betrothed state in virtue of the declaration prior thereto — Ran and Asheri. Rashi: For, when the plants are cut down, they should, according to the terms of the vow, lose their sanctity; yet in virtue of the first declaration they retain it until they are redeemed. So here too: though the divorce sets the woman free, the prior declaration is valid insofar as she becomes betrothed again. This interpretation is rather strained. Moreover, it would appear that the deduction is made from the fact that before being cut down the plants revert to their sanctity after being redeemed, and not because they require redemption even after being cut down. In Rashi's favour, however, it may be observed that this law of consecration after redemption is that of the Mishnah as explained both by Bar Pada and by 'Ulla. So that the particular reference to Bar Pada may indicate that the solution in deduced from the continued sanctity of the saplings after they are cut down, which is maintained by Bar Pada only.
- For since they are redeemed by others, they are no longer under the authority of their first owner, therefore his first declaration is no longer valid.
- Because once divorced, she is no longer under her husband's authority, just as the plants, when redeemed by others, are not under the authority of their first owner.
- Acco (also called Acre). A city and seaport of Phoenicia on a promontory at the foot of mount Carmel ('Cf. Josephus. Ant, II, 10, 2). Jaffa. A city of Palestine and a Mediterranean Port, 35 miles northwest of Jerusalem.
TRAVEL FROM ACCO TO JAFFA, as these are land-dwellers, BUT THOSE WHO SAIL AWAY GREAT DISTANCES [FROM LAND]. He who referred it to the second clause learnt thus: [IF ONE VOWS NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM LAND-DWELLERS, HE MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM SEAFARERS; [this applies] NOT ONLY TO THOSE WHO TRAVEL MERELY FROM ACCO TO JAFFA. BUT EVEN TO THOSE WHO TRAVEL GREAT DISTANCES, since they eventually land.
MISHNAH. HE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM THE SEERS OF THE SUN, IS FORBIDDEN FROM THE BLIND TOO, BECAUSE HE MEANT THOSE WHOM THE SUN SEES'.1
GEMARA. What is the reason? — Since he did not say 'from those who see,' he meant to exclude only fish and embryos.1
MISHNAH. HE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM THE BLACK-HAIRED MAY NOT [BENEFIT] FROM THE BALD AND THE GREY-HAIRED, BUT MAY [BENEFIT] FROM WOMEN AND CHILDREN, BECAUSE ONLY MEN ARE CALLED BLACKHAIRED.
GEMARA. What is the reason? — Since he did not say 'from those who possess hair'.2
BUT MAY [BENEFIT] FROM WOMEN AND CHILDREN, BECAUSE ONLY MEN ARE CALLED 'BLACK-HAIRED'. What is the reason? — Men sometimes cover their heads and sometimes not; but women's hair is always covered, and children are always bareheaded.3
MISHNAH. ONE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM YILLODIM [THOSE BORN] MAY [BENEFIT] FROM NOLADIM THOSE TO BE BORN]; FROM NOLADIM, HE MAY NOT [BENEFIT] FROM YILLODIM. R. MEIR PERMITTED [HIM TO BENEFIT] EVEN FROM YILLODIM; BUT THE SAGES SAY: HE MEANT ALL WHOSE NATURE IT IS TO BE BORN.4
GEMARA. Now, according to R. Meir, noladim go without saying;5 who then is forbidden to him? — The text is defective, and thus to be reconstructed: ONE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM YILLODIM MAY [BENEFIT] FROM NOLADIM; FROM NOLADIM, YILLODIM ARE FORBIDDEN TO HIM. R. MEIR SAID: ALSO HE WHO VOWS NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM NOLADIM MAY [BENEFIT] FROM YILLODIM, JUST AS HE WHO VOWS NOT TO BENEFIT FROM YILLODIM MAY [BENEFIT] FROM NOLADIM.6
R. Papa said to Abaye: Are we to conclude that noladim implies those about to be born? If so, does the verse, thy two sons, which noladim unto thee in the land of Egypt,7 — mean 'who are to be born'?8 — What then will you say: that it implies who were born? If so, what of the verse, behold a child nolad unto the house of David Josiah by name:9 will you say that he was [already born]? but even Menasseh [Josiah's grandfather] was not yet born!10 But nolad implies both,11 and in vows, we follow general usage.12 BUT THE SAGES SAY: HE MEANT ALL WHOSE NATURE IT IS TO BE BORN. Excluding what? — It excludes fish and fowl.13
Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
- [I.e.. he might have intended the phrase 'those who see the sun' as an euphemism for 'those whom the sun sees', i.e., the blind (cf. Bek. VIII, 3, [H], 'looking to the sun' used euphemistically for 'squinting'). But since with vows we adopt the more rigorous interpretation, he is forbidden to benefit from those who see as well as from the blind (cf. Rabinowitz, M. Graber Otzar ha-Safruth II, 137ff.).]
- Therefore bald and grey-haired people are included, since they were once black-haired.
- Hence women would be referred to as 'those of covered hair', and children as 'the bare-headed'. — Ran. In Mishnaic times it was the universal practise for women's hair to be covered, and its violation was deemed sufficient ground for divorce without payment of the kethubah (Keth. 72a Mishnah.) From the present passage it appears that no distinction was drawn between married and unmarried women, but later on custom became more lenient with respect to unmarried women (Shulhan 'Aruk', O.H. 75, 2; cf. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 398. n. 1, referring to Gentiles). As for men, it was considered a sign of reverence and piety to cover the head (Kid. 31a, Shab. 118b); nevertheless only in the case of great scholars was it held to be indispensable (cf. Kid. 8a.
- I.e., not hatched, and therefore including both those already born and those to be born.
- That they are permitted. since the Mishnah states, R. MEIR PERMITTED (HIM TO BENEFIT) EVEN FROM YILLODIM.
- I.e. in each case his words are taken literally.
- Gen. XLVIII. 5.
- The reference being to Ephraim and Manasseh, who were already born.
- I Kings XIII, 2.
- This verse was spoken in the reign of Jeroboam I.
- Biblically. Sc. 'born' and 'to be born'.
- Lit., 'the language of the sons of men', which applies nolad to those who are yet to be born.
- Which are spawned and hatched respectively.