Nedarim 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

And not

in

such as these

those traveling from Akko to Jaffa,

with regard to whom he is not prohibited, because

they are

those who

dwell on dry land

indeed,

since their journey by sea along the short route between Akko and Jaffa does not give them the designation “those who descend to the sea,” and the one who made the vow did not intend to vow

except with regard to those whose practice is to set sail

over the sea to distant places, in sailing ships.

And the one who teaches the latter clause—

teaches it as follows,

as a stringency:

One who vows with regard to those who dwell on dry land—

is prohibited

from all people, even

those who descend to the sea.

And not

only

those who travel

by sea

from Akko to Jaffa alone

are prohibited to him;

rather, even one whose practice is to set sail

to distant places is also prohibited to him, since he too is considered included among “those who dwell on dry land,”

since ultimately—

he reaches dry land;

he comes up onto it.

Mishna:

One who vows

not to derive benefit

from “

those who see the sun”—

is prohibited even from

people who are

blind.

Since

he did not intend

by saying “those who see the sun” to refer to those who see the sun,

but rather to those whom the sun “

sees”

them.

This will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And we raise the following difficulty:

What is the reason

that we do not interpret his intention as referring literally to those who see the sun, thereby excluding blind people?

Since he did not say, “

from those who see”

alone, in which case he would prohibit himself from deriving benefit from all people who see, excluding blind people. Rather, he did not suffice with that, but said “those who see the sun”; necessarily, his intention was to prohibit himself from deriving benefit from all people and all living creatures that are “seen” by the sun, including blind people, and he intended only

to exclude

from those prohibited by his vow only

fish and fetuses

in their mothers’ wombs, whom the sun does not “see.”

Mishna:

One who vows

to derive no benefit

from “

those with black heads”—

he is

prohibited—

from bald people,

even though they do not have black hair, since they have no hair at all.

And

he is prohibited from elderly men

who have white hair,

even though their hair is white rather than black.

But he is permitted—

with regard to women and minors,

even though their hair is black.

Because

they are not called “

those with black heads”

by people

except for men,

and not women, whom people customarily call “those with covered heads,” nor minors, whom people customarily call “those with uncovered heads,” for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains the beginning of the Mishna:

What is the reason

that one who vows with regard to “those with black heads” is also prohibited from bald people and from those with white hair, even though their hair is not black?

Since he did not say “

those with hair,”

it is evident that his intention was also to prohibit bald people. And when he said “those with black heads,” his intention was not specifically those with black hair, but all men, who are called “those with black heads,” since most of them have black hair, as will be explained below.

And since it is evident from his words that he did not intend to exclude bald people, and his statement “those with black heads” is not meant literally, those with white hair are also included among “those with black heads,” even though they do not have black hair, since his intention is to prohibit all men, who are called “those with black heads” on account of the majority of them.

We further learned in the Mishna:

And he is permitted with regard to women and minors—

Because

they are not called “

those with black heads”

except for men,

and not women or minors.

What is the reason?

Men

are called “those with black heads” because the blackness of their heads is apparent, as

sometimes their heads are covered, and sometimes their heads are uncovered.

Sometimes their heads are covered and sometimes they are uncovered, and when they are uncovered, the blackness of the hair on their heads is visible.

And since most men have head hair, and for most of them it is black, all men are therefore called “those with black heads,” including both bald people and those with white hair.

He does not call men “those with covered heads,” because at times their hair is uncovered; nor does he call them “those with uncovered heads,” because at times their hair is covered. Therefore, their name is “those with black heads.”

But women—

their hair is always covered

on their heads.

Their hair is covered for reasons of modesty and is not visible. Therefore, they are not called “those with black heads”; rather, people refer to them as “those with covered heads.”

And

if

minors—

their hair is always uncovered

on their heads.

Therefore, people refer to them as “those with uncovered heads,” and not “those with black heads.”

Mishna:

From a linguistic perspective— “

Those who have been born” are people who have already been born. “Those who

are being born” are people who will be born in the future.

However, it is customary for people to use the term “those who are being born” for all people, both those who have already been born and those who will be born in the future.

By contrast, with regard to the expression “those who have been born,” people use this particular expression only for those who have already been born; for them, it does not include those who will be born in the future.

One who vows with regard to “

those who have been born”—

since he used an expression that is specific to those who have already been born, he is prohibited only from those people who had already been born at the time of his vow. But

he is permitted

to derive benefit

from those who are born

after his vow, since this was his intention in saying “those who have been born”: to exclude those who had not yet been born.

