Nedarim 55b — the Talmud in English

This is learned from what

is stated: “Every valley shall be raised”

: We learn that even a person who was brought low from the platform into a valley will, after repenting, be raised and ascend above.

The Gemara now returns to the earlier statement of Rabbi Meir, who says that when a person prohibits grain to himself, he is prohibited not only from the five species of grain, but from everything that is gathered into a grain heap. This also includes dried Egyptian bean, a type of produce that is likewise gathered into a grain heap.

And the Gemara adds:

It was taught in a baraita

, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, that what we said according to Rabbi Meir,

“One who vows to prohibit grain to himself is also prohibited from Egyptian bean,”

applies only to Egyptian bean that is

dry.

But he is permitted

to eat

d

ry Egyptian bean when it is

fresh,

because fresh produce is not gathered into a grain heap.

And

likewise, he is

permitted

to derive benefit

f

rom

rice

and

ḥilqa

—wheat split into two parts—and he is likewise permitted

tirgis

—wheat split into three parts—

a

nd he is also permitted

tisanei

—wheat split into four parts.

The reason that he is permitted to eat all these things is as follows:

With regard to rice, it is not gathered into a grain heap, and therefore it is not considered grain.

With regard to wheat split into two or three parts, once the wheat has been split, it is no longer called grain.

The baraita continues to explain what is included in a person’s words, in order to determine what is prohibited when he accepts a particular expression upon himself.

One who vows

to prohibit benefit

from the produce of the year

is

prohibited from all the produce of the year,

including both fruits and vegetables, all of which are things that grow and multiply from the ground.

However, he is prohibited only from produce that grows from the ground.

But he is permitted

to eat

young goats, lambs, milk, eggs, and fledglings,

for although these too can somewhat be called produce, since they emerge from other things—milk, for example, is the produce of a cow, and an egg is the produce of a hen—they are nevertheless not prohibited when he prohibits the produce of the year. His intention when using that expression is to refer to produce that grows from the ground.

But if he said, “The year’s growths are prohibited to me,”

using the expression “the year’s growths” rather than “the produce of the year,” he is

prohibited from all of them,

because the definition of “growths” includes all these things as well—young goats, lambs, and the like—which are things that grow, rather than things that exist on their own.

However, they are not included in the category of produce.

Therefore, if he prohibited produce, he is permitted to use these things; only if he prohibited “growths” is he also prohibited from them.

The baraita continues and says that there is another difference between a person who uses the expression “produce” and one who uses the expression “growth.”

One who vows

to prohibit benefit

from the produce of the land

is

prohibited from all the produce of the land,

because all produce is included in his words.

But he is permitted to eat truffles and mushrooms,

because they are not produce of the land: they do not come into being through the power of the land, but through the power of the air.

This applies when he said “the produce of the land.”

But if he said, “The growths of the ground are prohibited to me,”

he is

prohibited from all of them

—including truffles and mushrooms. For although truffles and mushrooms do not grow through the power of the ground, they nevertheless grow in the ground.

And they raise a contradiction

to this baraita, which holds that truffles and mushrooms are considered growths of the ground, from what we learned in tractate Berakhot [40b] concerning blessings over food:

For something that does not grow from the land, one recites: “Everything came to be through His word,”

.

if we prove that one recites the blessing “Everything came to be through His word” over mushrooms, we will consequently have proof that they are not growths of the ground. For we learned that one recites this blessing only over something that is not a growth of the ground. If so, why did we say above

and

the Gemara brings proof that over truffles and mushrooms one recites the blessing “Everything came to be through His word”:

And it was taught: Over salt, zemit, truffles, and mushrooms, one recites: “Everything came to be through His word.”

This proves that these are not growths of the ground, since one recites the blessing “Everything came to be through His word” over them. If so, why did we say above

that when a person prohibits the growths of the ground to himself, this also includes truffles and mushrooms?

Abaye said:

Truffles and mushrooms

grow from the ground

—they grow from the ground and not from the air, and therefore they are included in the expression “growths of the ground.” Consequently, one who prohibits the growths of the ground to himself is also prohibited from them.

And the reason that one recites the blessing “Everything came to be through His word” over them is that

they draw nourishment from the air and do not draw nourishment from the ground

—their nourishment and growth do not come directly from the ground through roots. Rather, they draw nourishment through the air. Therefore, one does not recite over them the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the earth,” but rather “Everything came to be through His word.”

The Gemara challenges this:

But it was taught: “For something that does not grow from the land,”

only over such a thing does one recite the blessing “Everything came to be through His word.” If you say that truffles and mushrooms grow in the ground and only draw nourishment from it through the air, this is difficult. The Mishna that we cited says that if something grows in the ground, one does not recite “Everything came to be through His word,” but rather “Who creates the fruit of the earth.” This shows that the requirement concerns where it grows, not where it draws nourishment. Since one recites “Everything came to be through His word” over truffles and mushrooms, we must say that they not only fail to draw nourishment from the ground; they are also not considered its growths, correct?

The Gemara answers:

Read

the Mishna differently. Instead of reading, “For something whose growth is from the land,” read:

“For something that does not draw nourishment from the land.”

If it does not draw nourishment from the ground, then even if it grows in the ground, one recites over it the blessing “Everything came to be through His word,” rather than the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

Therefore, since truffles and mushrooms do not draw nourishment directly from the ground, even though they grow in the ground, the blessing over them is “Everything came to be through His word.”

