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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 5, 2015 | 讬状讞 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • 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.

  • 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 for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 42

Study Guide Nedarim 42


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇驻谞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 诪谉 讛谞讟讬注讜转 讛谞讜讟讜转 谞讚专 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讗讻诇 诇驻谞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛驻讬专讜转 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讬讜专讚 讜讗讜讻诇

MISHNA: In the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden, before, i.e., a year other than the Sabbatical Year, he may neither enter the field of that other person, nor eat from the produce that leans out of the field, even if he does not enter the field. And during the Sabbatical Year, when the produce of the trees is ownerless, he may not enter his field; however, he may eat from the growths that lean out of the field, as the produce does not belong to the other person. If one vowed before the Sabbatical Year that benefit from another鈥檚 food is forbidden for him, he may enter his field; however, he may not eat of the produce. And during the Sabbatical Year, he may enter the field and may eat the produce.

讙诪壮 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 注诇讬讱 诇驻谞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讙讬注 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞讚专 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转

GEMARA: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say that if one vowed before the Sabbatical Year: Benefit from this property is forbidden to you, the other may neither enter his field, nor eat from the produce that leans out of the field, even though the Sabbatical Year arrived in the interim, because the prohibition of the produce took effect before the Sabbatical Year and remained in effect after the Sabbatical Year began. And if he vowed during the Sabbatical Year, he may not enter a field that is included in that property; however, he may eat from the produce that leans out of the field, because the produce was ownerless when he vowed.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞讻住讬 注诇讬讱 诇驻谞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转 讛讙讬注 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讗转 讛谞讜讟讜转

And it is Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish who both say that if one vowed before the Sabbatical Year: Benefit from my property is forbidden to you, the other may neither enter his field nor eat from the produce that leans out of the field. When the Sabbatical Year arrives, he may not enter his field; however, he may eat from the produce that leans out of the field, because the produce is ownerless.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专讬 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this, that Rav and Shmuel hold: A person can render an item in his possession forbidden, and the prohibition remains in effect even when it leaves his possession. Since he rendered the produce forbidden before the Sabbatical Year, the prohibition remains in effect after the produce becomes ownerless during the Sabbatical Year. And Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish hold: A person cannot render an item in his possession forbidden and have the prohibition remain in effect when it leaves his possession. Therefore, it is permitted to eat the produce during the Sabbatical Year.

讜转住讘专讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬驻诇讙讬 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘谞讻住讬

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it in that manner? Is there anyone who says that a person cannot render an item in his possession forbidden and have the prohibition remain in effect when it leaves his possession? If so, if Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish hold that one cannot do so, let them disagree in the case of one who said: Benefit from this property is forbidden to you, and that would be true all the more so if he said: Benefit from my property is forbidden to you. In the latter case, it is clear that the prohibition remains in effect only as long as the item remains in his possession.

讜转讜 讛讗 转谞谉 讚讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讘谞讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗转讛 谞讛谞讛 诇讬 诪转 讬讬专砖谞讜 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讘诪讜转讜

And furthermore, didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Kamma 108b) that a person can render an item in his possession forbidden and the prohibition remains in effect when it leaves his possession? This is as we learned in a mishna, that with regard to one who says to his son: Benefit from my property is konam for you, if the father dies, the son will inherit him. He is not deriving benefit from his father鈥檚 property, as after death it is no longer his. If the father vowed to render benefit from his property forbidden to his son during his lifetime and upon his death,

讗诐 诪转 诇讗 讬讬专砖谞讜 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讘诪讜转讜

then if the father dies, his son does not inherit from him. Apparently, one can render his property forbidden and have it remain forbidden after it is no longer in his possession. The Gemara rejects that proof: It is different here, as he said to him explicitly: During his lifetime and upon his death. There is no proof that in a case where he did not explicitly extend the prohibition to the period after it leaves his possession, the prohibition would not remain in effect.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞讻住讬

The second question was answered, but in any case the first question remains difficult: Why didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree in a case where he said: This property, as well? Rather, this is the explanation of their dispute: In the case of one who said: Benefit from this property is forbidden to you, everyone agrees that the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession. When they disagree, it is in the case of one who said: Benefit from my property is forbidden to you.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讻住讬 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘专讬 谞讻住讬诐 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 谞讻住讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专

