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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 10, 2022 | 讟状讝 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 46 – Shabbat December 10

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday鈥檚 daf please click here.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Debbie Engelen-Eigles in memory of her father Hank Eigles, Henach ben Mendel z”l, to mark the end of his shloshim. May his neshama have an aliyah.

If two people share a courtyard, what are all the rules regarding the use of the courtyard when one is forbidden to benefit from the other or when each is forbidden to benefit from the other? The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in all the cases. Is there a difference if they forbade themselves through a vow or they were forbidden by a vow that the other person made? Is the debate in the Mishna regarding a courtyard that can be split or one that cannot be split? If one rented the space out to someone else, can the person who is forbidden to benefit from the owner be allowed to use the rented space? On what does it depend?

 

讜砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诇讛注诪讬讚 专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讜诇讙讚诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐

And all agree that they are both prohibited from setting up a mill or an oven in the jointly owned courtyard, or to raise chickens in it.

讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇转讜讱 砖诇讬 讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讱 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛谞讜讚专 诇诪讻讜专 讗转 讞诇拽讜

If only one of the partners was prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the other, he may not enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: He can say to the partner: I am entering into my own portion and I am not entering into your portion. And the court forces the one who took such a vow to sell his portion so that he does not cause the other to transgress.

讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诪讜讚专 讘讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讱 讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讱

If someone from the marketplace is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from one of the partners, he may not enter a courtyard of the partners, since it belongs partly to the one from whom he may not benefit. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: He can say to him: I am entering into the portion of another resident of the courtyard and I am not entering your own portion since it does not belong entirely to you.

讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讘讚 诪讜砖讻专讬谉 讘注讬专 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛谉 转驻讬住转 讬讚 讗住讜专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛谉 转驻讬住转 讬讚 诪讜转专

With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another and he has a bathhouse or an olive press in the city that is leased out and available for public use, if the one who took the vow has a right to profits from usage in the property, i.e., he retains some rights in the property and has not leased them out completely, it is forbidden for the one who took the vow to use it. If he has no right of usage in the property, it is permitted.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 诇讘讬转讱 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 讜砖讚讱 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 拽讜谞诐 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

With regard to one who says to another: Entering your house is konam for me, or: Purchasing your field is konam for me, then if he, i.e., the owner of the house or field, dies or sells the house to another, it is permitted for the one who took the vow to enter the house or purchase the field, as it is no longer in the possession of the prior owner. But if he said: Entering this house is konam for me, or: Purchasing this field is konam for me, then even if the owner dies or sells it to another, it is forbidden.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘谞讚专讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讚讬专讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘谞讚专讜 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 讘讛讚讬专讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚讻讬 讗谞讜住讬谉 讚诪讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛讚讬专讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the mishna, the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov disagree with regard to the permissibility of entering a jointly owned courtyard where the partners vowed not to derive benefit from one another. However, if they instead vowed to prohibit one another from deriving benefit from them and their property, what is the halakha? Do we say that they disagree where the partners each vowed not to benefit from the other, but where they each vowed to prohibit one another from deriving benefit from them, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as they are each considered to be forbidden due to circumstances beyond their control? Or perhaps the Rabbis disagree even in a case where each vowed to prohibit one another from deriving benefit?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 转谞讬 谞讚讜专 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛谞讗讛

Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If only one of the partners was prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the other, he may not enter the shared courtyard. Here, the prohibitive vow was stated by the other party, and still the Rabbis disagree and forbid the use of the courtyard. Evidently, the dispute in the mishna applies equally to cases beyond the control of the one forbidden by the vow. The Gemara responds: Teach an emended version of the mishna: If one had vowed to prohibit himself from deriving benefit from another. According to this emended version, the mishna may be addressing only the one who brought the prohibition upon himself.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛谞讜讚专 诇诪讻讜专 讗转 讞诇拽讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚谞讚专 讛讜讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讗讚专讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讗 诪讬谞住 讗谞讬住

