Nedarim 33a — the Talmud in English

And we raise a difficulty:

But

only

from food did

that person vow with regard to his fellow, that he should not benefit from him; and why was he also prohibited from using a sieve, a strainer, a mill, and an oven?!

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of one who says: “The benefit of your food is upon me.”

Since he used such wording, it is reasonable that he prohibited upon himself every matter that causes food to be prepared. And he used the expression “your food” because through the benefit he causes, the food is improved.

And we raise a difficulty:

And still, why was he prohibited with regard to these matters?

Say

that when he said, “The benefit of your food is upon me,” he intended to say

that

not only may he not eat from his fellow’s food, but he may also

not chew wheat

belonging to his fellow

and place it upon his wound

[for chewed wheat is beneficial for a wound ], that is, that he may not benefit from the substance of the food at all. But why should he be forbidden with regard to a sieve, a strainer, and so on?!

Rava said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of one who says: “The benefit

that brings about your food is upon me,”

and therefore he is forbidden even with regard to utensils that bring about food.

Rav Pappa said:

It is not only these matters that are considered benefit that brings about food, but even

a sack to bring

in it

produce, and a donkey to bring produce upon it, and even an ordinary basket

[a basket]

alone ,

although he does not improve the food with them, but merely brings it in them; nevertheless,

it is benefit that brings about food,

for the produce had been distant from him, and through this it was brought nearer; therefore it is forbidden to borrow these things from the one who imposed the vow.

However,

Rav Pappa raised a question:

To take the

horse of the one who imposed the vow

in order

to ride upon it

to the banquet,

and

likewise to take the

ring of the one who imposed the vow

in order

to appear with it

before an important person, and he will give him a fine portion —

what

is the ruling? Is this considered benefit that brings about food?

Or is this not similar to a sack and a donkey, where he performs an act with the food itself, bringing it in a sack and on a donkey, whereas here he does not perform an act with the food itself; this is merely an indirect cause—and it is permitted?

Rav Pappa further raised a question:

To cut across and walk through his land,

that is, to pass through the land of the one who imposed the vow so that he will reach the food more quickly—

what

is the ruling? Is this considered benefit from food, or since he does not perform an act upon the substance of the food, is this not considered benefit from food?

Come and hear

from what we learned in our Mishna:

But he may lend him

the one who imposed the vow

a garment and a cloak, earrings and rings.

What are the circumstances?

How is this speaking; for what purpose does he lend it to him?

If you say that it is not

speaking of one who borrows in order

to appear with them,

but merely for his needs,

is it necessary to say so?

Must the tanna teach us as a novelty that he may lend him these things, given that he imposed a vow upon him only with regard to food and not with regard to other matters?!

Rather, is it not

certainly the Mishna is speaking

even

of one who lends him these things in order

to appear with them, and

nevertheless

it teaches

that he

may lend them to him!

And we reject this:

No. It is always

speaking of one who lends him

not

in order

to appear

with them, and indeed there is no novelty in this.

And since he teaches

the tanna at

the beginning

with regard to a sieve, a strainer, a mill, and an oven the expression

“he may not lend it to him,”

whereby the tanna comes to inform us that it is forbidden to lend him utensils with which food is prepared,

he taught

also at

the end, “he may lend it to him” .

Mishna:

And every matter that is not used to prepare food,

in

a place where

it is customary that they

rent out similar items,

such things—

are forbidden

even to one prohibited from benefiting from his food.

For we explained above that what we learned in the Mishna, “one prohibited from benefiting from food,” is speaking of one upon whom a vow was imposed with regard to benefit that brings about food. If so, when the one who imposed the vow lends him an item that is generally rented out, and payment is taken for it, and he lends it to him without payment, this is benefit that brings about food, since with the rental fee that the one who imposed the vow waived for him, the person prohibited by the vow can purchase food for himself.

Gemara:

By implication

the words of the Mishna indicate

that at the beginning,

what we learned, that he may not lend him a sieve, a strainer, and so on, is speaking

even though they do not rent out

similar items!

Who is the tanna?

Who is the tanna who holds that it is forbidden to lend him these things?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that a concession is forbidden to one prohibited by a vow from benefiting. Therefore it is forbidden even to borrow these things, although people concede them and do not take payment for them.

Mishna:

One who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting from his fellow, he may weigh his

the one who imposed the vow

half-shekel,

that is, the one who imposed the vow gives on his behalf the half-shekel that all Israel give each year in the month of Adar for the Chamber Contribution, for the sake of communal sacrifices. This is either because he does not give it directly into his hand and is therefore not considered to have caused him benefit from his property [the Commentator], or because in any event they would contribute on his behalf from the three collection boxes out of all the money of the half-shekels found in the chamber, from which the communal sacrifices were purchased.

And he pays

on his behalf

his debt

that he owes to another person, since he does not place money directly into his hand [the Commentator].

And he returns his lost property to him.

For he does not give him anything, but returns what belongs to him.

And

in a place where they take

[for returning the lost property]

payment,

that is, for example, when by returning the lost property he is prevented from performing his work and loses money, in which case the owner of the lost property pays him his wages, then, if the one returning it does not wish to accept that payment,

the

same

benefit shall fall to the Temple treasury.

That is, the person prohibited by the vow shall give it to the Temple treasury . For otherwise it would emerge that the one who imposed the vow causes him benefit by waiving his payment!

Gemara:

Apparently,

it follows that weighing his half-shekel and paying his debt

is merely driving away a lion,

for it is like one who drives away a lion that has come upon him: he did not give him anything of his own, but merely removed the harmful thing from him.

Likewise, when he pays his debt, he does not give him anything, but merely removes his creditor from him so that he will not come to demand payment from him.

And likewise with weighing his half-shekel, he does not give him anything, for in any event he has a share in the communal sacrifices, since they “contribute” the three collection boxes from the funds of the half-shekels, from which communal sacrifices are purchased, also on behalf of those who have not yet paid their half-shekels, so that the communal sacrifices are for all Israel, including those who did not participate in the half-shekel but he merely removes his debt from him—

And

therefore

it is permitted.

Who is the tanna?

Who is the tanna who holds that this matter is permitted?