Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 26, 2015 | 讟壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 33

讜讛讗 诪谉 诪讗讻诇 谞讚专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讘讗讜诪专 讛谞讗转 诪讗讻诇讱 注诇讬

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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.

讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讬诇注讜住 讞讬讟讬谉 讜讬转谉 注诇 诪讻转讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛谞讗讛 讛诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 诪讗讻诇讱 注诇讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖拽 诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 讜讞诪讜专 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讜 驻讬专讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 爪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛谞讗讛 讛诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 诪讗讻诇 讛讜讗 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 住讜住 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讜 讜讟讘注转 诇讬专讗讜转 讘讛 诪讛讜 诪讬驻住拽 讜诪讬讝诇 讘讗专注讬讛 诪讗讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 quick return home, enabling him to eat sooner, what is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讗讘诇 诪砖讗讬诇 诇讜 讞诇讜拽 讜讟诇讬转 谞讝诪讬诐 讜讟讘注讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讗 诇讬专讗讜转 讘讛谉 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬专讗讜转 讘讛谉 讜拽转谞讬 诪砖讗讬诇讜

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鈥檚 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鈥檛 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?

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖诇讗 诇讬专讗讜转 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诪砖讗讬诇讜

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鈥檚 dilemma remains unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 诪拽讜诐 砖诪砖讻讬专讬谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讗住讜专

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.

讙诪壮 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖讻讬专讬谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

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 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 砖讜拽诇 诇讜 讗转 砖拽诇讜 讜驻讜专注 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讜诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讗讘讬讚转讜 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讜讟诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 砖讻专 转驻讜诇 讛谞讗讛 诇讛拽讚砖

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.

讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 讗讘专讜讞讬 讗专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜砖专讬

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讝讜

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

讚讘专讬 讞谞谉 讛讬讗

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

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 讚讬讛讬讘 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 诇驻专讜注

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.

诪讗讬 讞谞谉 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜注诪讚 讗讞讚 讜驻讬专谞住 讗转 讗砖转讜 讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬讘讚 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of 岣nan 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, 岣nan 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.

谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讻讚讘专讬讛诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讬驻讛 讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛谞讬讞 诪注讜转讬讜 注诇 拽专谉 讛爪讘讬

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 Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said: 岣nan 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.

专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诇讗 诇讬驻专注 诪砖讜诐 诇讬驻专注

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 岣nan, 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鈥檌m 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 岣nan.

诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讗讘讬讚转讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讚讻讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚注诐 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 诇讗 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 驻专讜讟讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝

搂 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.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻住讬 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜讟讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

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.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 29-35 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing the power of the spoken word. When someone makes a vow against benefiting from...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 33: Fine-tuning Distinctions

A new chapter! The only real difference between one who swears off benefit from his friend and one who swears...

Nedarim 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 33

讜讛讗 诪谉 诪讗讻诇 谞讚专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讘讗讜诪专 讛谞讗转 诪讗讻诇讱 注诇讬

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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.

讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讬诇注讜住 讞讬讟讬谉 讜讬转谉 注诇 诪讻转讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛谞讗讛 讛诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 诪讗讻诇讱 注诇讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖拽 诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 讜讞诪讜专 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讜 驻讬专讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 爪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛谞讗讛 讛诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 诪讗讻诇 讛讜讗 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 住讜住 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讜 讜讟讘注转 诇讬专讗讜转 讘讛 诪讛讜 诪讬驻住拽 讜诪讬讝诇 讘讗专注讬讛 诪讗讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 quick return home, enabling him to eat sooner, what is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讗讘诇 诪砖讗讬诇 诇讜 讞诇讜拽 讜讟诇讬转 谞讝诪讬诐 讜讟讘注讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讗 诇讬专讗讜转 讘讛谉 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬专讗讜转 讘讛谉 讜拽转谞讬 诪砖讗讬诇讜

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鈥檚 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鈥檛 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?

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖诇讗 诇讬专讗讜转 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诪砖讗讬诇讜

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鈥檚 dilemma remains unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 诪拽讜诐 砖诪砖讻讬专讬谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讗住讜专

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.

讙诪壮 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪砖讻讬专讬谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

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 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 砖讜拽诇 诇讜 讗转 砖拽诇讜 讜驻讜专注 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讜诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讗讘讬讚转讜 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讜讟诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 砖讻专 转驻讜诇 讛谞讗讛 诇讛拽讚砖

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.

讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 讗讘专讜讞讬 讗专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜砖专讬

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讝讜

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

讚讘专讬 讞谞谉 讛讬讗

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

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 讚讬讛讬讘 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 诇驻专讜注

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.

诪讗讬 讞谞谉 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜注诪讚 讗讞讚 讜驻讬专谞住 讗转 讗砖转讜 讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬讘讚 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of 岣nan 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, 岣nan 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.

谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讻讚讘专讬讛诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讬驻讛 讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛谞讬讞 诪注讜转讬讜 注诇 拽专谉 讛爪讘讬

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 Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said: 岣nan 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.

专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诇讗 诇讬驻专注 诪砖讜诐 诇讬驻专注

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 岣nan, 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鈥檌m 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 岣nan.

诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讗讘讬讚转讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讚讻讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚注诐 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 诇讗 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 驻专讜讟讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝

搂 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.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻住讬 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜讟讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

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.

Scroll To Top