Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:8:1-10

Sugya Map: The Nuances of Vows and Nomenclature

• Issue: The precise scope of a vow of abstention (nedar) when the object of the vow has multiple names or forms, especially when one is a generic term and the other is specific or a product of another.
• Nafka Mina: Determining whether abstaining from "wine" forbids "apple wine," or abstaining from "oil" forbids "sesame oil," and so forth. This hinges on whether the specific item is considered a subset or a distinct entity from the generic term in common parlance and nomenclature. The Yerushalmi extends this discussion to the realm of Seder Zera'im, specifically concerning the Sabbatical year and agricultural produce.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Nedarim 6:1
  • Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:8:1-10
  • Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 53a-b
  • Tosefta Kilayim 1:2
  • Tosefta Sanhedrin 2:5-7
  • Tanakh (e.g., 2 Kings 4:42, 2 Chronicles 30, Isaiah 2:3, Jeremiah 29:1, Leviticus 23:2, Numbers 23:44)

Text Snapshot: "Accompanying Names" and the Weight of Specification

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:8:1-2:

מתני׳ הַמַּפְרִישׁ יַיִן לֹא יַפְרִישׁ אֶלָּא יַיִן תַּפּוּחִים. וְשֶׁמֶן לֹא יַפְרִישׁ אֶלָּא שֶׁמֶן שׁוּמְשְׁמִין. וּדְבַשׁ לֹא יַפְרִישׁ אֶלָּא דְבַשׁ תְּמָרִים. וְחַרְדָּל לֹא יַפְרִישׁ אֶלָּא חַרְדָּל הַיַּיִן. וְכַרְשִׁין לֹא יַפְרִישׁ אֶלָּא כַרְשִׁין שֶׁל שָׂדֶה. וּמִן הַיְרָקוֹת מֻתָּר בִּירָקוֹת שָׂדֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שֵׁם לוּוַי.

MISHNAH: If [one takes a vow] concerning wine, he is forbidden only apple wine. [If concerning] oil, only sesame oil. [If concerning] honey, only date honey. [If concerning] mustard, only wine mustard. [If concerning] leeks, only field leeks. And of vegetables, he is permitted field vegetables, because that is an accompanying name.

Nuance: The Mishnah uses the phrasing "לא יפריש" (lo yafrosh) which here means to set aside or to vow against, rather than the more common "אסור" (asur - forbidden). The key concept introduced is "שם לווי" (shem luvai) – an accompanying or specific name. The Yerushalmi immediately grapples with the applicability of this principle.

הָלָכָה: אָמַר רִבִּי קְרִיסְפּוּס בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַיְנוּ דְּלָא הֲוָה רִבִּי מַתִּיר לְמֵיתֵי יְרָקוֹת לְכָאן. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁהָיָה רִבִּי מַתִּיר לְמֵיתֵי יְרָקוֹת לְכָאן, אֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן כְּלוּם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר, קְפָלוֹטִיס חֲשׁוּבִין לְהִטַּמֵּא בְּשָׁבִיעִית, הַיְנוּ דְּלָא הֲוָה רִבִּי מַתִּיר לְמֵיתֵי יְרָקוֹת לְכָאן. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁהָיָה רִבִּי מַתִּיר לְמֵיתֵי יְרָקוֹת לְכָאן, אֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן כְּלוּם.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Crispus stated in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: This means, as long as Rebbi did not permit to import vegetables into the Land. But since Rebbi permitted to import into the Land, there is no difference between them. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina says, endives are important enough to become impure as food in the Seventh year. This means, as long as Rebbi did not permit to import vegetables into the Land. But since Rebbi permitted to import vegetables into the Land, there is no difference between them.

Nuance: The latter part of the halakhah shifts the discussion from general vows to the laws of Shevi'it (Sabbatical year). The Yerushalmi links the permissibility of "field vegetables" (ירקות שדה) to their importation. The implication is that if such produce was generally unavailable or not considered part of the staple diet, a vow against "vegetables" might not include them. However, once their importation and use became permitted and established, they become intrinsically linked to the general term "vegetables." The specific term "קפלוטיס" (kaplotis), identified as endives, is brought up as a case in point for Shevi'it impurity.

