No hay diferencia entre otorgar un beneficio al vecino y pedirle comida a él, pero "la pisada del pie" [El beneficio de otorgar es más estricto que otorgar alimentos solo en el que el beneficio no puede entrar en la propiedad del otro, mientras que el que bevows food may], y (otra diferencia), recipientes que no se usan para la preparación de alimentos, [se les permite prestarlos a alguien que bebe alimentos (pero no a uno que se beneficia). Y esto, solo en un lugar donde tales embarcaciones no son alquiladas; pero en un lugar donde están contratados, está prohibido (incluso para alguien que le pide comida). Para (está prohibido) cualquier beneficio que resulte en comida. Porque si este no lo hubiera beneficiado (al prestarle el recipiente), le faltaría un beneficio alimenticio de perutah. Porque con esa perutah (salvada), él puede comprar comida.] No hay diferencia entre votos y regalos, pero uno debe hacer los votos, pero no necesita hacerlo para los regalos. [("votos" :) Si uno dice: "Me encargo (es decir, me comprometo) a traer una ofrenda quemada", después de lo cual lo separó (el animal) y se perdió, debe traer un objeto diferente uno. ("regalos" :) Si uno dice: "este animal es (dado) como una ofrenda quemada", y se perdió, no necesita traer uno diferente, ya que no se lo llevó. Pero en lo que respecta a la responsabilidad por la demora, ambos son lo mismo, está escrito (Deuteronomio 23:24): "... lo que le has prometido al Señor tu Di-s, el regalo que hablaste con tu boca, etc. ".
Bartenura on Mishnah Megillah
אין בין המודר הנאה – One who is forbidden by vow to derive any benefit is not more severe than one [who is forbidden] by vow from [consuming] food other than entering one’s ground, for one [who is forbidden] by vow to derive any benefit , is prohibited to enter into his [home],[whereas] one [who is forbidden] by vow from [consuming] food is permitted [to enter into his home].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah
There is no difference between one who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by vow from [benefiting from] his food, except in the matter of setting foot [on his property] and of vessels which are not used for [preparing] food. There are two things which are permitted to one who is under a vow not to derive food benefit from his neighbor which are not permitted to one who may not benefit from his neighbor at all: walking on his property and the use of things not involved in the making of food. For more information look at Nedarim 4:1.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Megillah
וכליים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש – It is permitted to lend them (i.e., the utensils) to one [who is forbidden] by vow from [consuming] food, and especially in a place where they do not hire and similar cases, but in a place where we hire and similar things, it is prohibited, for all benefit that brings one towards [eating] food, for if he did not derive this benefit which is wanting at least the equivalent of a Perutah/penny, it is the benefit of food, for since it is appropriate for that Perutah/penny [to be used] to purchase food.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah
There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings. Vowed offerings are stated using the language “Behold, I will bring an animal as an offering.” If a person sets aside an animal to be a vowed offering and the animal cannot for whatever reason be sacrificed (for instance, it gets lost or dies) he must bring a substitute. However, if he makes a freewill-offering using the language, “I will bring this animal as a sacrifice” and the animal is lost, he need not bring another. In all other respects, there is no difference between the two types of offerings.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Megillah
נדר – He who says, “behold this burnt offering is upon me,” and afterwards, he set it aside and it was lost, he is liable for his property which may be resorted to in the event of non-payment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Megillah
נדבה – He who says, “behold this burnt offering is upon me,” and it was lost, he is not liable for his property which may resorted to in the event of non-payment, for he did not accept it upon himself, but [regarding] the matter of "בל תאחר"/that he should not be late (see Deuteronomy 23:22: “When you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not put off fulling it/לא תאחר לשלמו , [for the LORD your God will require it of you, and you will have incurred guilt.]”); both are equivalent, as it says (Deuteronomy 23:24): “…and perform what you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, having made the promise with your own mouth,” for behold, vows and donations are mentioned in this matter.
