Komentarz do Nedarim 4:11

אין בין מודר. אלא דריסת הרגל – to pass through his land, or to lend out utensils that they don’t make in them food necessary for the Sabbath day, which are permissible for someone who took a vow of deriving food from him, but is forbidden if he took a vow to enjoying any benefit from him.

Introduction This mishnah and the subsequent mishnayoth discuss what is prohibited to a person who is under a vow not to benefit from his fellow. Note that these types of vows can be initiated by either party: Reuven may swear that Shimon may not benefit from Reuven’s property and Shimon may swear that he may not benefit from Reuven’s property.

נפה וכברה רחים ותנור (winnow, basket used as a sieve, millstone, an oven) – that they prepare in them food necessary for the [Sabbath] day. And all the more so, a pot or a spit where the food stands within it. One who takes a vow against food that is taught in our Mishnah, is he who says to him: “KONAM: benefitting from your food is upon me.”

The only difference between one who is under a vow not to benefit at all from his neighbor, and one who is under a vow prohibiting food benefit, is in respect of walking [on his property] and [the use of] utensils not employed in the preparation of food. There are two things which are permitted to one who is under a vow not to derive food benefit from his neighbor that 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. The next section of the mishnah will qualify this statement.

מקום שמשכירין כיוצא בהם (a place where these things are rented out) – for since it is the practice to rent out such things and he foregoes the rental payment, with those monies he can purchase food necessary for the [Sabbath] day and he made him take a vow from deriving benefit is brought through the food.

If a man is under a vow not to derive food benefit from his neighbor, he may not lend him a sifter, sieve, mill-stone or oven, but he may lend him a cloak, ring, garment, and earrings, and whatever is not employed in the preparation of food. In a place where things such as these are rented out, it is forbidden. A man who cannot derive food benefit from his neighbor may not borrow vessels which are involved in the making of food, but he may borrow things not involved in the making of food. However, if in such a place, the custom is to rent these things (a cloak etc.) then borrowing them is prohibited. For if the one who cannot receive benefit from his friend borrows these things without paying, he saves the money he would have otherwise had to spend. With that money he may now go and buy food. Indirectly, therefore, he has derived food benefit. Therefore, in such a place borrowing any item would be prohibited.

שוקל לו שקלו – the half-shekel that everyone from Israel is obligated for in each yer for the needs of the community sacrifices. But the person making he vow is able to pay his portion [for the one-half shekel] for him, for he is performing a mere Mitzvah.

Introduction This mishnah and the remainder of the chapter teach what a person can do with/for his friend, even though he is under oath not to give any benefit to him.

ופורע לו חובו – here are those who establish it especially regarding a debt that the borrower made a condition/stipulation with the lender that he should not pay back the debt other than when he wanted and the creditor is not able to pressure him, but now he doesn’t benefit him at all when he pays back his debt. But there are those who establish it for every debt that is in the world, which is not other than preventing the creditor that he should not make a claim against him, for the preventing of a claim is not within the category of benefit.

If one is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbor, [his neighbor] may pay his shekel, pay off his debts, and return a lost article to him. Where payment is taken for this, the benefit should become sacred property. When the Temple still stood every Jew had to send a half shekel every year for the upkeep of the Temple. Even if Reuven cannot receive benefit from Shimon, Shimon may pay his half shekel. Similarly, Shimon may pay off Reuven’s debts. Both of these are permitted because Shimon is not giving money directly to Reuven. Shimon may also return a lost object to Reuven because he is only returning to Reuven what is already his. Furthermore, all Shimon is doing is fulfilling the mitzvah of returning lost objects. If people customarily offer financial rewards to someone who returns a lost object, Shimon may not turn down Reuven’s offer of a reward, because by doing so he would be giving financial benefit to Reuven. If Shimon does not want to just take the money, he may donate it to the Temple by making it sacred property. Other commentators explain that this last clause refers to a case where neither party may benefit from the other. They are still allowed to return each other’s lost property, for that is a mitzvah. However, if a reward is given it must go to charity. The one who returned the lost object cannot take the reward nor can the one who received it not give the reward, for in either case, someone would have received financial benefit.

ומחזיר לו אבדתו – whether the property of the one returning [the object] are forbidden on the person who lost [the object] or whether the property of the person who lost [the object] are forbidden on the person who returns [the object], because he is performing a Mitzvah [of restoring/returning a lost object].