Rav and Shmuel hold: It is no different if he said: This property, and it is no different if he said: My property; in both cases, a person renders an item forbidden and the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession. And Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish hold: If one said: Property, a person renders an item forbidden and the prohibition remains in effect. However, if he said: My property, a person does not render an item forbidden for the period after it is no longer in his possession, as the phrase my property means property in my possession.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讻住讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讱 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 砖讚讱 砖讗谞讬 诇讜拽讞 诪转 讗讜 砖诪讻专讜 诇讗讞专 诪讜转专 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 砖讚讛 讝讜 砖讗谞讬 诇讜拽讞 诪转 讗讜 砖诪讻专讜 诇讗讞专 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: And is there anyone who says that it is no different if he said: This property, and it is no different if he said: My property, and that the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (46a): If one says to another: Entering into your house is konam for me, or: Buying your field is konam for me, then if the owner died or sold the property to another, it is permitted for the one who vowed to enter the house or buy the field, as the prohibition is in effect only as long as it belongs to that person. However, if he said: Entering this house is konam for me, or: Buying this field is konam for me, then if the owner died or sold the property to another, it remains forbidden. Apparently, there is a difference between a case where he simply renders an item forbidden and a case where he renders an item belonging to a particular individual forbidden.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘谞讻住讬 讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Rather, this is the explanation of the statements of the amora鈥檌m: When Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish said that the prohibition is no longer in effect after the item is no longer in his possession, it was in a case where he said: My property. And when Rav and Shmuel said that the prohibition remains in effect after the item is no longer in his possession, it was in a case where he said: This property. And they do not disagree, as each pair of amora鈥檌m addressed a different situation.

讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转 讚驻讬专讬 讚讛驻拽讬专讗 讗讬谞讜谉 讗专注讗 谞诪讬 讗驻拽专讛

We learned in the mishna: And during the Sabbatical Year he may not enter his field; however, he eats from the produce that leans out of the field. The Gemara asks: What is different about the Sabbatical Year that he is permitted to eat of the produce that leans out of the field? It is due to the fact that the produce is ownerless. With regard to land as well, the Torah rendered it ownerless, as during the Sabbatical Year, it is permitted for everyone to enter the field and eat the produce.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 讗讬诇谞讜转 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 讘注诪讬讚讛

Ulla said: The mishna is referring to a case where the fruit trees are standing on the borders of the field. Since it is possible to eat the produce without entering the field, it is not permitted for him to enter it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said: Even in a case where the fruit trees are standing in the middle of the field, it is also prohibited for him to enter the field, due to a rabbinic decree lest he remain standing there longer than necessary for purposes of eating, which is prohibited even during the Sabbatical Year.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 讜诇讗 讬砖讗诇 诪诪谞讜 诇讗 讬诇讜谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诇讜讛 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 诇讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讞 诪诪谞讜

MISHNA: In the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, that other person may neither lend an item to him nor borrow an item from him. Similarly, he may neither lend money to him nor borrow money from him. And he may neither sell an item to him nor purchase an item from him.

  • 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.

  • 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 for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 42

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇驻谞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 诪谉 讛谞讟讬注讜转 讛谞讜讟讜转 谞讚专 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讗讻诇 诇驻谞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛驻讬专讜转 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讬讜专讚 讜讗讜讻诇

MISHNA: In the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden, before, i.e., a year other than the Sabbatical Year, he may neither enter the field of that other person, nor eat from the produce that leans out of the field, even if he does not enter the field. And during the Sabbatical Year, when the produce of the trees is ownerless, he may not enter his field; however, he may eat from the growths that lean out of the field, as the produce does not belong to the other person. If one vowed before the Sabbatical Year that benefit from another鈥檚 food is forbidden for him, he may enter his field; however, he may not eat of the produce. And during the Sabbatical Year, he may enter the field and may eat the produce.

讙诪壮 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 注诇讬讱 诇驻谞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讙讬注 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞讚专 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转

GEMARA: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say that if one vowed before the Sabbatical Year: Benefit from this property is forbidden to you, the other may neither enter his field, nor eat from the produce that leans out of the field, even though the Sabbatical Year arrived in the interim, because the prohibition of the produce took effect before the Sabbatical Year and remained in effect after the Sabbatical Year began. And if he vowed during the Sabbatical Year, he may not enter a field that is included in that property; however, he may eat from the produce that leans out of the field, because the produce was ownerless when he vowed.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞讻住讬 注诇讬讱 诇驻谞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转 讛讙讬注 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讗转 讛谞讜讟讜转

And it is Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish who both say that if one vowed before the Sabbatical Year: Benefit from my property is forbidden to you, the other may neither enter his field nor eat from the produce that leans out of the field. When the Sabbatical Year arrives, he may not enter his field; however, he may eat from the produce that leans out of the field, because the produce is ownerless.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专讬 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this, that Rav and Shmuel hold: A person can render an item in his possession forbidden, and the prohibition remains in effect even when it leaves his possession. Since he rendered the produce forbidden before the Sabbatical Year, the prohibition remains in effect after the produce becomes ownerless during the Sabbatical Year. And Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish hold: A person cannot render an item in his possession forbidden and have the prohibition remain in effect when it leaves his possession. Therefore, it is permitted to eat the produce during the Sabbatical Year.