Readings: Distinguishing the Specific from the Generic

Penei Moshe: The Principle of "Shem Luvai"

The Penei Moshe offers a concise explanation of the Mishnah's examples. On "wine," he states: "דכיון שיש לו שם לויי לא מיקרי יין סתם" (Since it has an accompanying name, it is not called plain/generic wine). This means that "apple wine" is distinct from "wine" because of the specific descriptor "apple." The same logic applies to "sesame oil" vs. "oil" ("משמע שמן זית והילכך מותר בשמן שומשמין" - It implies olive oil, and therefore sesame oil is permitted). Similarly, "date honey" is permitted when one vows against "honey" because the generic term "honey" is understood as bee honey, and date honey is a specific type. For leeks, "כרשין" (krashin) is the generic term, and "כרשין של שדה" (krashin shel sadeh – field leeks) is the specific type, thus permitted. The Penei Moshe summarizes this as: "שנקרא ירק השדה ולא ירק סתם" (because it is called "field vegetable" and not just "vegetable").

Korban Ha'edah: Context Matters for "Sitam"

The Korban Ha'edah emphasizes the importance of local custom and context. Regarding oil, he notes: "שסתם שמן של זית הוא ובמקום שמסתפקין משמן שומשמין אף של שומשמין אסור וה"ה בכל השנויים במשנתינו" (That the generic term for oil is olive oil, but in a place where they suffice with sesame oil, even sesame oil is forbidden. This applies to all the examples mentioned in our Mishnah). This introduces a crucial caveat: the default understanding of a generic term can be overridden by local practice. If a community primarily uses sesame oil and refers to it simply as "oil," then a vow against "oil" would likely include sesame oil. This highlights that "סתם" (sitam - generic/plain) is not absolute but relative to common usage in a particular locale. For "field leeks," he reiterates the principle: "הבא לומר ירקות (שדה) צריך לחבר שם לירק ולומר ירקות שדה וכן כולם" (One who wants to refer to [field] vegetables must attach a name to the vegetable and say "field vegetables," and so too all of them). This reinforces the Penei Moshe's point that specificity is key to differentiating from the generic.

Friction: The Interplay of Vow and Importation

The initial examples in the Mishnah (wine, oil, honey, vinegar, leeks) appear to operate on a straightforward principle of nomenclature: a specific type is not encompassed by a general term unless explicitly stated or implied by common usage. The Penei Moshe and Korban Ha'edah support this, with the latter adding the crucial layer of local context determining the meaning of "סתם" (sitam).

However, the Yerushalmi's extension of this discussion to Shevi'it introduces a point of friction. The halakhah states: "If somebody vows not to use wine... Rebbi Crispus stated the reason in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: That means, as long as Rebbi did not permit to import vegetables into the Land. But since Rebbi permitted to import into the Land there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle."

The Kushya (Dilemma): If the principle is simply about names, what does Rebbi's permission to import vegetables have to do with it? Does the halakhic status of produce (permitted import vs. forbidden import) alter its nomenclature or its inclusion in a general vow? The Mishnah's examples seem to be about linguistic categories, not agricultural policy. Why would the permission for importation suddenly make "field vegetables" synonymous with "vegetables" in the context of vows, even beyond the Shevi'it concern?

The Terutz (Resolution): The Yerushalmi is not merely discussing Shevi'it laws in isolation. It is using the Shevi'it context to illustrate a deeper principle about how produce gains its status as a recognized entity. Rebbi's permission to import established "field vegetables" as a legitimate and common part of the diet in the Land of Israel. Prior to this permission, they might have been considered an anomaly, a mere "accompanying name" that didn't rise to the level of a recognized category of "vegetables" in common parlance. Once permitted and integrated, they become part of the general category of "vegetables" in a way that transcends their specific designation.