So too, it is reasonable to assume that the mishna is referring to one who imposes the prohibition upon himself, as it was taught in the latter clause with regard to the same case: And the court forces the one who took such a vow to sell his portion. Granted, if you say that the mishna is speaking of a case where he himself vowed not to benefit from the other, this is consistent with that which teaches that the court forces him to sell his portion; since he created the problem, he is forced to resolve it. But if you say that it is referring to a case where the other prohibited him with a vow, why does the court force him to sell his property? He is put in a situation beyond his control. This clause offers no proof, and the Rabbis may still concede in a case where one is forbidden due to another鈥檚 vow.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬

Rabba said that Ze鈥檈iri said:

诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis is with regard to a courtyard where there is sufficient area in the courtyard for it to be divided into four square cubits for each partner, so each can be said to have a real portion that can be forbidden to the other. But if there is not sufficient area in it to be divided, everyone agrees that it is permitted to benefit from it, since the entire courtyard is viewed as belonging to both of them and each one can say that he is entering his own portion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛专讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讚讻诪讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讚诪讬 讜转谞谉 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专

Rav Yosef said to Rabba: A synagogue belongs to the entire public and is therefore considered like a courtyard in which there is not sufficient area in it to be divided, and we learned in a mishna later in the chapter (48a) that with regard to two people who vow not to derive benefit from each other, both are prohibited from deriving benefit from an entity belonging to that city such as a synagogue. Evidently, the Rabbis prohibit deriving benefit even from such entities.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Ze鈥檈iri must have said: The dispute holds where there is not sufficient area in the courtyard for it to be divided, but if there is sufficient area in it for it to be divided, everyone agrees that it is forbidden, since if either enters it he may be entering the other鈥檚 portion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And so too, Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 砖诐 诪专讞抓 讜讻讜壮 讜讻诪讛 转驻讬住转 讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 讗讘诇 讘讘爪讬专 诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘爪讬专 讗住讜专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚砖专讬 讚诪拽讘诇 讘讟住拽讗

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another and he has a bathhouse or an olive press in the city that is leased out and available for public use, the forbidden party may use it only if the owner has forfeited his own right to profits from usage. The Gemara asks: And how much is this right to profits from usage that prohibits the subject of the vow from entering the bathhouse? Rav Na岣an said: In cases where he receives one half, one-third, or one-quarter of the profits of the bathhouse. But in a case where he receives less, it is not forbidden. Abaye said: Even in a case where he receives less, it is forbidden. If so, what are the circumstances in which it is permitted and he is not considered to have a right to profits from usage? Where he completely forfeits all profits and receives only an annual rental fee [taska] from a tenant.

  • 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: 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 46: Bathhouses and Olive Presses

Continuing the mishnah... With regard to joint ownership. What if only one is prohibited from the benefit of that which...

Nedarim 46 – Shabbat December 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 46 – Shabbat December 10

讜砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诇讛注诪讬讚 专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讜诇讙讚诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐

And all agree that they are both prohibited from setting up a mill or an oven in the jointly owned courtyard, or to raise chickens in it.

讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇转讜讱 砖诇讬 讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讱 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛谞讜讚专 诇诪讻讜专 讗转 讞诇拽讜

If only one of the partners was prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the other, he may not enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: He can say to the partner: I am entering into my own portion and I am not entering into your portion. And the court forces the one who took such a vow to sell his portion so that he does not cause the other to transgress.

讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诪讜讚专 讘讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讱 讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讱

If someone from the marketplace is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from one of the partners, he may not enter a courtyard of the partners, since it belongs partly to the one from whom he may not benefit. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: He can say to him: I am entering into the portion of another resident of the courtyard and I am not entering your own portion since it does not belong entirely to you.

讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讘讚 诪讜砖讻专讬谉 讘注讬专 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛谉 转驻讬住转 讬讚 讗住讜专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛谉 转驻讬住转 讬讚 诪讜转专

With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another and he has a bathhouse or an olive press in the city that is leased out and available for public use, if the one who took the vow has a right to profits from usage in the property, i.e., he retains some rights in the property and has not leased them out completely, it is forbidden for the one who took the vow to use it. If he has no right of usage in the property, it is permitted.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 诇讘讬转讱 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 讜砖讚讱 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 拽讜谞诐 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

