Nedarim 60

Hook

This passage in Nedarim takes us on a surprising journey from agricultural laws of teruma to the intricate nuances of vow dissolution, revealing a deep connection between how we define "growth" in produce and how we understand the temporal boundaries of our commitments. It's not just about what's forbidden, but when and how that prohibition ends.

Context

To truly appreciate this Talmudic discussion, it's crucial to remember the agricultural context of ancient Israel. Teruma was a portion of produce set aside for the Kohanim (priests). If the original teruma produce spoiled or grew new shoots, understanding the status of those new growths was vital for both the giver and the recipient. This wasn't just an academic exercise; it had practical implications for who could eat what. Similarly, vows (nedarim) were serious commitments, and the Sages were meticulous in defining their scope and duration, often drawing parallels between different spheres of Jewish law to ensure clarity and prevent unintended transgressions.

Text Snapshot

The Gemara grapples with an apparent contradiction:

permitted neutralize the prohibition? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: The growths of teruma are teruma, indicating that they do not neutralize the prohibition of the original part of the plant? The Gemara answers: We are speaking of the growths of growths. Rabbi Yannai permits the teruma, not due to the majority of direct growths of teruma; he permitted it due to the majority of growths that sprouted from its growths. The Gemara asks: We already learned that too: The status of growths of growths of teruma is that of non-sacred produce. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that the growths of growths are permitted even in items whose seeds do not cease, e.g., onions.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to untithed produce, its growths are permitted in items whose seeds cease; however, concerning items whose seeds do not cease, the growths of growths are forbidden. The Gemara answers: It teaches us that if the increase of the growths of growths exceeded its primary, original part, that original part is permitted.

This section is followed by a discussion on vows:

MISHNA: If one vows: Wine is forbidden to me as if it were an offering [konam], and for that reason I will not taste it today, he is prohibited from drinking wine only until the conclusion of that day at nightfall, and not for a twenty-four hour period. If one vows not to drink wine this week, he is prohibited from drinking wine for the entire remainder of the week. And as Shabbat is considered part of the week that passed, i.e., it is the end of the week, he is prohibited from drinking wine on the upcoming Shabbat.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yirmeya said: Even when darkness falls he is not permitted to drink wine immediately; rather, he is required to request that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow. Rav Yosef said: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree in the case of one who said that his vow applies today, due to the confusion that might be caused in a case where one said that his vow applies for one day, and is therefore forbidden to drink wine for twenty-four hours.

See Nedarim 60a on Sefaria

Close Reading

Insight 1: The Escalation of "Growth" and its Halakhic Significance

The initial discussion about teruma presents a fascinating layered concept of growth. We start with "growths of teruma," which are themselves teruma. But then we move to "growths of growths." This isn't just about a plant continuing to grow; it's about subsequent generations of growth. The Gemara clarifies that while direct growths of teruma remain teruma, the growths of those growths are considered chullin (non-sacred). This introduces a principle of dilution or transformation. As the growth becomes more removed from the original teruma, its sacred status diminishes. This is crucial for understanding how something that was once forbidden due to its sacred nature can eventually become permissible. The critical distinction is between direct lineage and subsequent generations of growth, a concept that mirrors how rabbinic law often considers the cascading effects of an initial ruling or action.

Insight 2: The "Seeds Ceasing" Distinction and its Generational Implications

The distinction between "items whose seeds cease" (like grains) and "items whose seeds do not cease" (like onions or garlic) is a key point of contention. For items where seeds cease, the growths of growths are forbidden if they don't exceed the primary part. However, for items like onions, where the "seed" (bulb) is perennial and doesn't cease, the rule is different. Rashi explains that "growths of growths" of teruma are chullin (non-sacred), and this applies even to things like onions. However, the Gemara then introduces a qualification: if the "increase of the growths of growths exceeded its primary, original part," then the original part becomes permitted. This introduces a quantitative element – the sheer volume of subsequent growth can somehow override the initial prohibition. This highlights how halakha often balances qualitative distinctions (sacred vs. non-sacred) with quantitative considerations (majority vs. minority, increase vs. primary).