ובמקום שנוטלין עליה שכר תפול הנאה להקדש – when both of them take a vow of deriving any benefit from each other, if he akes the reward, it is found that he benefits, and if he doesn’t take the reward, it is found that he provides benefit [to the other], therefore, that benefit should fall to the Temple property. But we don’t say that he should bring the benefit to the Dead Sea (literally, Salt Sea), because his benefit is forbidden upon him like something given to the Temple property, therefore, all benefit that comes to his hand from him is Temple property/dedicated to a sacred purpose.

ותורם תרומתו ומעשרותיו לדעתו – as, for example, that he said, all who wish to make a heave-offering should come and make the heave-offering/Terumah. But he should not tell him to make the heave-offering, for behold that makes him an agent and it is a benefit to him that he performs his agency.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss what Shimon may do for Reuven who has sworn not to receive benefit from him. The first part of the mishnah discusses certain mitzvoth which might cost money. The second part deals with feeding those whom the person who cannot receive benefit has a responsibility to feed.

ומקריב לו קיני זבין וזבות – a Kohen who made a vow with an Israelite to not derive benefit from him, he can offer his sacrifices that he brings for a male with an emission and/or a female with an emission and/or [bird-offerings] for women who have given birth.

He may donate his terumah and his tithes with his consent. If Reuven cannot receive any benefit from Shimon, Shimon may still donate Reuven’s terumah and tithes, as long as Reuven consents. This could happen in two ways. First of all, Reuven could say that anyone who wants to donate his terumah or tithes may do so. Shimon may then take of Reuven’s produce and donate it. Alternatively, Shimon may donate of his own produce as if it was Reuven’s and thereby exempt Reuven from giving terumah or tithes. Reuven may not specifically tell Shimon to donate his terumah for then Shimon would be an agent of Reuven’s, which is forbidden.

ומלמדו מדרש – Sifra (i.e., the legal Midrash to Leviticus) and Sifrei (i.e., the legal Midrash to Numbers and/or Deuteronomy) , which is the Midrash of the the verses.

He may offer up for him the bird sacrifices of zavim and zavoth and the bird sacrifices of women after childbirth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. When a person is purified from having been a zav or a zavah (some type of gonorrhea), s/he must bring bird sacrifices. Similarly, after having given birth, a woman must bring bird sacrifices. After sinning, a person must bring either a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, depending upon the sin. The mishnah teaches that if Shimon is a kohen, and Reuven cannot receive benefit from him, Shimon may still offer up his sacrifices, because kohanim are agents of God and are not considered the agents of those whose sacrifices they are offering.

הלכות – a usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai (i.e., a traditional law or a traditional interpretation of a written law).

He may teach him midrash, halakhoth and aggadoth, but not Scripture, yet he may teach his sons and daughters Scripture Shimon can teach Reuven midrash (explanation of Scripture), halakhah (mishnah) and aggadah (legends) because all of these are part of the oral Torah, and teachers of the oral Torah were not paid for their teaching. Therefore, Reuven is not receiving financial benefit. However, Shimon may not teach Reuven written Torah (Scripture) without receiving pay, because people customarily were paid for this. If Shimon forgoes his pay, Reuven will have received financial benefit. However, Shimon may teach Reuven’s sons and daughters Scripture, for this is a commandment placed upon the father. Shimon’s helping Reuven fulfill a commandment is not considered financial benefit, even though in reality, Reuven is saving money. Note, that this mishnah implies that a parent is obligated to teach his child Torah, more than he is obligated to learn Torah himself.

אגדות – words of the Sages that were supported through Biblical passages. And the reason that it was permitted to teach him all of these things, is that a person is not permitted to take a salary in order to teach his fellow all these things, and there is no benefit here, for he is performing a Mitzvah.

And he may support his wife and children, even though he is liable for their maintenance. Shimon may feed Reuven’s family, even though Reuven is obligated to do so. This is because Shimon is not giving anything to Reuven.

אבל לא ילמדנו מקרא – for he is permitted to take a salary for the study of Bible for it is not other than the payment for the incisions in the Bible vers according to sense to play the Biblical verses in their appropriate manner, and it is not according to the Torah, and it is permitted to take payment for this for if he does not take payment, he ends up providing benefit for him, and if he takes [payment] it is found that he benefits. And specifically in a place where it is the practice to take payment for the Scripture, but in a place where they don’t take payment for Scripture, even Scripture is permitted to teach him.

