נדרים לג

נדרים לג

וְהָא מִן מַאֲכָל נָדַר! אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲנָאַת מַאֲכָלְךָ עָלַי״.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t he vow that he is prohibited from partaking of food, and those items are not food items? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The mishna is referring to a case where he says: Benefit from your food is forbidden to me, which includes any benefit associated with food.

אֵימָא שֶׁלֹּא יִלְעוֹס חִיטִּין וְיִתֵּן עַל מַכָּתוֹ! אָמַר רָבָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲנָאָה הַמְּבִיאָה לִידֵי מַאֲכָלְךָ עָלַי״.

The Gemara asks: Say that the result of a vow formulated in that manner is that he may not chew wheat kernels belonging to the one from whose food benefit is forbidden and place them on his wound, as that is a benefit that results from food. However, that vow does not render items used in the preparation of food forbidden. Rava said that the mishna is referring to a case where he says: Benefit that leads to preparation of your food is forbidden to me.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שַׂק לְהָבִיא פֵּירוֹת, וַחֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא עָלָיו פֵּירוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ צַנָּא בְּעָלְמָא, הֲנָאָה הַמְּבִיאָה לִידֵי מַאֲכָל הוּא. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: סוּס לִרְכּוֹב עָלָיו וְטַבַּעַת לֵירָאוֹת בָּהּ, מַהוּ? מִיפְסַק וּמֵיזַל בְּאַרְעֵיהּ, מַאי?

Rav Pappa said: Borrowing from him a sack in which to bring produce, or a donkey upon which to bring produce, or even merely a basket, each renders benefit that leads to food, and this benefit is forbidden. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: If he seeks to borrow a horse upon which to ride or a ring with which to be seen when attending a feast, to create the impression that he is wealthy, what is the ruling? Is it prohibited to borrow these items, since having them in one’s possession may indirectly result in his being served before others or being served higher-quality food; and therefore, borrowing those items provides benefit that leads to food? With regard to traversing and walking on his land that facilitates one’s quick return home, enabling him to eat sooner, what is the halakha?

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֲבָל מַשְׁאִיל לוֹ חָלוּק וְטַלִּית נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁלֹּא לֵירָאוֹת בָּהֶן, צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא לָאו, אֲפִילּוּ לֵירָאוֹת בָּהֶן, וְקָתָנֵי ״מַשְׁאִילוֹ״!

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: However, he may lend him a garment, and a cloak, and nose rings, and finger rings. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of that situation? If we say it is a case where it is not the borrower’s intent to be seen with them, and therefore there is no benefit that leads to food, does this need to be said? The vow rendered only food forbidden. Rather, isn’t this halakha stated even in a case where he borrowed those items to be seen with them, and it is taught in the mishna that he may lend it to him?

לָא, לְעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא לֵירָאוֹת, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא ״לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא ״מַשְׁאִילוֹ״.

The Gemara refutes this. No, actually the mishna is referring to a case where he borrowed those items with the intention not to be seen with them. In response to the question: Is it necessary to say so, the Gemara answers that it is not necessary to teach this halakha. However, since it is taught in the first clause: He may not lend him, when listing the matters that may not be loaned, the tanna taught the latter clause of the mishna with a parallel formulation: He may lend him. Rav Pappa’s dilemma remains unresolved.

מַתְנִי׳ וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ, מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּשְׂכִּירִין כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן — אָסוּר.

MISHNA: And with regard to any item that one does not use in the preparation of food, in a place where one rents items of that kind, that item is forbidden. Meaning, one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow is prohibited from borrowing this type of item from the one who vowed and imposed the prohibition. This is because one can use the money saved by borrowing the item rather than renting it to purchase food.

גְּמָ׳ מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא.

GEMARA: The Gemara states: By inference, one may conclude that the first clause of the mishna, which states that the one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow is prohibited from deriving benefit from utensils used in the preparation of food, e.g., a sieve or a strainer, applies even if they are in a place where one does not rent items of that kind but typically lends them at no cost. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that overlooking is prohibited in the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, שׁוֹקֵל לוֹ אֶת שִׁקְלוֹ וּפוֹרֵעַ אֶת חוֹבוֹ, וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶת אֲבֵידָתוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר — תִּפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

MISHNA: With regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another, if that other person chooses, he may contribute the half-shekel to the Temple on his behalf, and repay his debt, and return his lost item to him, and the one prohibited from benefiting is not considered to have benefited from him. In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property.

גְּמָ׳ אַלְמָא אַבְרוֹחֵי אֲרִי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וּשְׁרֵי.