Think of it this way: Before the importation was permitted, "field vegetables" were like a rare delicacy, distinct from the everyday "vegetables." After the permission, they became commonplace and thus, linguistically and conceptually, merged into the broader category of "vegetables." This isn't just about the name "field vegetables," but about the entity it represents gaining prominence and recognition, thus blurring the lines with the generic term "vegetables." The halakhic permission to import elevates their status from a mere descriptor to a recognized component of the whole.

Intertext: Vows, Specificity, and the Law

Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 53a: The Local Custom Clause

The Babylonian Talmud, in Nedarim 53a, addresses a similar issue and offers a parallel to the Korban Ha'edah's insight:

...אמר רב פפא במקום דלא אית ליה אילני זיתים ודאי שמן שומשמין הוא דקא מתרחיש ליה. והלכך אם נדר מן השמן אסור בשמן שומשמין. אבל במקום דאית ליה אילני זיתים שמן זית הוא דקא מתרחיש ליה. והלכך אם נדר מן השמן מותר בשמן שומשמין.

Rav Pappa said: In a place where there are no olive trees, it is certainly sesame oil that is commonly found. Therefore, if one vowed [not to eat] oil, he is forbidden sesame oil. But in a place where there are olive trees, it is olive oil that is commonly found. Therefore, if one vowed [not to eat] oil, he is permitted sesame oil.

This directly supports the Korban Ha'edah's point that the sitam (plain/generic) term is determined by local prevalence. If sesame oil is the norm where olive oil is absent, the vow against "oil" applies to sesame oil. This demonstrates a consistent principle across the Gemaratein: the definition of a generic term is fluid and dependent on the context of "what is commonly found" (מה שנמצא).

Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Nedarim 9:14: Codifying the "Accompanying Name"

Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, codifies the principle articulated in the Mishnah and elaborated by the commentators:

והעיקר בכל אלו הדברים שאם היה שם נלווה לדבר הרי זה כעין שם נפרד... וכל שכן אם היה הדבר ההוא עיקר במקום ההוא והיה נקרא בשמו ואם היה העיקר נעשה ממנו דבר אחר הרי הדבר האחר מותר...

And the principle in all these matters is that if there was an accompanying name for the thing, it is like a separate name... And all the more so if that thing was primary in that place and was called by its name, and if the primary thing was made into something else, then that other thing is permitted...

Maimonides emphasizes that an "accompanying name" (שם נלווה) renders the item distinct. He further clarifies that if the primary substance is used to create another substance, the latter is permitted. This directly aligns with the Yerushalmi's examples of wine from apples or vinegar from grapes. The distinction is not merely linguistic but ontological: the resultant product is considered a different entity when it possesses a distinct name and origin, even if derived from a common source. This reinforces the idea that the Mishnah's examples are about distinct categories, not mere variations of the same thing.

Psak/Practice: The Default and the Determinative

The halakha derived from this sugya is that a vow against a generic substance generally does not include its specific variations, especially when those variations have distinct names. This is the default position, as reflected in the Mishnah's examples. However, this default can be overridden by:

1. Local Custom: As the Korban Ha'edah and the Babylonian Talmud illustrate, if a specific item is the norm and referred to by the generic term, the vow applies to that specific item. (e.g., Korban Ha'edah on oil, BT Nedarim 53a on sesame oil).
2. Conceptual Merging: As seen in the Yerushalmi's discussion of Shevi'it, if a specific item becomes so integrated and recognized that it is conceptually part of the broader category, the vow may apply. This is less about the name itself and more about the established status of the item.

Therefore, when assessing a vow, one must first consider the generic term and its common understanding. Then, determine if the specific item has a distinct name. If it does, it is generally permitted. However, the analysis must also consider the local context and the recognized status of the item within the broader category.

Takeaway: Nomenclature is Not Absolute, but Context is King.

The precise scope of a vow hinges not just on the literal word, but on the accepted linguistic and practical realities of the community. The Yerushalmi’s dive into Shevi’it illustrates how halachic permission can fundamentally alter the conceptual and practical status of an item, impacting its inclusion in vows.