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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 28, 2022 | 讚壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讙

  • 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Nedarim 34

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elliot Hearst in loving memory of his father, Moshe ben Pincus v’Flora on his 32nd yahrzeit yesterday. “He always was and continues to be a shining light in his loved ones’ lives.”聽
There are two versions of the debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi’s understanding of our Mishna. In the first version, one holds the Mishna allows the item to be returned only in the case where the returner’s property was forbidden to the one who lost their item and the other holds the Mishna is referring to both. In the second version, one holds that the case of the Mishna is only when the possessions of the one who lost an item are forbidden to the returner but not in the reverse case and the other holds the Mishna is referring to both. In each version, the Gemara raises a question from the Mishna’s last line: “If it is in a place where people get paid for returning lost items, the money goes to the Temple.” In the first version, the question is resolved. In the second version, it is not. Rava brings a law regarding the transgression of meila, misuse of consecrated property, in a case where one sanctified an ownerless item and then picked it up to either eat it or promised it as an inheritance to one’s children. What is the difference between the cases? Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rava a question: If one says “My loaf is forbidden to you,” and then gifted it to that person, did they mean to forbid it only as long as it was their own and not if they gave it as a gift? Or was the focus of the sentence, it will be forbidden to you, and will therefore be forbidden forever and the person was saying it so as not to have the other pestering them to gift the item to them? Rava answers that the latter is the case, by providing a logical proof, but Rav Chiya questions his logic.

转谞谉 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 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讻住讬 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 谞诪讬 诪讛讚专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 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

We learned in the mishna: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that 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. This explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖谞讻住讬 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 诇讗 诪讛讚专 讗诪讗讬 转驻讜诇 讛谞讗讛 诇讛拽讚砖

However, according to the one who says that 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, and the mishna is referring exclusively to a case where the property of the one returning the lost object is forbidden to the owner of the lost object, why should the benefit fall into the category of consecrated Temple property? It is not prohibited for him to benefit from the property of the owner.

讗讞讚讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna teaches about only one of the cases: The property of the one returning the lost object is forbidden to the owner, and the one returning the lost object refuses to accept compensation. In that case, the owner of the lost item benefits from the one returning the lost object by allowing him to keep the compensation. Therefore, the benefit is donated to the Temple treasury.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 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 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜讟讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讗讘诇 谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 讘注诇 讗讘讚讛 诇讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛

There are those who teach the dispute in this formulation: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree about this. One said: They taught this only in a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, and the concern due to the peruta of Rav Yosef is not a concern, because it is not common. However, in a case where the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item, he may not return it to him, due to the fact that in doing so he benefits him.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讜转专 讚讻讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽诪讛讚专 诇讬讛

And one said: Even if the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item, it is permitted to return it to him, as when he returns it, he is returning to him something of his own and is not giving him anything new.

转谞谉 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 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讛讚专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转专抓 诪拽讜诐

We learned in the mishna: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that even if the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item he returns it to him, this is the reason that it is necessary to resolve the halakha in a place where one takes payment.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讛讚专 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗

However, according to the one who said that in a case where the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item he may not return it to him, how does he explain the halakha taught with regard to a place where one takes payment? Since the mishna is referring to a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, why is it prohibited for the owner of the lost item to keep the payment? It is not prohibited for him to benefit from the property of the one returning the lost item. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬转讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讻讻专 砖诇 讛驻拽专 讜讗诪专 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 谞讟诇讛 诇讗讜讻诇讛 诪注诇 诇驻讬 讻讜诇讛 诇讛讜专讬砖讛 诇讘谞讬讜 诪注诇 诇驻讬 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 砖讘讛

Rava said: In a case where there was a loaf of ownerless bread before a person, and he said: This loaf is consecrated, if he took the loaf to eat it, he misused consecrated property. His repayment to the Temple for that misuse is based on the loaf鈥檚 entire value. However, if his intent was not to take the loaf for himself but to bequeath it to his sons, he misused the consecrated property, and his repayment to the Temple is based on the discretionary benefit that he derived from the fact that his children are indebted to him for the bequest, as he himself derived no direct benefit from the loaf.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪专讘讗 讻讻专讬 注诇讬讱 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛讜 讻讻专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖讜讬转讬讛 讛拽讚砖

Rav 岣yya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rava. If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and then he gave it to him as a gift, what is the halakha? Should one infer: My loaf is forbidden, i.e., he said to him that when the loaf is in his possession, that is when it is forbidden, but when he gives him a gift, it is no longer in his possession and it is no longer forbidden? Or, perhaps the inference is: Forbidden to you, i.e., he said to him that he rendered the loaf for him like a consecrated item that is forbidden even after the loaf is no longer in his possession.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讻讻专讬 注诇讬讱 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚讗讬 讙谞讘讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讙谞讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚讗讬 讗讝诪谞讬讛 注诇讛

Rava said to him: It is obvious that although he gave it to the other person as a gift, it is forbidden. Rav 岣yya bar Avin asked him: But if that is so, when he said: My loaf is forbidden to you, with emphasis on the word my, what does it come to exclude? Does it not come to exclude a case where he stole it from him, as in that case it is permitted? The same would be true if he gave it to him as a gift. Rava said to him: No, it comes to exclude a case where he invited him to eat from the loaf before he vowed. In that case, that part of the loaf that he invited him to eat is his, and the owner cannot render it forbidden. However, even if he invited the other person before he vowed, the entire loaf remains forbidden if he gave it to him as a gift.