GEMARA: The mishna allowed one who vowed and imposed the prohibition to pay the financial obligations of the one who is prohibited by vow to derive benefit from him. Based on this, the Gemara concludes: Apparently, repaying his debts is tantamount to merely driving away a lion from him, and it is permitted. He is not actually giving him anything. Rather, he is preventing potential future harm. That is not considered a benefit.

מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: זוֹ

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that in performing the actions listed in the mishna one is merely preventing harm? Rav Hoshaya said: This

דִּבְרֵי חָנָן הִיא.

is the statement of Ḥanan in a dispute pertaining to one who pays the debt of another. Ḥanan holds that he cannot demand to be reimbursed for that payment, since he merely prevented potential damage.

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, גַּבֵּי מוּדָּר הֲנָאָה דְּיָהֵיב עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לִפְרוֹעַ.

Rava said: Even if you say that everyone agrees that this is the halakha, it was stated with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another who borrowed money, and the creditor stipulated that it was on the condition that if he so chooses he does not need to repay the loan. In that case, by repaying the loan, one who vowed and imposed the prohibition did not actually repay his debt.

מַאי חָנָן? דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְעָמַד אֶחָד וּפִירְנֵס אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. חָנָן אָמַר: אִיבֵּד אֶת מְעוֹתָיו.

The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of Ḥanan to which the Gemara referred? The Gemara answers that it is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a husband who went to a country overseas, and one other man arose and supported his wife on his own initiative and then demanded to be reimbursed for that support when the husband returned, Ḥanan said: The one who took the initiative to support the wife lost his money, since the husband neither asked him to do so nor committed to compensate him.

נֶחְלְקוּ עָלָיו בְּנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים, וְאָמְרוּ: יִשָּׁבַע כַּמָּה הוֹצִיא, וְיִטּוֹל. אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: יָפֶה אָמַר חָנָן, הִנִּיחַ מְעוֹתָיו עַל קֶרֶן הַצְּבִי.

The sons of High Priests disagreed with him and said: The one who took the initiative to support his wife will take an oath as to how much he spent and take repayment from the husband. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said in accordance with the statement of the sons of High Priests. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Ḥanan spoke well, as in any case of this type he placed his money on the antler of a deer, i.e., a risky venture with no guaranteed return.

רָבָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּקָא מוֹקֵים לָהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין כְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא לָא אָמַר כְּרָבָא, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁלֹּא לִיפָּרַע מִשּׁוּם לִיפָּרַע.

The Gemara explains the dispute between Rava and Rav Hoshaya with regard to attribution of the mishna: Rava did not say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥanan, as did Rav Hoshaya, and he preferred a different explanation, as he establishes the mishna in accordance with the statements upon which everyone agrees, rather than attributing it to an individual tanna. Rav Hoshaya did not say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of all the tanna’im as did Rava, as there is basis to issue a rabbinic decree prohibiting repayment of a loan for one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow on the condition that he does not need to repay the loan, due to a standard loan that he is required to repay. Therefore, he prefers to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Ḥanan.

מַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶת אֲבֵידָתוֹ. פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מַחְזִיר אֲסוּרִין עַל בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה, דְּכִי מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ — מִידַּעַם דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ. אֲבָל נִכְסֵי בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה אֲסוּרִין עַל מַחְזִיר — לָא קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ, דְּקָא מְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ פְּרוּטָה דְּרַב יוֹסֵף.

§ We learned in the mishna: He returns his lost item to him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree about this. One said: They taught this only in a case where the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item, as when he returns it to him he is returning to him something of his own and is not giving him anything new. Consequently, returning a lost item in no way violates the vow. However, in a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, he may not return it to him, as in that case the owner indirectly benefits the one returning the lost item by enabling him to acquire the peruta of Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said that the legal status of one tending to the return of a lost item is like that of a paid bailee. Since one who is engaged in a mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva, while he is tending to the lost item he is exempt from giving charity to a pauper. Since the one returning the lost item profits from engaging in the return of the lost item, it is prohibited for him to do so, as he is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from the owner of the lost item.

וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִכְסֵי בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה אֲסוּרִין עַל מַחְזִיר מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ, וּמִשּׁוּם פְּרוּטָה דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

And one said: Even in a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, he returns it to him. And with regard to the concern due to the peruta of Rav Yosef, it is not a concern because it is uncommon for a pauper to happen upon a person just when he is tending to the lost item. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is profit in the return of a lost item.