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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 7, 2022 | ื™ืดื’ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • 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.

Nedarim 43

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Rochie Sommer in celebration of her 2-year anniversary starting daf yomi, “With tremendous thanks to my inspirations, my mom, Meryl Sasnowitz, and our wonderful Rabbanit Michelle.”
Why is it forbidden to not only borrow from but also to lend to someone one is forbidden by a vow to benefit from? If one won’t lend one’s cow to the other and the other vows never to use that cow to plow their field, is it only forbidden for the one who vowed, but others can do it for them? On what does it depend? The Mishna describes a number of different situations where one wants to help another in need when the needy one is forbidden by a vow to benefit from the other – in what way is one able to help in an indirect manner? In the last situation in the Mishna, two people are walking and one is in need of food. The other can put his food down, render it ownerless and the other can then take it. Rabbi Yosi disagrees and doesn’t allow that. Rabbi Yochanan explains the basis for Rabbi Yosi’s opinion – items that are rendered ownerless, only leave the possession of the owner when someone else picks them up, as with a gift. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty with this, base don a braita, but he himself resolves the difficulty. Rava raises another difficulty and therefore explains Rabbi Yosi’s opinion differently. He understands that the reason is due to an ordinance that rabbis instituted after a case that happened in Beit Horon that is discussed in a Mishna in Nedarim 48a. If one declares items ownerless, one can retract their declaration for up to three days.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœื ื™ืœื•ื ื• ื“ืงื ืžื”ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืœื ื™ืœื•ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื”ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœื ื™ืœื•ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืงื— ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื“ืงืžื™ืชื”ื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืœื ืœื ื™ืฉืืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืชื”ื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื”


GEMARA: Granted that the person from whom benefit is forbidden may not lend money to the person for whom benefit is forbidden, as he thereby benefits him. However, with regard to the fact that the former may not borrow money from the latter, in what way does he benefit him by borrowing his money? And it could even be said, granted that he may neither borrow money from him nor purchase an item from him, as one benefits in lending money by preserving the value of that money in case the coins deteriorate, and in selling by ridding oneself an item that is difficult to sell. However, with regard to the fact that the person from whom benefit is forbidden may not borrow an item from the person for whom benefit is forbidden, in what way does the lender benefit from him? The borrower returns the same item to the lender.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื“ืจื• ื”ื ืื” ื–ื” ืžื–ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืœืฉืื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืœื”ืฉืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื”:


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said: The mishna is referring to a case where they both vowed that benefit from each other is forbidden. Clearly, then, neither of them may lend to the other or borrow from him. Abaye said: It is possible to explain the mishna as it is written, as referring to a case where only one vowed that benefit from the other is forbidden. However, the Sages issued a decree that it is also prohibited for one to borrow from a person for whom benefit from him is forbidden, due to the concern that he might come to lend to him, as reciprocity is common in these matters. And likewise, that is the explanation in all the cases in the mishna; it is prohibited to borrow money, borrow items, and to purchase items from him due to a rabbinic decree, lest he come to benefit him.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉืื™ืœื ื™ ืคืจืชืš ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื™ื ื” ืคื ื•ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืฉื“ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ื—ื•ืจืฉ ื‘ื” ืœืขื•ืœื ืื ื”ื™ื” ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื—ืจื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ื•ืื ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื—ืจื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ


MISHNA: One said to another: Lend me your cow. The other person said to him: My cow is not available. The one seeking to borrow the cow responded angrily: Plowing my field with this cow is konam forever. If it was his typical manner to plow the field himself, then it is prohibited for him to plow his field with that cow but it is permitted for every other person. If it is not his typical manner to plow the field himself, and he has others plow for him, it is prohibited for him and for every other person to plow his field with that cow, because his intent was to render benefit from plowing with this cow forbidden.