  • 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 34: Versions

A mishnah on the previous daf leads into a discussion of what is excluded when one swears off benefit from...

Nedarim 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 34

转谞谉 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 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讻住讬 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 谞诪讬 诪讛讚专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 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

We learned in the mishna: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that 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. This explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖谞讻住讬 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 诇讗 诪讛讚专 讗诪讗讬 转驻讜诇 讛谞讗讛 诇讛拽讚砖

However, according to the one who says that 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, and the mishna is referring exclusively to a case where the property of the one returning the lost object is forbidden to the owner of the lost object, why should the benefit fall into the category of consecrated Temple property? It is not prohibited for him to benefit from the property of the owner.

讗讞讚讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna teaches about only one of the cases: The property of the one returning the lost object is forbidden to the owner, and the one returning the lost object refuses to accept compensation. In that case, the owner of the lost item benefits from the one returning the lost object by allowing him to keep the compensation. Therefore, the benefit is donated to the Temple treasury.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 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 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 诪讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜讟讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讗讘诇 谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 讘注诇 讗讘讚讛 诇讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛

There are those who teach the dispute in this formulation: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree about this. One said: They taught this only in a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, and the concern due to the peruta of Rav Yosef is not a concern, because it is not common. However, in a case where the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item, he may not return it to him, due to the fact that in doing so he benefits him.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讜转专 讚讻讬 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽诪讛讚专 诇讬讛

And one said: Even if the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item, it is permitted to return it to him, as when he returns it, he is returning to him something of his own and is not giving him anything new.

转谞谉 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 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讛讚专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转专抓 诪拽讜诐

We learned in the mishna: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that even if the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item he returns it to him, this is the reason that it is necessary to resolve the halakha in a place where one takes payment.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讞讝讬专 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讛讚专 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗

However, according to the one who said that in a case where the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item he may not return it to him, how does he explain the halakha taught with regard to a place where one takes payment? Since the mishna is referring to a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, why is it prohibited for the owner of the lost item to keep the payment? It is not prohibited for him to benefit from the property of the one returning the lost item. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬转讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讻讻专 砖诇 讛驻拽专 讜讗诪专 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 谞讟诇讛 诇讗讜讻诇讛 诪注诇 诇驻讬 讻讜诇讛 诇讛讜专讬砖讛 诇讘谞讬讜 诪注诇 诇驻讬 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 砖讘讛

Rava said: In a case where there was a loaf of ownerless bread before a person, and he said: This loaf is consecrated, if he took the loaf to eat it, he misused consecrated property. His repayment to the Temple for that misuse is based on the loaf鈥檚 entire value. However, if his intent was not to take the loaf for himself but to bequeath it to his sons, he misused the consecrated property, and his repayment to the Temple is based on the discretionary benefit that he derived from the fact that his children are indebted to him for the bequest, as he himself derived no direct benefit from the loaf.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪专讘讗 讻讻专讬 注诇讬讱 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛讜 讻讻专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖讜讬转讬讛 讛拽讚砖

Rav 岣yya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rava. If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and then he gave it to him as a gift, what is the halakha? Should one infer: My loaf is forbidden, i.e., he said to him that when the loaf is in his possession, that is when it is forbidden, but when he gives him a gift, it is no longer in his possession and it is no longer forbidden? Or, perhaps the inference is: Forbidden to you, i.e., he said to him that he rendered the loaf for him like a consecrated item that is forbidden even after the loaf is no longer in his possession.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讻讻专讬 注诇讬讱 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚讗讬 讙谞讘讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讙谞讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚讗讬 讗讝诪谞讬讛 注诇讛

Rava said to him: It is obvious that although he gave it to the other person as a gift, it is forbidden. Rav 岣yya bar Avin asked him: But if that is so, when he said: My loaf is forbidden to you, with emphasis on the word my, what does it come to exclude? Does it not come to exclude a case where he stole it from him, as in that case it is permitted? The same would be true if he gave it to him as a gift. Rava said to him: No, it comes to exclude a case where he invited him to eat from the loaf before he vowed. In that case, that part of the loaf that he invited him to eat is his, and the owner cannot render it forbidden. However, even if he invited the other person before he vowed, the entire loaf remains forbidden if he gave it to him as a gift.

Scroll To Top