But he may not feed his beasts, whether clean or unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may feed an unclean beast of his, but not a clean one. They said to him: what is the difference between an unclean and a clean beast? He replied to them, a clean beast, its life belongs to heaven, but its body is his own; but an unclean animal its body and life belongs to heaven. They said to him: The life of an unclean beast too belongs to heaven and the body is his own for if he wishes, he can sell it to a non-Jew or feed dogs with it. There is a debate whether or not Shimon may feed Reuven’s impure (unkosher) animal. All hold that he may not feed Reuven’s clean (kosher) animal, because that is giving Reuven money which he eventually might consume. However, the unkosher animal will not be eaten. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the impure animal’s flesh, when it dies, returns to God, just as its life-force does as well. Since the flesh doesn’t belong to its Jewish owner, Shimon may feed it and it is not considered direct benefit to Reuven. The other Sages argue that since Reuven may give the animal (its meat) to a non-Jew or feed it to a dog, by feeding it Shimon would be benefiting Reuven, and it is therefore prohibited.

אבל מלמד הוא את בניו – for even though it is a Mitzvah upon the father to teach his son, and this fulfills his obligation to do so, it is not called benefit, for the Mitzvot/commandments were not given to benefit from them. But it is also possible that he would find someone else who will teach him (i.e., his son) for free.

לא יזון את בהמתו – for it is satisfactory to him (i.e., the animal) with spices and this benefits him.

טמאה נפשה וגופה לשמים – that for work it exists and he doesn’t worry about the corpse.

שאם ירצה מוכרה לעכו"ם – for eating and he takes the excess monies for its corpse.

עומד אבל לא יושב – our Mishnah deals with when those who visit [the sick] enter who are forbidden [by vow] to the sick. But in a place where they take payment on sitting with the infirm person, for if he sits with him and doesn’t take his customary payment, he causes him benefit. But standing, it is a short time and it is not customary to take payment for this.

Introduction The mishnah deals with several types of benefit that Shimon must refrain from giving Reuven who has sworn (or been sworn by Shimon) not to receive benefit from him.

רפואת הנפש – the healing of his body.

If one is forbidden to benefit from his neighbor, and he pays him a visit [in sickness] he must stand, but not sit. Shimon may visit Reuven when he is sick, because that is a mitzvah. However, he shouldn’t sit with him for a long time, because that would be causing benefit to Reuven.

רפואת ממונן – the healing of his cattle/beast. For it is obligatory for a person to heal his fellow when he takes ill, as it states (Deuteronomy 22:2): “then you shall give it back to him,” to include he loss of his body, and he is doing a Mitzvah, therefore, even though he made a vow not to allow him to derive any benefit from him, he heals him with his hands when he becomes sick in his body. But if his beast/cattle became ill, he is not able to heal it with his hands because he provides benefit, but says to him: “this drug/medication is fine for it (i.e., the animal), [or] that drug/medication is bad/harmful for it (i.e., the animal).

He may afford him a cure of life, but not a cure of money. The Talmud explains that Shimon may help cure Reuven for that is a commandment. However, he may not cure Reuven’s animal for that is a monetary benefit.

אבל לא בקטנה – because he provides benefit t him when he raises the water over him.

He may bathe together with him in a large bath, but not in a small one. If Shimon gets into a small bath with Reuven, he will raise the level of the bath water, and thereby benefit Reuven. Therefore he may not do so. However, he may get into a large bath with him where the water level will barely be raised.

אבל לא בימות הגשמים – because he warms it (i.e., through his body) And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

He may sleep in a bed with him. Rabbi Judah said: in summer, but not in winter, because he thereby benefits him. He may [nevertheless] recline with him on a couch. He may sleep in bed with him, even though he warms up the bed. Rabbi Judah restricts this to the summer months, when it is warm anyway. However, even Rabbi Judah agrees that he may recline with him on the same couch, and we are not concerned lest he fall asleep.

אבל לא מן המחוי – he doesn’t eat with him in one utensil, lest he leave over from eating a nice portion that is within in order that this one who took a vow against deriving benefit from him will eat, or lest a piece that he eat draws close in front of him and it is found that he benefitting him.

[He may] eat at the same table with him but not out of the same bowl; but he may eat with him out of a bowl which returns. He may not eat with him out of the food trough put before laborers. Reuven may eat at the same table as Shimon, and we are not concerned lest Reuven eats from Shimon’s plate and thereby derives benefit. However, they may not eat out of the same communal bowl, lest Shimon intentionally leave the best part of the food for Reuven, and thereby cause him benefit. If the communal bowl was a “returning bowl” meaning one that was full of food, such that each person eating could eat his fill and still have leftovers, then they may share. In such a case, there is no concern that Shimon will leave food for Reuven because there is enough for everyone. They may not eat out of the same bowl put before laborers, because laborers are always hungry and there are never leftovers. Therefore, Shimon might eat less so that Reuven could eat more.