ื”ืžื•ื“ืจ ื”ื ืื” ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžื” ื™ืื›ืœ ื”ื•ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื”ื—ื ื•ื ื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืžื ื™ ื”ื ืื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžื” ืืขืฉื” ื•ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื•ื‘ื ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืžื–ื”


In the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow and who does not have anything to eat, the one from whom benefit is forbidden goes to the shopkeeper and says to him: So-and-so vowed that benefit from me is forbidden for him and I do not know what I will do. After grasping his intent, the shopkeeper gives food to the one for whom benefit is forbidden, and then the shopkeeper comes and takes payment for the food from that one who spoke to him.


ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื‘ื ื•ืช ื’ื“ืจื• ืœื’ื“ื•ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœืงืฆื•ืจ ื”ื•ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื”ืคื•ืขืœื™ื ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื•ื“ืจ ืžืžื ื™ ื”ื ืื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžื” ืืขืฉื” ื•ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขืžื• ื•ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืจ ืžื–ื”


Similarly, if the house of one for whom benefit is forbidden by a vow was to be built, his fence to be erected, or his field to be harvested, and laborers were required but he had no money to hire them, the one from whom benefit is forbidden goes to the laborers and says to them: Benefit from me is forbidden by vow to so-and-so and I do not know what I will do. And the laborers perform those tasks with him, and come and take payment for their labor from that person who approached them.


ื”ื™ื• ืžื”ืœื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžื” ื™ืื›ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ืžืชื ื” ื•ื”ืœื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื” ืื ืื™ืŸ ืขืžื”ื ืื—ืจ ืžื ื™ื— ืขืœ ื”ืกืœืข ืื• ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ืจ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืงืจื™ื ืœื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ื—ืคื•ืฅ ื•ื”ืœื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื•ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืกืจ:


If the one who vowed to render benefit from him forbidden and the one for whom benefit is forbidden were traveling together along the road and the one for whom benefit is forbidden does not have anything to eat, the one who from whom benefit is forbidden gives food to one other person as a gift, and it is permitted for that person for whom benefit is forbidden to eat the food because it no longer belongs to the one from whom benefit is forbidden. If there is no other person with them, the one who vowed places the food on the nearest rock or on the nearest fence and says: These food items are hereby rendered ownerless and are available to anyone who wants them. Then that person for whom benefit is forbidden takes and eats the food. Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ื”ืคืงืจ ื›ืžืชื ื” ืžื” ืžืชื ื” ืขื“ ื“ืืชื™ื ืžืจืฉื•ืช ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืจืฉื•ืช ืžืงื‘ืœ ืืฃ ื”ืคืงืจ ืขื“ ื“ืืชื™ื ืœืจืฉื•ืช ื–ื•ื›ื”


GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei whether one from whom benefit is forbidden to another can give the other person food by declaring the food ownerless, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? He holds that the legal status of the process of rendering property ownerless is like that of the acquisition of a gift. Just as acquisition of a gift is not complete until the item comes from the possession of the one who gives the gift into the possession of the one who receives the gift, so too, the process of rendering property ownerless is not complete until the item comes into the possession of the one who acquires it. According to Rabbi Yosei, it is prohibited for the one for whom benefit is forbidden to take the food that was declared ownerless. Since it still belongs to the one from whom benefit is forbidden, by taking the food he derives forbidden benefit from him.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื•ื”ืœื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื•ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืกืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื ื“ืจื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื”ืคืงื™ืจื•


Rabbi Abba raises an objection from a baraita: And then that person takes and eats the food; and Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so. Rabbi Yosei said: When is it prohibited to do so? When his vow predates his declaration that the food is ownerless. In that case, the vow took effect on all his possessions, including those that he later declared ownerless.