讜转住讘专讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬驻诇讙讬 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘谞讻住讬

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it in that manner? Is there anyone who says that a person cannot render an item in his possession forbidden and have the prohibition remain in effect when it leaves his possession? If so, if Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish hold that one cannot do so, let them disagree in the case of one who said: Benefit from this property is forbidden to you, and that would be true all the more so if he said: Benefit from my property is forbidden to you. In the latter case, it is clear that the prohibition remains in effect only as long as the item remains in his possession.

讜转讜 讛讗 转谞谉 讚讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讘谞讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗转讛 谞讛谞讛 诇讬 诪转 讬讬专砖谞讜 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讘诪讜转讜

And furthermore, didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Kamma 108b) that a person can render an item in his possession forbidden and the prohibition remains in effect when it leaves his possession? This is as we learned in a mishna, that with regard to one who says to his son: Benefit from my property is konam for you, if the father dies, the son will inherit him. He is not deriving benefit from his father鈥檚 property, as after death it is no longer his. If the father vowed to render benefit from his property forbidden to his son during his lifetime and upon his death,

讗诐 诪转 诇讗 讬讬专砖谞讜 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讘诪讜转讜

then if the father dies, his son does not inherit from him. Apparently, one can render his property forbidden and have it remain forbidden after it is no longer in his possession. The Gemara rejects that proof: It is different here, as he said to him explicitly: During his lifetime and upon his death. There is no proof that in a case where he did not explicitly extend the prohibition to the period after it leaves his possession, the prohibition would not remain in effect.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞讻住讬

The second question was answered, but in any case the first question remains difficult: Why didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree in a case where he said: This property, as well? Rather, this is the explanation of their dispute: In the case of one who said: Benefit from this property is forbidden to you, everyone agrees that the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession. When they disagree, it is in the case of one who said: Benefit from my property is forbidden to you.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讻住讬 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘专讬 谞讻住讬诐 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 谞讻住讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专

Rav and Shmuel hold: It is no different if he said: This property, and it is no different if he said: My property; in both cases, a person renders an item forbidden and the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession. And Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish hold: If one said: Property, a person renders an item forbidden and the prohibition remains in effect. However, if he said: My property, a person does not render an item forbidden for the period after it is no longer in his possession, as the phrase my property means property in my possession.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讻住讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讱 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 砖讚讱 砖讗谞讬 诇讜拽讞 诪转 讗讜 砖诪讻专讜 诇讗讞专 诪讜转专 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 砖讚讛 讝讜 砖讗谞讬 诇讜拽讞 诪转 讗讜 砖诪讻专讜 诇讗讞专 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: And is there anyone who says that it is no different if he said: This property, and it is no different if he said: My property, and that the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (46a): If one says to another: Entering into your house is konam for me, or: Buying your field is konam for me, then if the owner died or sold the property to another, it is permitted for the one who vowed to enter the house or buy the field, as the prohibition is in effect only as long as it belongs to that person. However, if he said: Entering this house is konam for me, or: Buying this field is konam for me, then if the owner died or sold the property to another, it remains forbidden. Apparently, there is a difference between a case where he simply renders an item forbidden and a case where he renders an item belonging to a particular individual forbidden.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘谞讻住讬 讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇讜 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Rather, this is the explanation of the statements of the amora鈥檌m: When Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish said that the prohibition is no longer in effect after the item is no longer in his possession, it was in a case where he said: My property. And when Rav and Shmuel said that the prohibition remains in effect after the item is no longer in his possession, it was in a case where he said: This property. And they do not disagree, as each pair of amora鈥檌m addressed a different situation.

讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛谞讜讟讜转 讚驻讬专讬 讚讛驻拽讬专讗 讗讬谞讜谉 讗专注讗 谞诪讬 讗驻拽专讛

We learned in the mishna: And during the Sabbatical Year he may not enter his field; however, he eats from the produce that leans out of the field. The Gemara asks: What is different about the Sabbatical Year that he is permitted to eat of the produce that leans out of the field? It is due to the fact that the produce is ownerless. With regard to land as well, the Torah rendered it ownerless, as during the Sabbatical Year, it is permitted for everyone to enter the field and eat the produce.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 讗讬诇谞讜转 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 讘注诪讬讚讛

Ulla said: The mishna is referring to a case where the fruit trees are standing on the borders of the field. Since it is possible to eat the produce without entering the field, it is not permitted for him to enter it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said: Even in a case where the fruit trees are standing in the middle of the field, it is also prohibited for him to enter the field, due to a rabbinic decree lest he remain standing there longer than necessary for purposes of eating, which is prohibited even during the Sabbatical Year.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 讜诇讗 讬砖讗诇 诪诪谞讜 诇讗 讬诇讜谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诇讜讛 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 诇讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讞 诪诪谞讜

MISHNA: In the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, that other person may neither lend an item to him nor borrow an item from him. Similarly, he may neither lend money to him nor borrow money from him. And he may neither sell an item to him nor purchase an item from him.

Scroll To Top