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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 17, 2023 | 讻状讚 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • 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.

Nedarim 84

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Adrienne聽Robb-Fund in honor of her friend and chavruta, Joanna Rom, on her birthday!

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Idana Goldberg on the first yahrzeit of Meyer Weitz, Meir Ben Yehoshua v鈥橪eah. 鈥淎n Orthodox feminist, my grandfather was so proud of my gemara knowledge and even in his 101st year always asked what masechet I was learning.鈥

Rava challenged Rav Nachman from a different Mishna in the chapter which seemed to imply that the husband was included in a vow made against 鈥榓ll people鈥. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between the two Mishnayot. From our Mishna it has been established that a woman who vows to not benefit from others can collect the produce left in the fields but cannot collect produce from the tithe of the poor people. However, in the Tosefta the tithe for the poor people is added to the list with the other gifts for the poor. Rav Yosef suggests that the contradiction between the Mishna and the Tosefta can be resolved by connecting each source to a different tannaitic opinion. To prove this, he quotes a Mishna in Demai 4:3 which relates a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding the obligation to separate the tithe for the poor from produce taken from an am haaeretz. He connects their opinions there to whether or not the one who separates the tithe for the poor can decide who they want to give it to which would then translate as still being 鈥渙wned鈥 by them. But Abaye rejects Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation because he does not see the point of contention between them as Rav Yosef did. Rava offers a different resolution in that the Mishna and the Tosefta refer to two different cases of the tithe for the poor – one who set aside it from in the house and the one who set it aside in the threshing floor/field. From the one at home, the owner can choose who to give it to but the one in the field has to be left ownerless for anyone to come to take. In the Mishna, there were two laws regarding a woman who vows that Kohanim/Levites won鈥檛 benefit from her. From the first case, it can be inferred that getting to choose who to give the gifts to is not considered financial value. From the second case, the opposite can be inferred. Rav Hoshaya suggests that each case represents a different tannaitic opinion and he quotes a braita where those opinions appear and explains how the root of the debate there is the same as here.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讬驻专 讞诇拽讜 讜转讛讗 诪砖诪砖转讜 讜转讛讗 谞讟讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an: And is a husband not included in her reference to people? But didn鈥檛 we learn otherwise in a mishna (90b): If a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of intercourse with me is prohibited to all Jews, her husband must nullify his part, i.e., the part that affects him. She would be permitted to him, and she may engage in intercourse with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to all.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讛谉 讜讬驻专 诇讛 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara explains the difficulty: If you say that the husband is included in this vow, it follows that he can nullify his part, as it is a vow that adversely affects the relationship between him and her, but the vow is not permanently nullified; if they divorce she is removed from all Jews, including him. But if you say a husband is not included in her reference to people, then it is not a vow that touches upon their personal relationship, but rather it is a vow of affliction, and he can nullify it for her forever.

讗讬诪讗 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪讜讻讞讗 诪诇转讗 讚注诇 讛讬转专讗 拽讗住专讛 谞驻砖讛

Rav Na岣an responded: I could say to you that in general a husband is not included in her reference to people, but here it is different, as it is clear that the woman means to include her husband in the vow, as she means to render forbidden to herself a matter that is otherwise permitted to her and not to render forbidden to herself intercourse with men other than her husband, which is in any case forbidden to her. Therefore, she certainly intended to render herself forbidden to her husband.

讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讘诪注砖专 注谞讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讜讘诪注砖专 注谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if a woman took a vow prohibiting herself from benefiting from people, she may nevertheless benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃. The Gemara notes that the mishna does not teach that she may benefit from these gifts and also from poor man鈥檚 tithe. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that she may benefit from these gifts and also from poor man鈥檚 tithe?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 爪专讬讱 诇拽专讜转 砖诐 注诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 砖诇 讚诪讗讬

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult, as the matter is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This baraita that says that the woman may derive benefit even from poor man鈥檚 tithe reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas that mishna, which does not mention poor man鈥檚 tithe, reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna (Demai 4:3): Rabbi Eliezer says: A person need not actually set aside, nor even designate by name, the poor man鈥檚 tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not diligent in separating tithes, as poor man鈥檚 tithe has no sanctity, and a poor man cannot claim it from him, since he cannot offer proof that this produce in fact has the status of poor man鈥檚 tithe.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽讜专讗 砖诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛驻专讬砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住驻拽讜 讟讜讘诇 拽住讘专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗

