Nedarim 59

תפשוט דבעי רב הושעיא הנותן שתי פרוטות לאשה ואמר לה באחת התקדשי לי היום ובאחת התקדשי לי לאחר שאגרשיך הכי נמי דהוו קידושי

you may solve the problem of R. Hoshaia. Viz., what if one gives two perutahs to a woman, saying to her, 'Be thou betrothed unto me for one of these to-day. and for the other be thou betrothed unto me after I divorce thee'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the second betrothal valid? ');">¹</span>

איתער בהו רבי ירמיה אמר להו מאי קא מדמיתון פדאן הוא לפדאום אחרים הכי אמר רבי יוחנן פדאן הוא חוזרות וקדושות פדאום אחרים אין חוזרות וקדושות ואשה כפדאוה אחרים דמיא

[Now, from Bar Pada's ruling you may deduce that the second] is indeed [valid] <i>kiddushin</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, just as the plants after redemption revert to their sanctity in virtue of an earlier declaration, so the woman, after being freed by a divorce, will revert to her betrothed state in virtue of the declaration prior thereto — Ran and Asheri. Rashi: For, when the plants are cut down, they should, according to the terms of the vow, lose their sanctity; yet in virtue of the first declaration they retain it until they are redeemed. So here too: though the divorce sets the woman free, the prior declaration is valid insofar as she becomes betrothed again. This interpretation is rather strained. Moreover, it would appear that the deduction is made from the fact that before being cut down the plants revert to their sanctity after being redeemed, and not because they require redemption even after being cut down. In Rashi's favour, however, it may be observed that this law of consecration after redemption is that of the Mishnah as explained both by Bar Pada and by 'Ulla. So that the particular reference to Bar Pada may indicate that the solution in deduced from the continued sanctity of the saplings after they are cut down, which is maintained by Bar Pada only. ');">²</span>

איתמר נמי אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שפדאן הוא אבל פדאום אחרים אין חוזרות וקדושות

This the first the former is duly effective, I would think that it is so even if this concurrent sanctity was imposed only in a supplementary statement. Hence the need for the second clause, viz., that if the second sanctity was not (at the very outset) imposed concurrently with the first, it cannot come into effect. roused R. Jeremiah, and he said to them, Why do you compare redemption by the owner to redemption by others? Thus did R. Johanan say: If he himself redeems them, they revert to their sanctity; but if others redeem them, they do not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since they are redeemed by others, they are no longer under the authority of their first owner, therefore his first declaration is no longer valid. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הנודר מיורדי הים מותר ביושבי היבשה מיושבי היבשה אסור מיורדי הים שיורדי הים בכלל יושבי היבשה לא כאלו שהולכין מעכו ליפו אלא במי שדרכו לפרש

Now a [divorced] woman may be compared to the case of redemption by others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because once divorced, she is no longer under her husband's authority, just as the plants, when redeemed by others, are not under the authority of their first owner. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> רב פפא ורב אחא בריה דרב איקא חד מתני ארישא וחד מתני אסיפא מאן דתני ארישא מתני הכי הנודר מיורדי הים מותר ביושבי יבשה הא ביורדי הים אסור ולא כאלו

It was stated likewise: R. Ammi said in R. Johanan's name: Only if he himself redeems them was this taught [that they revert to their sanctity]; but when others redeem them, they do not revert to their sanctity. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM SEAFARERS, MAY BENEFIT FROM LAND-DWELLERS; FROM LAND-DWELLERS, HE IS FORBIDDEN [TO BENEFIT] EVEN FROM SEAFARERS, BECAUSE SEAFARERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TERM LAND-DWELLERS'; NOT THOSE WHO MERELY TRAVEL FROM ACCO TO JAFFA,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Acco (also called Acre). A city and seaport of Phoenicia on a promontory at the foot of mount Carmel ('Cf. Josephus. Ant, II, 10, 2). Jaffa. A city of Palestine and a Mediterranean Port, 35 miles northwest of Jerusalem. ');">⁵</span> BUT THOSE WHO SAIL AWAY GREAT DISTANCES [FROM LAND]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Papa and R. Aha son of R. Ika — one referred it [the last statement] to the first clause, and the other to the second. Now, he who referred it to the first clause learnt thus: HE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM SEAFARERS MAY BENEFIT FROM LAND-DWELLERS. Hence, he may not benefit from seafarers; NOT THOSE WHO MERELY