Mishna:

One who vows

to prohibit benefit

from clothing

is prohibited from deriving benefit from anything that is worn as a garment.

But

he is permitted

to use

a sack, a sheet, or a cloak

—[something similar to a sheet]—because these are not garments and are not included in the expression “clothing” that he prohibited to himself.

Just as a person can prohibit one type of garment to himself but not another,

so he can prohibit one manner of use and permit another manner of use.

Therefore, if a person

said, “Wool is prohibited to me when it is worn on me,”

he prohibited by his words the manner of wearing it, and therefore he is prohibited from wearing wool, but he did not prohibit the manner of covering oneself with it.

Therefore,

he is permitted to cover himself with wool fleece.

The same law applies if he said:

“An offering”—that is, an object prohibited by a vow—

“linen is prohibited to me when it is worn on me,”

for here too he prohibited only the manner of wearing it, but not the manner of covering oneself with it.

Therefore, it will be

permitted for him to cover himself with flax fibers

—these are the words of the Sages.

But

Rabbi Yehuda says:

We cannot rely only on the ordinary meaning of a person’s words to determine whether he intended the manner of wearing or not.

Rather,

everything depends on

the situation in which

the one making the vow

was at the time he made the vow, since this demonstrates the intention of the vow.

Therefore, if we see that he

was carrying

a load of wool and linen on his back,

and he perspired

because of it,

and its smell was

unpleasant

for him,

and at that moment he

said, “Wool and linen are prohibited to me when they are worn on me,”

we understand that the entire reason for his vow was that he did not want to carry this load on his back again. He therefore prohibited it in order to prevent himself from ever again reaching that situation.

But he did not intend to prohibit wearing it, despite having used the expression “worn on me.” Therefore,

he is permitted to cover himself

with wool and linen [and likewise to wear them, as is proven by the baraita below], since this is not included in his vow and he did not intend to prohibit it.

But he is prohibited

from

putting

wool and linen on his back, because it is clear to us that this is what he intended to prohibit.

Gemara:

It was taught:

Although we said in the Mishna that

one who vows

and accepts upon himself a prohibition of benefit

from clothing

is prohibited only from garments, and

is permitted to use a sack, a sheet, or a cloak

—this applies specifically to these objects, which are not called garments; but he is prohibited from anything that is called a garment.

And

likewise, he is

prohibited

from

a punda, a paskia, a skortia, a katavlia, an anpalia, and a pelinia,

because although these objects are made of leather, they are considered garments and are prohibited.

And

likewise, he is

prohibited from trousers and a hat,

because these too are considered clothing.

What is “iskurti”?

What is this garment mentioned above?

Rabba bar bar Hana said: A leather garment.

It is a leather coat worn by leather tanners over their clothes.

Since the Gemara discussed what is considered clothing and what is not, it discusses another matter in which this distinction has a practical consequence.

This concerns carrying on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain. An article worn as clothing may be carried, and anything that we learned in this discussion is considered clothing and may therefore be carried.

The Gemara teaches that even something not considered clothing in this discussion may be carried on Shabbat, since ultimately it is not considered a burden, which is prohibited on Shabbat.

It was taught: One may go out

on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain

wearing a thick sack, a thick felt covering, a sheet, or a cloak,

because these objects are sometimes used

in front of the rain.

Therefore, although they are not clothing, as explained in this discussion, they are not considered a burden.

But one may not

go out on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain

with a chest, a basket, or a mat,

even if he needs these objects in order to cover himself

from the rain,

because these objects are a complete burden, and carrying a burden is prohibited on Shabbat.

The baraita adds that

shepherds may go out

on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain

wearing sacks.

This is an additional teaching beyond what we learned above, that one may go out wearing a thick sack. There, “sack” does not mean an actual sack [see Ran]; here the novelty is that one may go out wearing an actual sack.

And

it was not said only concerning

the shepherds

that they may go out on Shabbat wearing sacks;

rather, every person

may go out in this way.

Rather,

the Sages specifically mentioned shepherds because

the Sages spoke of the usual case,

as shepherds customarily went out wearing sacks.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Everything depends on the one making the vow

and

so on:

The Gemara now cites Rabbi Yehuda’s view in the Mishna, in which he disagrees with the Sages and holds that a person’s words are not interpreted solely according to their literal wording. Rather, we consider his situation at the time of the vow, and interpret his words and intention accordingly.

It was taught: How

do we interpret his words?

Rabbi Yehuda said: Everything depends on

the situation of

the one making the vow

at the time of the vow.

Therefore, if he

was wearing wool, and it distressed

him,

and he said: “Wool is prohibited to me,”

because it does not

rest on me,

he certainly intended to prohibit wearing it, because that was what was bothering him.

Therefore,

he is prohibited from wearing

a woolen garment, but

he is permitted to carry

a load of wool on his back, because only the wearing troubled him, and therefore only that was prohibited—not carrying and bearing a load on his back.

But if, at the time he made the vow, he

was carrying

a load of wool and

linen, and

because of this he

perspired

and wanted to prevent himself from ever again being in such a situation,

a

nd therefore

said, “Linen is prohibited to me,”

meaning that he vows that it will not

rest on me

—here, apparently, his intention in making the vow was to prohibit carrying a load of linen, and not wearing linen. The only thing that troubled him was the load that caused him to perspire, and it was that alone that he intended to prohibit, not wearing it.

Therefore,

he is permitted to wear

wool and linen, but

he is prohibited from carrying

a load on his back, since that is what he intended to prohibit with his vow.