אבל אוכל הוא מן התמחוי החוזר – the owner of the house. Reuven eats in a bowl that he knows that when he will return it to the owner of the house, the house owner will go back and send it to Shimon who is under a vow against benefit from him, and we don’t suspect lest he (i.e., the owner of the house) in order that Shimon will eat from it and it is found that he is benefitting him.

He may not work with him on the same furrow, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: he may work at a distance from him. According to Rabbi Meir they may not work plowing the same furrow, since if Shimon works harder he will benefit Reuven by allowing him to work less. The Sages allow them to work in the same furrow, as long as they keep their distance.

האבוס שלפני הפועלים – a large utensil that we fill it and all of the workers will eat from it together.

לא יקצור עמו באומן – he should not trim with in in the same row that he trims. For this causes him that he will hurry to do his work that when he finds the place free, and it is found tha the benefits him. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

מן הנוטות (from the overhanging fruit) – suspended/hanging fruit that overhang outside of the orchard.

Introduction During the sabbatical (seventh) year, the produce that a person’s fields grow is legally ownerless and therefore anyone can enter anyone else’s fields and eat what he wishes. Our mishnah teaches about prohibitive vows and the sabbatical year.

ובשביעית לא ירד לתוך שדהו – even though the All-Merciful made ownerless the produce of the seventh year, the All-Merciful did not make the surface of the land ownerless, and we suspect lest at the time that he doesn’t eat from the produce, he will tarry on the field and be delayed there and benefit from the surface of the land which is not ownerless.

He who is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor, [if the vow was imposed] before the seventh year, may not enter his field, nor eat produce that hangs over [from the other’s property]. If Reuven takes a vow that Shimon shall not benefit from his property before the seventh year, Shimon may not enter Reuven’s field, because as we learned in mishnah one, when one is forbidden by vow to benefit from another, even walking in his field is forbidden. He may also not eat of the produce that hangs over from the field, even when in the seventh year. Although this produce is now ownerless, and Shimon is not benefiting from Reuven, since this produce was prohibited to Shimon, the seventh year does not make it permitted.

If [the vow was imposed] in the seventh year, he may not enter his field, but may eat of the produce that hangs over [from the other’s property]. If the vow was imposed in the seventh year, then Shimon still cannot go onto Reuven’s property. However, he may eat of the produce that hangs over the property line since Reuven did not own the produce when the vow was taken, such that he could forbidden it to Shimon.

If he was forbidden [merely] in respect of food, [and the vow was imposed] before the seventh year, he may enter his field, but may not eat of its fruits. If the vow was not prohibitive of all benefit, but just of food, then Shimon may enter Reuven’s property. However, if the vow was taken before the sabbatical year, then Shimon may still not eat the food.

But [if it was imposed] in the seventh year, he may enter [his field] and eat [of its fruits]. If the vow which only prohibited food was taken on the sabbatical year, Shimon may enter Reuven’s property and eat, for the produce was not Reuven’s to prohibit.

המודר הנאה חמבירו לא ישאילנו – as a decree lest he borrow from him, and he forbade benefit of that person upon him. But similarly, he cannot lend him, as a decree lest he borrow from him.

Introduction The first section continues to discuss prohibitions applicable to a person who cannot derive benefit from another because of a vow. The second section is a digression from the topic of our chapter.

ולא ימכור לו – for less than its worth/value, a decree lest he also purchase from him for less than its worth/value and it is found that he is benefitting.

He who is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor may not lend [objects] to him or borrow from him, lend [money] to him or receive from him a loan, sell to him or purchase from him. If Reuven cannot receive benefit from Shimon, he certainly may not borrow from him. Our mishnah teaches that he is prohibited even from lending to him, lest by doing so he also borrows. This fear of reciprocity is the reasoning that lies behind the following mutual prohibition as well. Obviously, Reuven cannot borrow money, but the mishnah teaches he may not even lend money to Shimon, lest he borrow as well. Reuven cannot sell or buy lest he benefit from either transaction.

אם היה דרכו לחרוז הוא אסור – he did not intend other than that he himself should not plow like he was accustomed, but others will plow.

