Nedarim 60

Hook

Ever notice how the Talmud sometimes seems to play semantic games with time, where "today" can mean until nightfall, but "one day" means a full 24 hours? It’s not just about definitions; it’s about the subtle but significant distinctions that shape how we understand our commitments.

Context

This passage in Nedarim delves into the intricate world of vows, specifically nedarim (vows) and issurim (prohibitions). The concept of konam is an oath that makes something forbidden, often likened to an offering, highlighting the seriousness with which these vows were treated. Understanding the historical context of vows is crucial. In ancient Israel, vows could be a powerful tool for personal piety, but also a potential source of unintended stringency. The Rabbis, therefore, developed a sophisticated system of interpretation to ensure that vows, while respected, didn't become excessively burdensome, particularly when they touched upon everyday life and sacred time. The tension between the literal wording of a vow and the intended scope, especially as it relates to the boundaries of days, weeks, months, and years, is a recurring theme in rabbinic literature. This section of Nedarim is particularly interested in how the duration of a vow is understood, and how that understanding is influenced by the phrasing used and the underlying principles of halakha.

Text Snapshot

The Gemara grapples with the Mishna's statement: "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 nightfall." This immediately raises a question: "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 clarifies, "We are speaking of the growths of growths." The discussion then shifts to untithed produce, where "its growths are permitted in items whose seeds cease; however, concerning items whose seeds do not cease, the growths of growths are forbidden." Later, the Mishna states, "If one says that wine is forbidden to him for one day, he is prohibited from drinking wine from the day he took the vow to the same time on the following day." This contrasts with the earlier case of "today," where the prohibition ends at nightfall.

Sefaria Link: Nedarim 60a

Close Reading

Insight 1: The Architecture of Temporal Vows

The Mishna and Gemara here meticulously dissect the temporal boundaries of vows. The core distinction lies in the phrasing: "today" versus "one day." This isn't just a linguistic quibble; it reflects a deeper hermeneutic principle.

• "Today": The Mishna establishes that a vow of "today" (Nedarim 60a, lines 2-3) concludes at nightfall. This implies a natural, calendrical division of the day. The day is understood as a unit that ends with the setting of the sun, marking the transition to the next day. This aligns with how we generally perceive the end of a day, especially in the context of Shabbat and holidays, which begin at nightfall.
• "One Day": In stark contrast, the Gemara clarifies that a vow of "one day" (Nedarim 60a, lines 36-37) extends for a full twenty-four hours from the moment the vow was taken. This suggests a more precise, measured duration, independent of the natural cycle of day and night. It's a fixed period, like a timer set for 24 hours.
• The Rabbinic Decree: The Gemara's discussion about Rav Yosef's decree (Nedarim 60a, lines 12-21) further illuminates this. The decree to require a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow for "today" even after nightfall is designed to prevent confusion with the "one day" vow. If someone whose vow was for "today" could simply resume consumption at nightfall, someone who vowed for "one day" might mistakenly think their 24-hour period also ends at nightfall, leading to premature resumption. This highlights the rabbinic concern for clear, unambiguous boundaries, especially when preventing potential transgressions. The distinction, therefore, is not arbitrary but a carefully constructed safeguard.

Insight 2: The Nuance of "Growths" and Permissibility

The initial part of the passage (Nedarim 60a, lines 1-9) presents a complex argument about teruma (priestly tithe) and its growths. The principle that "growths of teruma are teruma" seems straightforward, implying that any new growth from teruma retains its sacred status and cannot be eaten by a layperson. However, the Gemara pushes beyond this.