With regard to one who says to another: Entering your house is konam for me, or: Purchasing your field is konam for me, then if he, i.e., the owner of the house or field, dies or sells the house to another, it is permitted for the one who took the vow to enter the house or purchase the field, as it is no longer in the possession of the prior owner. But if he said: Entering this house is konam for me, or: Purchasing this field is konam for me, then even if the owner dies or sells it to another, it is forbidden.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘谞讚专讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讚讬专讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘谞讚专讜 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 讘讛讚讬专讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚讻讬 讗谞讜住讬谉 讚诪讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛讚讬专讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the mishna, the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov disagree with regard to the permissibility of entering a jointly owned courtyard where the partners vowed not to derive benefit from one another. However, if they instead vowed to prohibit one another from deriving benefit from them and their property, what is the halakha? Do we say that they disagree where the partners each vowed not to benefit from the other, but where they each vowed to prohibit one another from deriving benefit from them, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as they are each considered to be forbidden due to circumstances beyond their control? Or perhaps the Rabbis disagree even in a case where each vowed to prohibit one another from deriving benefit?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 转谞讬 谞讚讜专 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛谞讗讛

Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If only one of the partners was prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the other, he may not enter the shared courtyard. Here, the prohibitive vow was stated by the other party, and still the Rabbis disagree and forbid the use of the courtyard. Evidently, the dispute in the mishna applies equally to cases beyond the control of the one forbidden by the vow. The Gemara responds: Teach an emended version of the mishna: If one had vowed to prohibit himself from deriving benefit from another. According to this emended version, the mishna may be addressing only the one who brought the prohibition upon himself.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛谞讜讚专 诇诪讻讜专 讗转 讞诇拽讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚谞讚专 讛讜讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讗讚专讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讗 诪讬谞住 讗谞讬住

So too, it is reasonable to assume that the mishna is referring to one who imposes the prohibition upon himself, as it was taught in the latter clause with regard to the same case: And the court forces the one who took such a vow to sell his portion. Granted, if you say that the mishna is speaking of a case where he himself vowed not to benefit from the other, this is consistent with that which teaches that the court forces him to sell his portion; since he created the problem, he is forced to resolve it. But if you say that it is referring to a case where the other prohibited him with a vow, why does the court force him to sell his property? He is put in a situation beyond his control. This clause offers no proof, and the Rabbis may still concede in a case where one is forbidden due to another鈥檚 vow.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬

Rabba said that Ze鈥檈iri said:

诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis is with regard to a courtyard where there is sufficient area in the courtyard for it to be divided into four square cubits for each partner, so each can be said to have a real portion that can be forbidden to the other. But if there is not sufficient area in it to be divided, everyone agrees that it is permitted to benefit from it, since the entire courtyard is viewed as belonging to both of them and each one can say that he is entering his own portion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛专讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讚讻诪讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讚诪讬 讜转谞谉 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专

Rav Yosef said to Rabba: A synagogue belongs to the entire public and is therefore considered like a courtyard in which there is not sufficient area in it to be divided, and we learned in a mishna later in the chapter (48a) that with regard to two people who vow not to derive benefit from each other, both are prohibited from deriving benefit from an entity belonging to that city such as a synagogue. Evidently, the Rabbis prohibit deriving benefit even from such entities.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Ze鈥檈iri must have said: The dispute holds where there is not sufficient area in the courtyard for it to be divided, but if there is sufficient area in it for it to be divided, everyone agrees that it is forbidden, since if either enters it he may be entering the other鈥檚 portion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And so too, Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 砖诐 诪专讞抓 讜讻讜壮 讜讻诪讛 转驻讬住转 讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 讗讘诇 讘讘爪讬专 诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘爪讬专 讗住讜专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚砖专讬 讚诪拽讘诇 讘讟住拽讗

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another and he has a bathhouse or an olive press in the city that is leased out and available for public use, the forbidden party may use it only if the owner has forfeited his own right to profits from usage. The Gemara asks: And how much is this right to profits from usage that prohibits the subject of the vow from entering the bathhouse? Rav Na岣an said: In cases where he receives one half, one-third, or one-quarter of the profits of the bathhouse. But in a case where he receives less, it is not forbidden. Abaye said: Even in a case where he receives less, it is forbidden. If so, what are the circumstances in which it is permitted and he is not considered to have a right to profits from usage? Where he completely forfeits all profits and receives only an annual rental fee [taska] from a tenant.

Scroll To Top