And the Rabbis say: He must designate poor man鈥檚 tithe by name,but he need not actually set it aside and give it to anyone, as a poor person cannot claim the tithe without bringing proof that he has a right to it. Rav Yosef now suggests: What, is it not that according to the one, i.e., the Rabbis, who says that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man鈥檚 tithe had been separated by the am ha鈥檃retz renders the produce forbidden as untithed produce [tevel], and therefore the owner of the produce must designate the poor man鈥檚 tithe by name, he holds that the owner of the produce has the benefit of discretion, meaning that he may give the poor man鈥檚 tithe to the poor person of his choice. And since he has the benefit of discretion, the option that a woman who vowed not to benefit from people should take poor man鈥檚 tithe is ineffective, as she would be receiving benefit from the owner of the tithe, since he could have given it to someone else.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 [讗讬谞讜] 拽讜专讗 砖诐 拽住讘专 住驻拽讜 讗讬谞讜 讟讜讘诇 讜讻诇 砖住驻拽讜 讗讬谞讜 讟讜讘诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讜砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬转讛谞讜讬讬

Rav Yosef continues: And according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who says that he need not designate poor man鈥檚 tithe by name, he holds that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man鈥檚 tithe had been separated by the am ha鈥檃retz does not render the produce forbidden as untithed produce. And whenever the case is that uncertainty does not render the produce forbidden as untithed produce, the owner does not have the benefit of discretion and does not choose to which poor person he will give it. And therefore one who vowed not to benefit from people is permitted to derive benefit from poor man鈥檚 tithe, as he is not receiving it from anyone.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住驻拽讜 讟讜讘诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 注诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪驻拽专 谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜砖拽诇 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗

Abaye said to him: This proof is not conclusive, as it may be that everyone agrees that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man鈥檚 tithe had been separated by the am ha鈥檃retz renders the produce forbidden as untithed produce, and that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this issue: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that amei ha鈥檃retz are not suspected of failing to set aside poor man鈥檚 tithe. Therefore, one who purchases demai from an am ha鈥檃retz need not be concerned that its poor man鈥檚 tithe might not have been set aside. Rabbi Eliezer maintains this opinion because were the am ha鈥檃retz to declare all his property ownerless and therefore become a poor man, and then take the poor man鈥檚 tithe himself, he would suffer no loss when he set aside this tithe, and therefore it is assumed that he separated it.

讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 谞讻住讬讛 诇讗 诪驻拽专 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诪讬专转转 讚诇诪讗 讝讻讬 讘讛讜 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛诇讻讱 谞讞砖讚讜

And the Rabbis maintain that while it is theoretically possible for one to avoid having to actually part from his poor man鈥檚 tithe, this is uncommon, as a person does not ordinarily declare his property ownerless for this purpose, as he is afraid that perhaps someone else will acquire it in the meantime. Consequently, one who sets aside poor man鈥檚 tithe from his produce is assumed to incur a loss, and therefore amei ha鈥檃retz are suspected with regard to this tithe. Accordingly, no satisfactory explanation has yet been given as to why the baraita permits a woman who vowed not to derive benefit from people to take poor man鈥檚 tithe.

专讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 注谞讬 讛诪转讞诇拽 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 谞转讬谞讛 讜谞转转讛 诇诇讜讬 诇讙专 讜讙讜壮 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗住讜专 诇讬讛 诇讗讬转讛谞讜讬讬

Rava says that it is possible to explain the apparent contradiction between the sources with regard to benefit from poor man鈥檚 tithe without recourse to a tannaitic dispute: Here, the mishna is referring to poor man鈥檚 tithe distributed in the owner鈥檚 house, i.e., poor man鈥檚 tithe that had not been distributed in the threshing floor but was brought home and must now be distributed to the poor who visit the house, as the term giving is written in the verse with regard to such a tithe: 鈥淎nd you shall give to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12), and the owner is entitled to give the tithe to the poor man of his choice, as the benefit of discretion is conferred upon him. Due to that reason, it is prohibited for one who vowed not to derive benefit from people to derive benefit from this type of poor man鈥檚 tithe.

讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 注谞讬 讛诪转讞诇拽 讘转讜讱 讛讙专谞讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜讛谞讞转 讘砖注专讬讱 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬转讛谞讜讬讬

There, however, the baraita is referring to poor man鈥檚 tithe that is distributed in the threshing floor. Since with regard to such a tithe it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall leave it at your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:28), the owner cannot designate it for a particular person, and any poor person who comes by may take it from him. As the owner lacks the benefit of discretion, one who vows not to benefit from people is permitted to benefit from this poor man鈥檚 tithe.

讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 讬讟诇讜 讻讜壮 讗诇诪讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches that if one said: I will not let priests and Levites benefit from me, they can take the priestly and Levitical gifts from him against his will. The Gemara notes: Apparently, the benefit of discretion to give his teruma and tithes to the priest or Levite of his choice is not considered to have monetary value. The priests and Levites can take the gifts from the owner of the produce against his will, and the latter is not regarded as having conferred benefit upon them.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗诇讜 讜诇讜讬诐 讗诇讜 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 讬讟诇讜 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讛谞讬 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谉

But say the latter clause of the mishna, which states that if the person said: I will not let these specific priests and these specific Levites benefit from me, these gifts are taken by others. But these priests and Levites specified in his vow may not take these gifts. Apparently, this ruling indicates that the benefit of discretion is considered to have monetary value, and therefore the owner can prohibit specific priests or Levites from deriving benefit from him.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜谞讘 讟讘诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讻诇讜 诪砖诇诐 诇讜 讚诪讬 讟讘诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rav Hoshaya said: This is not difficult; this second ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that first ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: If one steals another鈥檚 untithed produce and eats it, he must pay him the value of his untithed produce, i.e., the full value of what he stole. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagrees and says: He pays him only the value of the non-sacred produce it contained. The thief does not have to pay him the value of the teruma and tithe included in the untithed produce, as these portions do not belong to the owner of the produce. What, is it not the case that they disagree about this:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • 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.

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: 78-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a husband is silent about his wife鈥檚 vow. Does his silence signify...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 84: The Pool of Poor People

A woman who has sworn off benefit from people, and can still eat from the agricultural mitzvot of charity, but...

Nedarim 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 84

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讬驻专 讞诇拽讜 讜转讛讗 诪砖诪砖转讜 讜转讛讗 谞讟讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an: And is a husband not included in her reference to people? But didn鈥檛 we learn otherwise in a mishna (90b): If a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of intercourse with me is prohibited to all Jews, her husband must nullify his part, i.e., the part that affects him. She would be permitted to him, and she may engage in intercourse with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to all.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讛谉 讜讬驻专 诇讛 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara explains the difficulty: If you say that the husband is included in this vow, it follows that he can nullify his part, as it is a vow that adversely affects the relationship between him and her, but the vow is not permanently nullified; if they divorce she is removed from all Jews, including him. But if you say a husband is not included in her reference to people, then it is not a vow that touches upon their personal relationship, but rather it is a vow of affliction, and he can nullify it for her forever.

讗讬诪讗 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪讜讻讞讗 诪诇转讗 讚注诇 讛讬转专讗 拽讗住专讛 谞驻砖讛

Rav Na岣an responded: I could say to you that in general a husband is not included in her reference to people, but here it is different, as it is clear that the woman means to include her husband in the vow, as she means to render forbidden to herself a matter that is otherwise permitted to her and not to render forbidden to herself intercourse with men other than her husband, which is in any case forbidden to her. Therefore, she certainly intended to render herself forbidden to her husband.

讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讘诪注砖专 注谞讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讜讘诪注砖专 注谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if a woman took a vow prohibiting herself from benefiting from people, she may nevertheless benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃. The Gemara notes that the mishna does not teach that she may benefit from these gifts and also from poor man鈥檚 tithe. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that she may benefit from these gifts and also from poor man鈥檚 tithe?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 爪专讬讱 诇拽专讜转 砖诐 注诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 砖诇 讚诪讗讬

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult, as the matter is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This baraita that says that the woman may derive benefit even from poor man鈥檚 tithe reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas that mishna, which does not mention poor man鈥檚 tithe, reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna (Demai 4:3): Rabbi Eliezer says: A person need not actually set aside, nor even designate by name, the poor man鈥檚 tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not diligent in separating tithes, as poor man鈥檚 tithe has no sanctity, and a poor man cannot claim it from him, since he cannot offer proof that this produce in fact has the status of poor man鈥檚 tithe.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽讜专讗 砖诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛驻专讬砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住驻拽讜 讟讜讘诇 拽住讘专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗

And the Rabbis say: He must designate poor man鈥檚 tithe by name,but he need not actually set it aside and give it to anyone, as a poor person cannot claim the tithe without bringing proof that he has a right to it. Rav Yosef now suggests: What, is it not that according to the one, i.e., the Rabbis, who says that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man鈥檚 tithe had been separated by the am ha鈥檃retz renders the produce forbidden as untithed produce [tevel], and therefore the owner of the produce must designate the poor man鈥檚 tithe by name, he holds that the owner of the produce has the benefit of discretion, meaning that he may give the poor man鈥檚 tithe to the poor person of his choice. And since he has the benefit of discretion, the option that a woman who vowed not to benefit from people should take poor man鈥檚 tithe is ineffective, as she would be receiving benefit from the owner of the tithe, since he could have given it to someone else.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 [讗讬谞讜] 拽讜专讗 砖诐 拽住讘专 住驻拽讜 讗讬谞讜 讟讜讘诇 讜讻诇 砖住驻拽讜 讗讬谞讜 讟讜讘诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讜砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬转讛谞讜讬讬