• "Growths of Growths": The key term here is "growths of growths" (gidulei gidulin). The Gemara posits that Rabbi Yannai's leniency applies specifically to these "second-generation" growths. This introduces a concept of dilution or attenuation of the original prohibition. Just as a physical substance can be diluted, so too can the halakhic status of a prohibited item be affected by subsequent growth.
• The Case of Onions: The specific example of onions (batzalim) is crucial. Unlike fruits where the seed is easily separated, onions have a continuous growth cycle where new bulbs emerge from the old. The Gemara states that "growths of growths are permitted" even in items "whose seeds do not cease" (Nedarim 60a, lines 7-8). This is a significant point: the rule about growths of growths being permitted isn't a universal rule applicable only when seeds cease. It can apply even in complex botanical cases, suggesting a broader principle at play.
• Majority Rule as a Permitting Factor: The Gemara further refines this, stating that if "the increase of the growths of growths exceeded its primary, original part, that original part is permitted" (Nedarim 60a, lines 10-11). This introduces a principle of rob (majority). When the growth has so significantly overtaken the original item, it effectively changes its character, rendering the original part permissible. This is a powerful halakhic mechanism where quantity can alter quality and status.

Insight 3: The Tension Between Literalism and Intent

Throughout the passage, a tension emerges between the literal wording of a vow and the underlying intent of the vow-taker. This is most evident in the Mishna's discussion of vows tied to specific temporal markers like "this week," "this month," "this year," and "this seven-year cycle."

• Inclusion of Sacred Time: The Mishna teaches that "this week" (Nedarim 60a, lines 24-25) includes Shabbat, and "this month" (Nedarim 60a, lines 28-29) includes the New Moon. This is because these temporal units are conventionally understood to encompass these sacred days. The vow's scope is thus broadened to include the full unit, even its sacred components.
• Exclusion of the Transition Point: Conversely, the Mishna notes that for "this year," Rosh HaShana is considered part of the upcoming year, not the current one (Nedarim 60a, lines 32-33). Similarly, for a seven-year cycle, the Sabbatical Year itself is considered part of the passed cycle for the purpose of a vow taken before it, meaning the vow would extend through the Sabbatical Year if taken before it. This demonstrates a careful parsing of temporal boundaries, where the boundary day or year itself is sometimes excluded from the vow's fulfillment, depending on whether it marks the beginning of a new period or the end of the current one.
• The "Until" Clause: The final Mishnaic section (Nedarim 60a, lines 40-46) further highlights this tension with the word "until." Vowing "until Passover" means the prohibition ceases as Passover begins. However, "until it will be Passover" implies the prohibition lasts through Passover. This subtle shift in phrasing, from a point in time to an event being in existence, significantly alters the vow's duration. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei’s differing opinions on "until before Passover" underscore the complex interpretative challenges, where the precise preposition can create distinct halakhic outcomes.

Two Angles

Angle 1: Rabbi Yannai and the Principle of Attenuation

Rabbi Yannai's position, as explained in the Gemara regarding teruma and its growths, introduces a fascinating principle of attenuation, or the weakening of a prohibition through natural processes.

• The Core Idea: Rabbi Yannai permits teruma based on "growths of growths." This means that if a prohibited item (like teruma) produces a growth, and that growth then produces another growth, the second-generation growth might be permitted. The prohibition, in this view, is not absolute and indelible; it can be diluted or altered by subsequent natural developments.
• Halakhic Basis: This isn't a radical departure but a refinement of existing principles. The Gemara notes that the standard rule is that "growths of growths of teruma are non-sacred produce" (Nedarim 60a, lines 6-7). Rabbi Yannai's contribution, as understood by the Gemara, is to extend this permissibility even to cases where the seeds don't cease (like onions) and where the growth's "increase" exceeds the primary part. This suggests a focus on the quantitative and qualitative transformation of the item.
• Rashi's Perspective: Rashi emphasizes that Rabbi Yannai permits the teruma itself, not just the growths, "due to the majority of growths that sprouted from its growths" (Nedarim 60a, Rashi on line 3). This implies that the sheer abundance of the second-generation growth can effectively override the original prohibition of the teruma itself.

Angle 2: Rabbi Natan and the Metaphor of the Altar

Rabbi Natan, cited by Ravina in the name of Rav Yosef, offers a radically different perspective on the nature of vows, viewing them through the lens of personal piety and the Temple cult.