One says to another, “Lend me your cow.” [The other] says, “It is not available.” [The first one] says, “Konam, if I ever plow my field with it’. If he generally plowed himself, he is forbidden, but others are permitted. But if he did not generally plow himself, he and others are forbidden. This section is not directly related to the larger topic of this chapter. It is brought here because it also has to do with lending and vowing. Reuven asks Shimon to borrow his cow to plow with it. Shimon responds that his cow is not available. Reuven, being somewhat impatient, takes a vow that he will never use Shimon’s cow to plow his field. The mishnah rules that if Reuven normally plows on his own, Shimon can lend him the cow and others can plow Reuven’s field with it. In other words, we interpret Reuven’s vow literally; Reuven cannot plow with it, but others can. However, if Reuven does not normally plow, then obviously when he said “Konam, if I ever plow my field with it”, then he meant “Konam, if my field is ever plowed with it.” Therefore, even others may not plow his field with Shimon’s cow.

ואם אין דרכו לחרוש – his intention was not to plow it, neither him nor others.

ואין לו מה יאכל – it (i.e., the Mishnah) took a usual incident, and the same law applies even if he has what to eat.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a situation in which Shimon is forbidden by a vow from receiving benefit from Reuven, yet is in need of financial help and Reuven wants to help him. The mishnah provides legal fictions by which Shimon may derive benefit from Reuven without actually transgressing his vow.

ובא זה ונוטל מזה – if he wants to give him, and he doesn’t violate his vow. But he cannot force him to pay him, for this one did not say to him: “Give him and I will pay.” But if he said to him, yes, it is prohibited, for that makes him into an agent.

If one is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor, and he has nothing to eat, he [the neighbor] can go to the shopkeeper and say, “So-and-so is forbidden by vow to benefit from me, and I do not know what to do.” The shopkeeper may then provide for him, and come and receive payment from him [the neighbor]. Shimon, who may not benefit at all from Reuven, has nothing to eat, and Reuven wishes to help him. Reuven cannot, of course, give directly to Shimon, but he may go to a shopkeeper and tell him that Shimon has nothing to eat, and that Reuven would like to do something. Reuven should not directly tell the shopkeeper to give food to Shimon, but rather should hint at it. The shopkeeper may then provide Shimon with food and receive payment from Reuven, without Shimon breaking his vow. The crucial factor here is that Reuven did not actually tell the shopkeeper to feed Shimon.

If he had to build his house, or his fence to set up, or his field to harvest, he [the neighbor] may go to laborers, and say, “So-and-so is forbidden by vow to benefit from me, and I do not know what to do.’ They may then work for him and come and receive wages from him [the neighbor]. In this case, Shimon had to (re)build his house, set up a fence, or harvest his field, but did not have any money to pay workers. Again, Reuven wants to help him (Reuven is quite a generous guy), but cannot do so directly because of the vow. As he did with the shopkeeper in the previous section, he may hint to laborers that Shimon needs work done for him, and that he would like to help Shimon, but doesn’t know what to do. The workers may then go to Shimon and afterwards collect their wages from Reuven. The mishnah needs to teach the second clause, even though the ruling should have been obvious after the first clause, in order to emphasize that this type of “legal fiction” is permitted even in cases not involving food. Since the case in section two is less likely to be a matter of life and death, we might have thought that in this case, the legal fiction would not be permitted. The mishnah therefore emphasizes that it is.

ור"י אוסר – for since there isn’t there another who would be able to provide other than him, it is like a gift. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi. But especially when he (i.e., the one who has taken a vow not to benefit from his fellow) has nothing to eat, that the Rabbis permit, but not with another person.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a situation where Shimon who may not benefit from Reuven, is walking on the road with Reuven and Shimon runs out of food to eat. The question is, how can Reuven give food to Shimon without breaking the vow?

If they are walking together on the road, and he has nothing to eat, he can make a gift to a third person, and he is permitted [to eat] it. In this scenario, there is a third person walking on the road with Reuven and Shimon. Reuven may give the food to the third person, with the assumption that Shimon will take it from him. As long as Reuven does not give the food directly to Shimon, the vow has not been transgressed.

If there is no one else with them, he may put it on a stone or a wall and say, “This is free to whomever desires it”, and the other takes and eats it. Rabbi Yose prohibits this. According to the first opinion, if there is no third person walking with them, Reuven may put the food down and declare it legally ownerless and then Shimon may take it. Although it is obvious that Shimon is going to take the food, and no one has taken possession of it since Reuven had possession, this is still permitted. Rabbi Yose forbids this, and considers it to be no different than Reuven giving directly to Shimon.