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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 7, 2015 | 讻壮 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 44

Study Guide Nedarim 44


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

讗诪专 转讛讗 砖讚讛 讝讜 诪讜驻拽专转 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇砖讘转 讗讞转 诇讞讚砖 讗讞讚 诇砖谞讛 讗讞转 诇砖讘讜注 讗讞转 注讚 砖诇讗 讝讻讛 讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讝讻讛 讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

If one said: This field will be ownerless for one day, for one week, for one month, for one year, or for one seven-year Sabbatical cycle, as long as no one took possession of the field, neither the one who declared it ownerless nor another person, he is able to retract his declaration. Once one took possession of the field, whether it is he or whether it is another person, he is unable to retract his declaration. This baraita is difficult, as the first clause is apparently in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that rendering property ownerless is unilateral and not contingent upon whether one took possession of it, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that rendering property ownerless is complete only when one takes possession of that property.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讝讻讛 讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 砖讗谞讬 砖谞讛 讜砖讘讜注 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬

Ulla said: The latter clause is also in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara asks: If so, why is the ruling in the baraita: As long as one did not take possession of the field, neither the one who declared it ownerless nor another person, he is able to retract his declaration; according to the Rabbis, once he declared the property ownerless, although he can take possession of it, he is unable to retract the declaration. The Gemara answers: It is different when one declares an item ownerless for a year or a seven-year period, as doing so is uncommon. Since from the outset he limited the duration of ownerless status, clearly he reserved for himself certain rights; therefore, he can retract his declaration.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讬砖讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诇讬砖转讻讞 转讜专转 讛驻拽专

Reish Lakish said: From the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, the first clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And in the first clause, this is the reason that one cannot retract his declaration once three days have passed: It is an ordinance instituted by the Sages to ensure that the halakhic status of ownerlessness would not be forgotten. If one could retract his declaration of ownerless status after three days, people would not distinguish between a case where another took possession, where, according to Rabbi Yosei, one is unable to retract the declaration, and a case where another did not take possession, where, according to Rabbi Yosei, one is able to retract the declaration. The result would be that people would mistakenly conclude that ownerless status can always be reversed, even after it was claimed by another. Therefore, the Sages instituted a limit of three days, after which one may not retract his declaration.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讛驻拽专 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专诪讗讬谉 讚诪驻拽讬专讬谉 讜讛讚专讬谉 讘讛讜谉

The Gemara asks: If so, then let the Sages institute that the item is considered ownerless even from the first day as well and that he cannot retract his declaration at all. Rabba said: The reason that the Sages did not render the item ownerless from the first day is due to the swindlers, who declare the field ownerless in order to render the produce of the field exempt from the requirement of tithing, and then retract that declaration and immediately reclaim the field. Therefore, the Sages instituted that ownerless status takes effect only after three days.

讗讘诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛驻拽专

The Gemara asks: The Sages instituted that one cannot retract his declaration of ownerless status once three days have passed. However, by Torah law, isn鈥檛 the item ownerless according to Rabbi Yosei, regardless of when he retracted his declaration as long as no other person acquired it?

讜讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇注砖讜专讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讜讘 注诇 讛驻讟讜专 讜诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

And that ordinance could lead to a problem, as perhaps he will come to tithe from produce that requires tithing by Torah law for produce exempt from tithing by Torah law and from produce exempt from tithing by Torah law for produce that requires tithing by Torah law. By Torah law, the produce is not ownerless and requires tithing. However, due to the ordinance, people might relate to it as ownerless produce and assume that one is exempt from tithing it. Alternatively, they will erroneously conclude that the obligation to tithe from that produce is by rabbinic law and will tithe produce from it that one is exempt from tithing by Torah law, or they will tithe that produce from produce that one is exempt from tithing by Torah law. The result will be produce that is not properly tithed, as one may tithe produce that one is obligated to tithe by Torah law only from other produce that one is obligated to tithe by Torah law.

讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪注砖专转 注砖专 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: That problem will not arise, because if the declaration of ownerless status is retracted after three days, we say to the person who ultimately takes possession of the produce: When you tithe, tithe from that produce itself. In that way, the above problem does not arise.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪驻拽讬专 讗转 讻专诪讜 讜诇砖讞专 注诪讚 讜讘爪专讜 讞讬讬讘 讘驻专讟 讜讘注讜诇诇讜转 讜讘砖讻讞讛 讜讘驻讬讗讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who declares his vineyard ownerless, and at dawn he arose and picked grapes from the vineyard, is obligated in the mitzva of leaving individual fallen grapes left for the poor [peret], and in the mitzva of leaving incompletely formed clusters of grapes for the poor [olelot], and in the mitzva of leaving forgotten sheaves, and in the mitzva of pe鈥檃, produce from the corner of the field or vineyard, as the obligation to separate those gifts from the poor is incumbent upon the one who harvests the field (see Leviticus 19:9鈥10). And he is exempt from the obligation to separate the tithe from the grapes. Because the vineyard is ownerless, there is no obligation to tithe the produce.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

The Gemara asks: Granted, this is so according to Ulla, who explained that the Rabbis taught the previous baraita and explains that although the Sages instituted that the ownerless status does not take effect completely until three days have passed, by Torah law it takes effect immediately, and that this baraita is taught in accordance with Torah law. That is the reason that one is exempt from tithing the grapes. However, according to Reish Lakish, why is he exempt from separating the tithe? Until three days after the declaration, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law does ownerless status take effect.

讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish could have said to you: Although when I explained the first clause and the latter clause of that baraita I said that both are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that an ownerless item leaves the possession of the owner only when it enters the possession of another, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that it leaves the possession of the owner immediately upon the declaration of ownerless status.

