GEMARA. As for 'HE MUST NOT LEND TO HIM,' that is well, since he [thereby] benefits him. But 'HE MUST NOT BORROW FROM HIM' — how does he benefit him? Further, [even] 'HE MUST NOT RECEIVE A LOAN FROM HIM' and 'HE MUST NOT PURCHASE FROM HIM' are well, since he [the muddar] may benefit.1 But 'HE MUST NOT BORROW FROM HIM': how does he [the muddar] benefit? — Said R. Jose son of R. Hanina: It means e.g., that they made a vow not to benefit from one another. Abaye answered: He is forbidden to borrow, lest he also lend, and the same applies to the other clauses.2
MISHNAH. IF ONE SAYS TO ANOTHER, 'LEND ME YOUR COW, TO WHICH THE OTHER REPLIES, 'IT IS NOT FREE'; WHEREUPON HE EXCLAIMS, 'KONAM, IF I EVER PLOUGH MY FIELD WITH IT', IF HE GENERALLY PLOUGHED HIMSELF, HE IS FORBIDDEN,3 BUT OTHERS ARE PERMITTED. BUT IF HE DID NOT GENERALLY PLOUGH HIMSELF, HE AND ALL MEN ARE FORBIDDEN.4 IF ONE IS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT AUGHT FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, AND HE HAS NAUGHT TO EAT, HE [THE MADDIR] CAN GO TO THE SHOPKEEPER AND SAY, SO-AND-SO IS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT AUGHT FROM ME, AND I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO'. THE SHOPKEEPER MAY THEN SUPPLY HIM, AND COME AND RECEIVE PAYMENT FROM HIM [THE MADDIR]. IF HE HAD HIS [THE MUDDAR'S] HOUSE TO BUILD, OR HIS FENCE TO ERECT, OR HIS FIELD TO REAP, HE [THE MADDIR] MAY GO TO LABOURERS, AND SAY, 'SO-AND-SO IS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT AUGHT FROM ME, AND I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO.' THERE UPON THEY WORK FOR HIM [THE MUDDAR]. AND COME AND RECEIVE WAGES FROM HIM [THE MADDIR]. IF THEY ARE WALKING TOGETHER ON THE ROAD, AND HE [THE MUDDAR] HAS NOTHING TO EAT, HE [THE MADDIR] CAN MAKE A GIFT TO A THIRD PERSON, AND HE [THE MUDDAR] IS PERMITTED [TO HAVE] IT. IF THERE IS NO OTHER WITH THEM, HE PLACES IT ON A STONE OR A WALL, SAYING, 'THIS IS FREE TO WHOMEVER DESIRES IT'; AND THE OTHER TAKES AND EATS IT. BUT R. JOSE FORBIDS THIS.
GEMARA. R. Johanan said, what is R. Jose's reason? He maintains that hefker5 is like a gift: just as a gift [is not valid] until it passes from the possession of the giver into that of the receiver, so hefker too [is not valid] until it passes into the ownership of him who acquires it.6 R. Abba objected: And the other [the muddar] takes and eats it; but R. Jose forbids this. Said R. Jose: When is that? If the vow preceded his renunciation;
Nedarim 43bbut if his renunciation preceded his vow, it is permitted. Now if you say [that it belongs to the first owner] until it comes Into the possession of him who acquires it, what does it matter whether his vow preceded his renunciation or the reverse? — He raised the objection and answered it himself: He who vows has no thought of what he has renounced.
Raba objected: [If the dying person assigned] part [of his property] to the first, and all of it to the second, [and then recovered,] the first acquires, but not the second!1 But Raba said, This is R. Jose's reason: It is a preventive measure, on account of the gift of Beth Horon.2
It was taught: If one declares his field hefker: he can retract within the first three days, but not after.3
- To Next Folio -