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

resolve the dilemma from here, as Rav Hoshaya asked: In the case of one who gives two perutot to a woman and says to her: With one of them be betrothed to me today and with one be betrothed to me after I divorce you, what is the halakha? Rav Hoshaya was uncertain whether the second betrothal is effective after the divorce. Bar Padda holds that if he redeems the consecrated saplings, they again become consecrated. Apparently, he holds that upon the redemption, the second consecration immediately goes into effect. From bar Padda’s opinion, one could say: So too, here, after the first marriage is ended by the bill of divorce, the second betrothal that was previously performed takes effect, and it should be a valid betrothal.

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

Rabbi Yirmeya, who had been dozing, woke up when he heard their conversation and said to them: For what reason are you comparing where he redeemed them to where others redeemed them? The halakhot are not similar. This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If he redeemed the saplings, they become consecrated again, but if others redeemed them before they were cut they do not become consecrated again, since they are not in his possession anymore, and the case of a woman given a bill of divorce from her husband is considered as if others redeemed her. This is because upon divorce she is completely independent, and the second marriage can therefore take effect only with her consent. But if she refuses, the betrothal is not valid.

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

It was also stated that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught only that bar Padda holds that the saplings become consecrated again when he redeemed them himself, but when others redeemed them they do not become consecrated again for he cannot consecrate them after they have been in the possession of others, and it no longer depends on his intent.

מתני׳ הנודר מיורדי הים מותר ביושבי היבשה מיושבי היבשה אסור מיורדי הים שיורדי הים בכלל יושבי היבשה לא כאלו שהולכים מעכו ליפו אלא במי שדרכו לפרש

MISHNA: In the case of one who takes a vow that he will not derive benefit from seafarers, he is permitted to benefit from those who live on dry land. But if he takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who live on dry land, he is also prohibited from deriving benefit from seafarers, because seafarers are included within the category of those who live on dry land. The mishna now defines seafarers: Not like those that travel by ship from Akko to Jaffa, which is a short trip, but rather one who customarily departs [lefaresh] to distant locations, e. g., foreign countries.

גמ׳ 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

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s definition of seafarers, there is a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika. One teaches this statement with regard to the first clause of the mishna, and one teaches it with regard to the latter clause. The Gemara explains: The one who teaches it with regard to the first clause teaches it like this: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from seafarers is permitted to derive benefit from those who live on dry land. But he is prohibited from deriving benefit from seafarers, and seafarers are not like those