  • 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 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 44

讗诪专 转讛讗 砖讚讛 讝讜 诪讜驻拽专转 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇砖讘转 讗讞转 诇讞讚砖 讗讞讚 诇砖谞讛 讗讞转 诇砖讘讜注 讗讞转 注讚 砖诇讗 讝讻讛 讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讝讻讛 讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

If one said: This field will be ownerless for one day, for one week, for one month, for one year, or for one seven-year Sabbatical cycle, as long as no one took possession of the field, neither the one who declared it ownerless nor another person, he is able to retract his declaration. Once one took possession of the field, whether it is he or whether it is another person, he is unable to retract his declaration. This baraita is difficult, as the first clause is apparently in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that rendering property ownerless is unilateral and not contingent upon whether one took possession of it, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that rendering property ownerless is complete only when one takes possession of that property.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讝讻讛 讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 砖讗谞讬 砖谞讛 讜砖讘讜注 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬

Ulla said: The latter clause is also in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara asks: If so, why is the ruling in the baraita: As long as one did not take possession of the field, neither the one who declared it ownerless nor another person, he is able to retract his declaration; according to the Rabbis, once he declared the property ownerless, although he can take possession of it, he is unable to retract the declaration. The Gemara answers: It is different when one declares an item ownerless for a year or a seven-year period, as doing so is uncommon. Since from the outset he limited the duration of ownerless status, clearly he reserved for himself certain rights; therefore, he can retract his declaration.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讬砖讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诇讬砖转讻讞 转讜专转 讛驻拽专

Reish Lakish said: From the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, the first clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And in the first clause, this is the reason that one cannot retract his declaration once three days have passed: It is an ordinance instituted by the Sages to ensure that the halakhic status of ownerlessness would not be forgotten. If one could retract his declaration of ownerless status after three days, people would not distinguish between a case where another took possession, where, according to Rabbi Yosei, one is unable to retract the declaration, and a case where another did not take possession, where, according to Rabbi Yosei, one is able to retract the declaration. The result would be that people would mistakenly conclude that ownerless status can always be reversed, even after it was claimed by another. Therefore, the Sages instituted a limit of three days, after which one may not retract his declaration.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讛驻拽专 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专诪讗讬谉 讚诪驻拽讬专讬谉 讜讛讚专讬谉 讘讛讜谉

The Gemara asks: If so, then let the Sages institute that the item is considered ownerless even from the first day as well and that he cannot retract his declaration at all. Rabba said: The reason that the Sages did not render the item ownerless from the first day is due to the swindlers, who declare the field ownerless in order to render the produce of the field exempt from the requirement of tithing, and then retract that declaration and immediately reclaim the field. Therefore, the Sages instituted that ownerless status takes effect only after three days.

讗讘诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛驻拽专

The Gemara asks: The Sages instituted that one cannot retract his declaration of ownerless status once three days have passed. However, by Torah law, isn鈥檛 the item ownerless according to Rabbi Yosei, regardless of when he retracted his declaration as long as no other person acquired it?

讜讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇注砖讜专讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讜讘 注诇 讛驻讟讜专 讜诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

And that ordinance could lead to a problem, as perhaps he will come to tithe from produce that requires tithing by Torah law for produce exempt from tithing by Torah law and from produce exempt from tithing by Torah law for produce that requires tithing by Torah law. By Torah law, the produce is not ownerless and requires tithing. However, due to the ordinance, people might relate to it as ownerless produce and assume that one is exempt from tithing it. Alternatively, they will erroneously conclude that the obligation to tithe from that produce is by rabbinic law and will tithe produce from it that one is exempt from tithing by Torah law, or they will tithe that produce from produce that one is exempt from tithing by Torah law. The result will be produce that is not properly tithed, as one may tithe produce that one is obligated to tithe by Torah law only from other produce that one is obligated to tithe by Torah law.

讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪注砖专转 注砖专 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: That problem will not arise, because if the declaration of ownerless status is retracted after three days, we say to the person who ultimately takes possession of the produce: When you tithe, tithe from that produce itself. In that way, the above problem does not arise.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪驻拽讬专 讗转 讻专诪讜 讜诇砖讞专 注诪讚 讜讘爪专讜 讞讬讬讘 讘驻专讟 讜讘注讜诇诇讜转 讜讘砖讻讞讛 讜讘驻讬讗讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who declares his vineyard ownerless, and at dawn he arose and picked grapes from the vineyard, is obligated in the mitzva of leaving individual fallen grapes left for the poor [peret], and in the mitzva of leaving incompletely formed clusters of grapes for the poor [olelot], and in the mitzva of leaving forgotten sheaves, and in the mitzva of pe鈥檃, produce from the corner of the field or vineyard, as the obligation to separate those gifts from the poor is incumbent upon the one who harvests the field (see Leviticus 19:9鈥10). And he is exempt from the obligation to separate the tithe from the grapes. Because the vineyard is ownerless, there is no obligation to tithe the produce.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

The Gemara asks: Granted, this is so according to Ulla, who explained that the Rabbis taught the previous baraita and explains that although the Sages instituted that the ownerless status does not take effect completely until three days have passed, by Torah law it takes effect immediately, and that this baraita is taught in accordance with Torah law. That is the reason that one is exempt from tithing the grapes. However, according to Reish Lakish, why is he exempt from separating the tithe? Until three days after the declaration, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law does ownerless status take effect.

讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish could have said to you: Although when I explained the first clause and the latter clause of that baraita I said that both are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that an ownerless item leaves the possession of the owner only when it enters the possession of another, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that it leaves the possession of the owner immediately upon the declaration of ownerless status.

Scroll To Top