Insight 3: The Temporal Ambiguity of Vows and the Sages' Protective Decrees

The transition to the laws of vows is striking. The mishna meticulously defines the temporal scope of a vow based on the wording used: "today," "this week," "this month," "this year," "this seven-year cycle." The Gemara then introduces Rabbi Yirmeya's statement that even after the stated time has passed, one must request a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow. This is not because the vow is still technically in effect, but due to a rabbinic decree (takana) by Rav Yosef. The purpose of this decree is to prevent confusion. Specifically, the concern is that if a vow for "today" expires at nightfall, someone might mistakenly believe a vow for "one day" also expires at nightfall, rather than after 24 hours. This demonstrates a fundamental concern of the Sages: to create clear boundaries and prevent people from inadvertently transgressing by misinterpreting the duration of their commitments. The Sages' decrees are often proactive, anticipating potential confusion and establishing safeguards.

Two Angles

Angle 1: Rabbi Natan's Asceticism vs. Practicality

One significant reading, articulated by Ravina quoting Rav Yosef in the name of his father, connects Rabbi Yirmeya's requirement of seeking dissolution to Rabbi Natan's view. Rabbi Natan equates taking a vow to building a personal altar and fulfilling it to burning offerings upon it. This paints a picture of extreme asceticism, where any act of self-imposed restriction, even after its natural expiration, is viewed with suspicion. Seeking dissolution becomes a way to symbolically dismantle this "personal altar" and erase the act of vowing altogether, as if it never happened. This perspective emphasizes a deep-seated aversion to the very act of self-restriction, seeing it as a potential detour from proper service to God, which should ideally be focused on the communal Temple.

Angle 2: The Sages' Concern for Order and Clarity

In contrast, the explanation offered by Rav Yosef himself, as presented in the Gemara, focuses on practical concerns of temporal clarity. The decree is not necessarily about the inherent sinfulness of vows but about preventing widespread confusion in the application of halakha. The distinction between "today" and "one day" is subtle but crucial for the temporal boundaries of various prohibitions. If the Sages allowed a vow for "today" to simply expire at nightfall without further ado, it could lead people to miscalculate the duration of other time-bound vows, such as those for a full day. Therefore, the requirement to seek dissolution serves as a ritualistic "stop sign," a clear demarcation that reinforces the end of the vow and prevents the blurring of temporal lines, thereby upholding the orderly application of Jewish law.

Practice Implication

This passage profoundly shapes how we approach commitments and deadlines. When we make a promise or set a goal, especially those involving self-limitation or abstinence, the Gemara teaches us to be precise not only about what we are committing to, but also when that commitment begins and ends. The Sages' concern for preventing confusion reminds us to be clear in our own minds and with others about the boundaries of our intentions. Furthermore, the discussion about seeking dissolution after a vow has expired offers a model for how we might approach the conclusion of a self-imposed challenge. It suggests that even after a period of discipline has technically ended, a moment of reflection and intentional closure, perhaps even seeking counsel or setting a new intention, can provide a more robust and meaningful transition.

Chevruta Mini

Question 1

If a vow taken for "today" expires at nightfall, and a vow for "one day" lasts for 24 hours, what is the underlying principle that distinguishes their temporal scope? Does this distinction reflect a different understanding of "time" itself, or rather the way we perceive and articulate our commitments within that time?

Question 2

Rabbi Natan sees vows as akin to building a forbidden altar, while Rav Yosef's decree focuses on preventing confusion. Considering these two perspectives, when might it be more beneficial to strictly adhere to the letter of a commitment (even after it technically ends, by seeking dissolution), and when might it be more appropriate to simply acknowledge its completion and move forward, prioritizing clarity and avoiding unnecessary ritualistic complexities?