• The Vow as a Personal Altar: Rabbi Natan states, "Anyone who vows, it is as if he has built a personal altar" (Nedarim 60a, lines 31-32). This is a powerful metaphor. In ancient Israel, all sacrifices were to be brought to the central Temple altar. An individual building their own altar for personal use was an act of unauthorized worship, a severe transgression.
• Fulfilling a Vow as Unauthorized Sacrifice: Consequently, "one who fulfills the vow, is as though he burns portions meant for the altar in the Temple upon it." (Nedarim 60a, lines 32-33). This implies that even when a vow is technically fulfilled, the act of fulfilling it, from Rabbi Natan's perspective, carries a negative connotation, akin to performing a forbidden act of sacrifice.
• Seeking Annulment as Preferable: Therefore, "it is preferable for him to ask a halakhic authority to annul it entirely, so that it will be as if he never took a vow." (Nedarim 60a, lines 34-35). This perspective elevates the act of annulling a vow over its fulfillment. It suggests that the ideal state is to be free from such personal, potentially problematic, commitments. This contrasts sharply with the more legalistic approach that focuses on the precise duration and conditions of the vow. Rabbi Natan's view imbues the act of vowing with a spiritual weight that requires careful consideration and, ideally, avoidance.

Practice Implication

This passage has a profound implication for how we approach personal commitments, particularly those made in moments of strong emotion or conviction. The distinction between "today" and "one day" in the context of vows teaches us the critical importance of precise language.

• Precision in Language: When we make a commitment, whether a personal goal, a promise to a friend, or a spiritual aspiration, the way we articulate it can significantly impact its duration and scope. If we say "I'll start exercising today", are we thinking of a single workout session ending at nightfall, or a 24-hour commitment to a healthier lifestyle? If we say "I'll refrain from X for a week", does that include the upcoming Shabbat? The Talmud's meticulous analysis of temporal units suggests that we should be equally meticulous in our own declarations.
• Considering the "End Point": The Mishna's exploration of how holidays and new months affect the end of vows highlights that our commitments don't exist in a vacuum. They are embedded within larger cycles of time, including sacred time. This means when we set a deadline for ourselves, we should consider how it intersects with existing commitments, natural cycles, and communal observances. For instance, if you commit to a personal project for "a month," and that month ends just before a major holiday, you might want to clarify if your commitment extends through the holiday period or ends before it. This encourages foresight and prevents unintended overlap or premature cessation of effort.
• The Value of Clarity: Ultimately, the Gemara’s debate over Rav Yosef’s decree underscores the rabbinic concern for preventing confusion. In our own lives, ambiguity in commitments can lead to misunderstandings, frustration, and even transgression of our own intentions. Therefore, striving for clarity in our language when making promises or setting goals is not just good practice; it’s a way of honoring the commitment itself and ensuring its integrity.

Chevruta Mini

Question 1: The Power of "Majority" vs. "Intent"

The Gemara introduces the idea that a "majority" of growths can permit the original prohibited item. How does this principle of quantitative transformation relate to the intent behind a vow? If someone vows to abstain from something for a specific period, but then circumstances change drastically, leading to a "majority" of their time being spent in situations where adherence is extremely difficult, should that be seen as a form of “growth” that could permit them to alter their vow, even if their original intent was unwavering?

Question 2: The "Altar" Metaphor and Personal Practice

Rabbi Natan’s metaphor of a vow as building a personal altar, and fulfilling it as sacrificing on it, carries a strong cautionary tone. In our modern lives, we often make personal vows for self-improvement (e.g., "I vow to be more patient"). How should we balance the positive aspiration of such self-vows with Rabbi Natan's concern that they might inadvertently create a problematic personal "altar" that requires annulment rather than diligent fulfillment? Does this mean we should avoid such personal vows altogether, or simply approach them with extreme caution and a readiness to seek annulment?