ืื‘ืœ ืื ื”ื™ื” ื”ืคืงื™ืจื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื ื“ืจื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืขื“ ื“ืืชื™ ืœืจืฉื•ืช ื–ื•ื›ื” ืžื” ืœื™ ื ื“ืจื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื”ืคืงื™ืจื• ืžื” ืœื™ ื”ืคืงื™ืจื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื ื“ืจื•


However, if his declaration that the food is ownerless predates his vow, it is permitted for the other person to eat the food. And if you say that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is because the food remains in the possession of the owner until it comes into the possession of the one who acquires it, what is different for me if his vow predates his declaration that the food is ownerless, and what is different for me if his declaration that the food is ownerless predates his vow? In any event, the item remains in the possession of its owner and the one for whom benefit is forbidden benefits from it.


ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืฉื ื™ ืœื” ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื“ืขืชื• ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืงื™ืจ


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abba raised the objection and he answered that objection. The difference between the cases does not relate to the halakhot of ownerless property; rather, it relates to the nature of vows. The intent of anyone who vows is that the vow not apply to an item that he rendered ownerless. Therefore, when he declares the food ownerless and then vows, he does not intend to include the ownerless food in his vow, and the prohibition does not take effect upon it.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ืžืงืฆืชืŸ ืœืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงื ื”


Rava raised an objection: With regard to a person on his deathbed who ordered his executor to distribute all his property, if he recovers, he may retract the gift. However, if he ordered him to distribute only a portion of his property and kept the rest, he cannot retract the gift. If he ordered him to distribute his property to two people and said: A portion of the property is given to the first person and all of the remaining property is given to the second person, then if he recovered, the first person acquired the property that was given him, as it was a partial gift.


ืฉื ื™ ืœื ืงื ื”


And the second person did not acquire the property that was given him, as it was a gift of all his remaining property, which can be retracted. Although the first person did not yet acquire the property, as the person on his deathbed did not die, the property is no longer considered to be in the possession of the one who owned it. This is clear from the fact that if it were still in his possession, the gift to the second person would not be a gift of all his remaining property. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: Acquisition of a gift is not complete until the item comes from the possession of the one who gives the gift into the possession of the one who receives the gift.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžืชื ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื—ื•ืจื•ืŸ


Rather, Rava said that this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree for the one for whom benefit is forbidden to take food that was declared ownerless, due to the gift of Beit แธคoron. An incident occurred in Beit แธคoron involving a person who employed artifice and gave a gift to another to circumvent a vow. The Sages ruled that artifice of that sort is forbidden. Here too, when he renounced ownership he merely employed artifice to circumvent the vow.


ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืืช ืฉื“ื”ื• ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื•


It is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who declares his field ownerless, for the entire three days after that declaration he is able to retract it. From this point forward, he is unable to retract the declaration.

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • 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.

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: 42-50 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will continue to learn about inclusions and exceptions to a vow prohibiting someone from benefiting from someone else. We...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 43: Very Helpful Work-Arounds

A new mishnah: When one wants to borrow a cow (!), and the cow isn't available, which leads the would-be...

Nedarim 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 43

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœื ื™ืœื•ื ื• ื“ืงื ืžื”ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืœื ื™ืœื•ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื”ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœื ื™ืœื•ื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ื™ืงื— ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื“ืงืžื™ืชื”ื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืœื ืœื ื™ืฉืืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืชื”ื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื”


GEMARA: Granted that the person from whom benefit is forbidden may not lend money to the person for whom benefit is forbidden, as he thereby benefits him. However, with regard to the fact that the former may not borrow money from the latter, in what way does he benefit him by borrowing his money? And it could even be said, granted that he may neither borrow money from him nor purchase an item from him, as one benefits in lending money by preserving the value of that money in case the coins deteriorate, and in selling by ridding oneself an item that is difficult to sell. However, with regard to the fact that the person from whom benefit is forbidden may not borrow an item from the person for whom benefit is forbidden, in what way does the lender benefit from him? The borrower returns the same item to the lender.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื“ืจื• ื”ื ืื” ื–ื” ืžื–ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืœืฉืื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืœื”ืฉืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื”:


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said: The mishna is referring to a case where they both vowed that benefit from each other is forbidden. Clearly, then, neither of them may lend to the other or borrow from him. Abaye said: It is possible to explain the mishna as it is written, as referring to a case where only one vowed that benefit from the other is forbidden. However, the Sages issued a decree that it is also prohibited for one to borrow from a person for whom benefit from him is forbidden, due to the concern that he might come to lend to him, as reciprocity is common in these matters. And likewise, that is the explanation in all the cases in the mishna; it is prohibited to borrow money, borrow items, and to purchase items from him due to a rabbinic decree, lest he come to benefit him.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉืื™ืœื ื™ ืคืจืชืš ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื™ื ื” ืคื ื•ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืฉื“ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ื—ื•ืจืฉ ื‘ื” ืœืขื•ืœื ืื ื”ื™ื” ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื—ืจื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ื•ืื ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื—ืจื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ


MISHNA: One said to another: Lend me your cow. The other person said to him: My cow is not available. The one seeking to borrow the cow responded angrily: Plowing my field with this cow is konam forever. If it was his typical manner to plow the field himself, then it is prohibited for him to plow his field with that cow but it is permitted for every other person. If it is not his typical manner to plow the field himself, and he has others plow for him, it is prohibited for him and for every other person to plow his field with that cow, because his intent was to render benefit from plowing with this cow forbidden.


ื”ืžื•ื“ืจ ื”ื ืื” ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžื” ื™ืื›ืœ ื”ื•ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื”ื—ื ื•ื ื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืžื ื™ ื”ื ืื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžื” ืืขืฉื” ื•ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื•ื‘ื ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืžื–ื”


In the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow and who does not have anything to eat, the one from whom benefit is forbidden goes to the shopkeeper and says to him: So-and-so vowed that benefit from me is forbidden for him and I do not know what I will do. After grasping his intent, the shopkeeper gives food to the one for whom benefit is forbidden, and then the shopkeeper comes and takes payment for the food from that one who spoke to him.


ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื‘ื ื•ืช ื’ื“ืจื• ืœื’ื“ื•ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœืงืฆื•ืจ ื”ื•ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื”ืคื•ืขืœื™ื ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื•ื“ืจ ืžืžื ื™ ื”ื ืื” ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžื” ืืขืฉื” ื•ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขืžื• ื•ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืจ ืžื–ื”


Similarly, if the house of one for whom benefit is forbidden by a vow was to be built, his fence to be erected, or his field to be harvested, and laborers were required but he had no money to hire them, the one from whom benefit is forbidden goes to the laborers and says to them: Benefit from me is forbidden by vow to so-and-so and I do not know what I will do. And the laborers perform those tasks with him, and come and take payment for their labor from that person who approached them.


ื”ื™ื• ืžื”ืœื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžื” ื™ืื›ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืื—ื“ ืœืฉื•ื ืžืชื ื” ื•ื”ืœื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื” ืื ืื™ืŸ ืขืžื”ื ืื—ืจ ืžื ื™ื— ืขืœ ื”ืกืœืข ืื• ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ืจ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืงืจื™ื ืœื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ื—ืคื•ืฅ ื•ื”ืœื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื•ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืกืจ:


If the one who vowed to render benefit from him forbidden and the one for whom benefit is forbidden were traveling together along the road and the one for whom benefit is forbidden does not have anything to eat, the one who from whom benefit is forbidden gives food to one other person as a gift, and it is permitted for that person for whom benefit is forbidden to eat the food because it no longer belongs to the one from whom benefit is forbidden. If there is no other person with them, the one who vowed places the food on the nearest rock or on the nearest fence and says: These food items are hereby rendered ownerless and are available to anyone who wants them. Then that person for whom benefit is forbidden takes and eats the food. Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ื”ืคืงืจ ื›ืžืชื ื” ืžื” ืžืชื ื” ืขื“ ื“ืืชื™ื ืžืจืฉื•ืช ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœืจืฉื•ืช ืžืงื‘ืœ ืืฃ ื”ืคืงืจ ืขื“ ื“ืืชื™ื ืœืจืฉื•ืช ื–ื•ื›ื”


GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei whether one from whom benefit is forbidden to another can give the other person food by declaring the food ownerless, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? He holds that the legal status of the process of rendering property ownerless is like that of the acquisition of a gift. Just as acquisition of a gift is not complete until the item comes from the possession of the one who gives the gift into the possession of the one who receives the gift, so too, the process of rendering property ownerless is not complete until the item comes into the possession of the one who acquires it. According to Rabbi Yosei, it is prohibited for the one for whom benefit is forbidden to take the food that was declared ownerless. Since it still belongs to the one from whom benefit is forbidden, by taking the food he derives forbidden benefit from him.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื•ื”ืœื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื•ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืกืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื ื“ืจื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื”ืคืงื™ืจื•


Rabbi Abba raises an objection from a baraita: And then that person takes and eats the food; and Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so. Rabbi Yosei said: When is it prohibited to do so? When his vow predates his declaration that the food is ownerless. In that case, the vow took effect on all his possessions, including those that he later declared ownerless.


ืื‘ืœ ืื ื”ื™ื” ื”ืคืงื™ืจื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื ื“ืจื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืขื“ ื“ืืชื™ ืœืจืฉื•ืช ื–ื•ื›ื” ืžื” ืœื™ ื ื“ืจื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื”ืคืงื™ืจื• ืžื” ืœื™ ื”ืคืงื™ืจื• ืงื•ื“ื ืœื ื“ืจื•


However, if his declaration that the food is ownerless predates his vow, it is permitted for the other person to eat the food. And if you say that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is because the food remains in the possession of the owner until it comes into the possession of the one who acquires it, what is different for me if his vow predates his declaration that the food is ownerless, and what is different for me if his declaration that the food is ownerless predates his vow? In any event, the item remains in the possession of its owner and the one for whom benefit is forbidden benefits from it.


ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืฉื ื™ ืœื” ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื“ืขืชื• ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืงื™ืจ


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abba raised the objection and he answered that objection. The difference between the cases does not relate to the halakhot of ownerless property; rather, it relates to the nature of vows. The intent of anyone who vows is that the vow not apply to an item that he rendered ownerless. Therefore, when he declares the food ownerless and then vows, he does not intend to include the ownerless food in his vow, and the prohibition does not take effect upon it.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ืžืงืฆืชืŸ ืœืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงื ื”


Rava raised an objection: With regard to a person on his deathbed who ordered his executor to distribute all his property, if he recovers, he may retract the gift. However, if he ordered him to distribute only a portion of his property and kept the rest, he cannot retract the gift. If he ordered him to distribute his property to two people and said: A portion of the property is given to the first person and all of the remaining property is given to the second person, then if he recovered, the first person acquired the property that was given him, as it was a partial gift.


ืฉื ื™ ืœื ืงื ื”


And the second person did not acquire the property that was given him, as it was a gift of all his remaining property, which can be retracted. Although the first person did not yet acquire the property, as the person on his deathbed did not die, the property is no longer considered to be in the possession of the one who owned it. This is clear from the fact that if it were still in his possession, the gift to the second person would not be a gift of all his remaining property. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: Acquisition of a gift is not complete until the item comes from the possession of the one who gives the gift into the possession of the one who receives the gift.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžืชื ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื—ื•ืจื•ืŸ


Rather, Rava said that this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree for the one for whom benefit is forbidden to take food that was declared ownerless, due to the gift of Beit แธคoron. An incident occurred in Beit แธคoron involving a person who employed artifice and gave a gift to another to circumvent a vow. The Sages ruled that artifice of that sort is forbidden. Here too, when he renounced ownership he merely employed artifice to circumvent the vow.


ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืืช ืฉื“ื”ื• ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื•


It is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who declares his field ownerless, for the entire three days after that declaration he is able to retract it. From this point forward, he is unable to retract the declaration.

Scroll To Top