But if he prohibited himself

from “

those who are being born,” an expression that people commonly use for all people, both those who have already been born and those who will be born in the future, then although linguistically “those who are being born” refers only to those who will be born in the future, this person intended to include all people in his vow—and he is

prohibited

prohibited

from deriving benefit from all of them, both from those who are being born and

from those who have been born.

But

Rabbi Meir

disagrees with this and says: Even one who vows with regard to “those who are being born” is to be understood according to the linguistic aspect of his vow; his intention is only those who will be born in the future, and not every person.

Therefore, just as the Sages permit one who vows with regard to “those who have been born” to derive benefit from those born afterward, so

Rabbi Meir permits

one

even from

one who vows with regard to “those who are being born” to derive benefit from those

who have been born.

And the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Meir and maintain that when one says “those who are being born,” his intention is everyone, both those who have already been born and those who will be born in the future,

say: This person did not intend

the linguistic aspect of his words when he vowed with regard to “those who are being born,” which refers only to those who will be born in the future,

but rather to those whose nature is to be born—that is, to prohibit all living creatures that are born, both those already born and those that will be born in the future, while permitting living creatures that do not emerge from their mothers’ bodies but hatch from eggs laid by their mothers.

that is, to prohibit all living creatures that are born, whether they have already been born or are destined to be born, while permitting living creatures that do not emerge from their mothers’ bodies but hatch from eggs laid by their mothers.

Gemara:

The Gemara assumes that

according to Rabbi Meir,

who permits one who vows with regard to those who are being born even with regard to those who have been born, his intention is to say that he is permitted with regard to those who have been born,

and it is not necessary to say

that he is permitted with regard to

those who are being born.

That is, he is permitted with regard to everyone.

If so, this is difficult:

From whom, then

is he

prohibited?

Upon whom does his vow take effect?

And we answer:

A passage is missing

from our Mishna,

and this is what it teaches

in it:

One who vows with regard to those who have been born—

is permitted with regard to those who are being born.

One who vows

with regard to those who are being born—

is prohibited

both with regard to those who are being born and

with regard to those who have been born.

Rabbi Meir says: Even one who vows with regard to those who are being born is permitted with regard to those who have been born—

Just as

in the same way as

one who vows with regard to those who have been born is permitted with regard to those who are being born.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Does this mean,

that according to Rabbi Meir, one must say, based on this,

that “

those who are being born” —

specifically

those who will be born,

and not those who have already been born,

is what it implies?!

If that is so, when Jacob our forefather said to Joseph concerning his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, [Genesis 48] “

Your two sons who were born to you in the land of Egypt”—

Your two sons who will be born to you in the land of Egypt” —

does

this also mean those who will be born

in the future,

is that so?

But they had already been born!

Abaye said to him:

Rather, what

do you wish to say? That “those who are being born”

implies those who have already been born

already

is what it implies?

If that is so,

with regard to

that which is written [I Kings 13] in the prophecy that the prophet said to the first king of Israel, Jeroboam: “

Behold, a son will be born to the house of David, Josiah is his name”—

Behold, a son will be born to the house of David, Josiah is his name” —

does

this also

possibly mean

that

already

existed

Josiah?

But Manasseh was still

Josiah’s grandfather,

had not yet come

at that time into the world!

Rather, necessarily, “those who are being born”

means both

implies both

those who have already been born,

and implies both

those who will be born in the future.

But with regard to vows—

one follows the language of people,

and not the language of Scripture or precise linguistic usage.

And this is the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

According to the Sages, “those who have been born” is a specific expression, and people use it only with regard to those who have already been born, and not with regard to those who will be born in the future.

By contrast, “those who are being born” is an expression used both with regard to those who have been born and with regard to those who are being born, and therefore all are prohibited through it.

And since with regard to vows one follows ordinary human speech, a distinction must be made between one who prohibits those who are being born, in which case all are prohibited, and one who prohibits those who have been born, in which case only they are included in the prohibition.

Whereas Rabbi Meir maintains that people customarily distinguish between the expressions: in ordinary human speech, “those who are being born” refers only to those who will be born in the future, just as according to the Sages “those who have been born” refers only to those who have already been born.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: This person intended only those whose nature is to be born.

And the Gemara explains:

To exclude what?

To exclude fish and birds,

which are not formed in the womb but are born from eggs.