Nedarim 33b — the Talmud in English

Rav Hoshaya said: This ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

is the statement of Hanan .

For he holds that if a man went to an overseas country, and another came and provided for his wife, even though he paid his debt for him—for the obligation to provide for his wife rests upon the husband—even so, the latter is like one who places his money on a deer's horn, and his fellow is not obligated to pay him anything , because he is merely like one who drives away a lion .

Here too, although the one who imposed the vow paid the debt of the one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit, the borrower is not obligated to pay him for this; therefore this is not considered that he benefited him.

Rava said: You may even say

our Mishna

is the statement of everyone.

For even according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Hanan and say that the husband must repay this person what he paid for him, this is not similar to our matter.

For

with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit,

that is, in our Mishna, it is speaking of one who

gave on condition not to repay.

That is, when he lent to him, he stipulated with him that the lender would not be able to compel him to repay, but rather, whenever the borrower wished, he would repay him of his own accord.

Therefore, when the one who imposed the vow paid that debt, although it is possible that had he not paid it, the borrower would have paid it out of embarrassment, nevertheless, since he was able not to pay it, this is not considered that the one who imposed the vow gave the one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit anything .

What is Hanan?

With regard to which matter did Hanan state his words?

For we learned: One who went to an overseas country, and one person arose and provided for his wife

in his place.

Hanan said: This other has lost

the man

his money,

and the husband is not obligated to pay him.

The sons of High Priests disagreed with him and said: He shall swear

that person

how much he spent

for her, and

he shall take

the money from the husband.

Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas said: In accordance with their words [

in accordance with the words of the sons of High Priests].

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan has spoken well!

Indeed,

he placed

that person his

money on a deer's horn,

and he has nothing at all from the husband.

And we say:

Rava,

who established our Mishna as referring to one who lent on condition not to repay,

did not say as Rav Hoshaya

who established our Mishna according to the position of Hanan, because

he establishes the Mishna as the statement of everyone,

for Rava wished to establish our Mishna even according to the position of the Rabbis.

But

Rav Hoshaya did not say as Rava,

who established the statement of our Mishna as referring to one who lent without condition not to repay, because he holds that even in such a case it is forbidden for the one who imposed the vow to pay his debt according to the position of the Rabbis, because they decree

a decree against repaying—

because of repaying.

That is, if we permit a case in which he lent on condition not to repay, people will come to permit even a case in which he lent on condition to repay.

We learned in our Mishna:

He returns his lost property to him.

They disagree concerning it,

in explaining the words of our Mishna,

Rav Ami and Rav Asi.

One [

of them]

said: They taught

that he returns his lost property

only when the property of the one returning

the lost property

is forbidden to the owner of the lost property. For

then,

when he returns it to him,

the one who imposed the vow returns his lost property to him—

he is returning to him something belonging to himself [

he is returning to him something of his own, and is not giving him something of his own].

But

when

the property of the owner of the lost property is forbidden to the one returning it—

he does not return it to him,

the one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit does not return his lost property to the one who imposed the vow, because

he benefits him

the one who imposed the vow through this, through

“the coin of Rav Yosef.”

That is, while he is returning it to him, he is considered to be occupied with a mitzva, and if at that time a poor person comes to him to request a coin for charity, the one returning the lost property is exempt from giving it to him .

And one

of them

said: Even

when

the property of the owner of the lost property is forbidden to the one returning it—

he returns it to him, and

it is not forbidden

because of

the benefit that the one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit receives through being exempt from giving a coin to a poor person, for

the coin of Rav Yosef—

is not common.

For it is not common that a poor person should come precisely at the time when he is returning the lost property , and therefore this is not considered a benefit .