If one says in a language of a vow, “I will not eat from someone” they are forbidden from benefitting from their food or even borrowing utensils that are used to prepare food. Why is this the case if one specified eating and not preparing the food? How far is this taken – is one forbidden to borrow a bag in which to put food one is purchasing or a horse to ride on to get the food, jewelry to wear to make one look important so they will get food, use one’s house as a shortcut to get to a place where they will get food? Can we find an answer for this question in the language of our Mishna? The next Mishna says that if the item one is borrowing is not a food-related item but generally is rented, then that is forbidden as well, as the person can now use the money they saved to buy food. The Gemara derives from here that the food-related items mentioned in the previous Mishna that is forbidden must be forbidden even if they generally don’t rent them out for money, which would then mean that the Mishna follows Rabbi Eliezer who holds that even items that don’t have an actual monetary value are forbidden. One who is forbidden to benefit from another, the other person can give their half-shekel to the Temple treasury, can pay back their loan, and can return their lost item. However, if generally one gets paid for returning a lost item and the person did not demand the money, the money must be given to the Temple so as to not allow the person to benefit from the other. The Gemara connects this Mishna with a debate between Chanan and the sons of the high priests that appeared in Ketubot 107b. Does the Mishna follow Chanan as he held that preventing someone from a financial loss is not considered benefit? Or can it be explained according to the sons of the high priests as well? There is a debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi about whether in the reverse case of returning lost items, if the returner was forbidden to benefit from the one who lost something, would it be forbidden or permitted because while returning the lost item, the returner is exempt from giving charity to a poor person. Is that considered a benefit, or is it too uncommon that the poor person would come looking for money at exactly that moment and therefore not considered a benefit?
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Nedarim 33
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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
Raanana, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Nedarim 33
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.