Rav Yosef continues: And according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who says that he need not designate poor man鈥檚 tithe by name, he holds that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man鈥檚 tithe had been separated by the am ha鈥檃retz does not render the produce forbidden as untithed produce. And whenever the case is that uncertainty does not render the produce forbidden as untithed produce, the owner does not have the benefit of discretion and does not choose to which poor person he will give it. And therefore one who vowed not to benefit from people is permitted to derive benefit from poor man鈥檚 tithe, as he is not receiving it from anyone.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住驻拽讜 讟讜讘诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 注诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪驻拽专 谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜砖拽诇 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗

Abaye said to him: This proof is not conclusive, as it may be that everyone agrees that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man鈥檚 tithe had been separated by the am ha鈥檃retz renders the produce forbidden as untithed produce, and that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this issue: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that amei ha鈥檃retz are not suspected of failing to set aside poor man鈥檚 tithe. Therefore, one who purchases demai from an am ha鈥檃retz need not be concerned that its poor man鈥檚 tithe might not have been set aside. Rabbi Eliezer maintains this opinion because were the am ha鈥檃retz to declare all his property ownerless and therefore become a poor man, and then take the poor man鈥檚 tithe himself, he would suffer no loss when he set aside this tithe, and therefore it is assumed that he separated it.

讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 谞讻住讬讛 诇讗 诪驻拽专 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诪讬专转转 讚诇诪讗 讝讻讬 讘讛讜 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛诇讻讱 谞讞砖讚讜

And the Rabbis maintain that while it is theoretically possible for one to avoid having to actually part from his poor man鈥檚 tithe, this is uncommon, as a person does not ordinarily declare his property ownerless for this purpose, as he is afraid that perhaps someone else will acquire it in the meantime. Consequently, one who sets aside poor man鈥檚 tithe from his produce is assumed to incur a loss, and therefore amei ha鈥檃retz are suspected with regard to this tithe. Accordingly, no satisfactory explanation has yet been given as to why the baraita permits a woman who vowed not to derive benefit from people to take poor man鈥檚 tithe.

专讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 注谞讬 讛诪转讞诇拽 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 谞转讬谞讛 讜谞转转讛 诇诇讜讬 诇讙专 讜讙讜壮 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗住讜专 诇讬讛 诇讗讬转讛谞讜讬讬

Rava says that it is possible to explain the apparent contradiction between the sources with regard to benefit from poor man鈥檚 tithe without recourse to a tannaitic dispute: Here, the mishna is referring to poor man鈥檚 tithe distributed in the owner鈥檚 house, i.e., poor man鈥檚 tithe that had not been distributed in the threshing floor but was brought home and must now be distributed to the poor who visit the house, as the term giving is written in the verse with regard to such a tithe: 鈥淎nd you shall give to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12), and the owner is entitled to give the tithe to the poor man of his choice, as the benefit of discretion is conferred upon him. Due to that reason, it is prohibited for one who vowed not to derive benefit from people to derive benefit from this type of poor man鈥檚 tithe.

讻讗谉 讘诪注砖专 注谞讬 讛诪转讞诇拽 讘转讜讱 讛讙专谞讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜讛谞讞转 讘砖注专讬讱 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬转讛谞讜讬讬

There, however, the baraita is referring to poor man鈥檚 tithe that is distributed in the threshing floor. Since with regard to such a tithe it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall leave it at your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:28), the owner cannot designate it for a particular person, and any poor person who comes by may take it from him. As the owner lacks the benefit of discretion, one who vows not to benefit from people is permitted to benefit from this poor man鈥檚 tithe.

讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 讬讟诇讜 讻讜壮 讗诇诪讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches that if one said: I will not let priests and Levites benefit from me, they can take the priestly and Levitical gifts from him against his will. The Gemara notes: Apparently, the benefit of discretion to give his teruma and tithes to the priest or Levite of his choice is not considered to have monetary value. The priests and Levites can take the gifts from the owner of the produce against his will, and the latter is not regarded as having conferred benefit upon them.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗诇讜 讜诇讜讬诐 讗诇讜 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 讬讟诇讜 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讛谞讬 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谉

But say the latter clause of the mishna, which states that if the person said: I will not let these specific priests and these specific Levites benefit from me, these gifts are taken by others. But these priests and Levites specified in his vow may not take these gifts. Apparently, this ruling indicates that the benefit of discretion is considered to have monetary value, and therefore the owner can prohibit specific priests or Levites from deriving benefit from him.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜谞讘 讟讘诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讻诇讜 诪砖诇诐 诇讜 讚诪讬 讟讘诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rav Hoshaya said: This is not difficult; this second ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that first ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: If one steals another鈥檚 untithed produce and eats it, he must pay him the value of his untithed produce, i.e., the full value of what he stole. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagrees and says: He pays him only the value of the non-sacred produce it contained. The thief does not have to pay him the value of the teruma and tithe included in the untithed produce, as these portions do not belong to the owner of the produce. What, is it not the case that they disagree about this:

Scroll To Top