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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 6, 2015 | 讬状讟 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nedarim 43

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讜谞讜 讚拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讞 讛讬诪谞讜 讚拽诪讬转讛谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬砖讗诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬转讛谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讚专讜 讛谞讗讛 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 诇砖讗讜诇 诪砖讜诐 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜讻谉 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讙讝讬专讛

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 驻专转讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讛 驻谞讜讬讛 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 砖讚讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讜专砖 讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 讛讬讛 讚专讻讜 诇讞专讜砖 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讞专讜砖 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 讛讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讜讚专 诪诪谞讬 讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗注砖讛 讜讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讜讘讗 讜谞讜讟诇 诪讝讛

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.

讛讬讛 讘讬转讜 诇讘谞讜转 讙讚专讜 诇讙讚讜专 砖讚讛讜 诇拽爪讜专 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 讛驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讜讚专 诪诪谞讬 讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗注砖讛 讜讛谉 注讜砖讬谉 注诪讜 讜讘讗讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专 诪讝讛

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.

讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 谞讜转谉 诇讗讞讚 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讜讛诇讛 诪讜转专 讘讛 讗诐 讗讬谉 注诪讛诐 讗讞专 诪谞讬讞 注诇 讛住诇注 讗讜 注诇 讛讙讚专 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讜驻拽专讬诐 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬讞驻讜抓 讜讛诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽住讘专 讛驻拽专 讻诪转谞讛 诪讛 诪转谞讛 注讚 讚讗转讬讗 诪专砖讜转 谞讜转谉 诇专砖讜转 诪拽讘诇 讗祝 讛驻拽专 注讚 讚讗转讬讗 诇专砖讜转 讝讜讻讛

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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讛诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖谞讚专讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讛驻拽讬专讜

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.

讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 讛驻拽讬专讜 拽讜讚诐 诇谞讚专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 注讚 讚讗转讬 诇专砖讜转 讝讜讻讛 诪讛 诇讬 谞讚专讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讛驻拽讬专讜 诪讛 诇讬 讛驻拽讬专讜 拽讜讚诐 诇谞讚专讜

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.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讛 讻诇 讛谞讜讚专 讗讬谉 讚注转讜 注诇 诪讛 砖讛驻拽讬专

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诪拽爪转谉 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜讻讜诇谉 诇砖谞讬 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛

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.

砖谞讬 诇讗 拽谞讛

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 Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞转 讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉

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 岣ron. An incident occurred in Beit 岣ron 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.

转谞讬讗 讛诪驻拽讬专 讗转 砖讚讛讜 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

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 learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 43

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讜谞讜 讚拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讞 讛讬诪谞讜 讚拽诪讬转讛谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬砖讗诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬转讛谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讚专讜 讛谞讗讛 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 诇砖讗讜诇 诪砖讜诐 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜讻谉 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讙讝讬专讛

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 驻专转讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讛 驻谞讜讬讛 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 砖讚讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讜专砖 讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 讛讬讛 讚专讻讜 诇讞专讜砖 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讞专讜砖 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 讛讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讜讚专 诪诪谞讬 讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗注砖讛 讜讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讜讘讗 讜谞讜讟诇 诪讝讛

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.

讛讬讛 讘讬转讜 诇讘谞讜转 讙讚专讜 诇讙讚讜专 砖讚讛讜 诇拽爪讜专 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 讛驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讜讚专 诪诪谞讬 讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗注砖讛 讜讛谉 注讜砖讬谉 注诪讜 讜讘讗讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专 诪讝讛

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.

讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 谞讜转谉 诇讗讞讚 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讜讛诇讛 诪讜转专 讘讛 讗诐 讗讬谉 注诪讛诐 讗讞专 诪谞讬讞 注诇 讛住诇注 讗讜 注诇 讛讙讚专 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讜驻拽专讬诐 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬讞驻讜抓 讜讛诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽住讘专 讛驻拽专 讻诪转谞讛 诪讛 诪转谞讛 注讚 讚讗转讬讗 诪专砖讜转 谞讜转谉 诇专砖讜转 诪拽讘诇 讗祝 讛驻拽专 注讚 讚讗转讬讗 诇专砖讜转 讝讜讻讛

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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讛诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖谞讚专讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讛驻拽讬专讜

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.

讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 讛驻拽讬专讜 拽讜讚诐 诇谞讚专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 注讚 讚讗转讬 诇专砖讜转 讝讜讻讛 诪讛 诇讬 谞讚专讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讛驻拽讬专讜 诪讛 诇讬 讛驻拽讬专讜 拽讜讚诐 诇谞讚专讜

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.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讛 讻诇 讛谞讜讚专 讗讬谉 讚注转讜 注诇 诪讛 砖讛驻拽讬专

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诪拽爪转谉 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜讻讜诇谉 诇砖谞讬 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛

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.

砖谞讬 诇讗 拽谞讛

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 Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞转 讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉

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 岣ron. An incident occurred in Beit 岣ron 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.

转谞讬讗 讛诪驻拽讬专 讗转 砖讚讛讜 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

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