Nedarim 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Hoshaya said: This is

the statement of Hanan .

for he holds that if a man went overseas, and another came and supported his wife, although he paid his debt for him—for the husband is obligated to support his wife—nevertheless, the other is like one who places his money on the horn of a deer, and his fellow is not obligated to pay him anything , because he is merely like one who drives away a lion .

So too here: although the one who imposed the vow paid the debt of the one prohibited by the vow, 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 according to everyone.

For even according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Hanan and say that the husband must reimburse the one who paid the debt for him, this is not comparable to our case.

For

with regard to one prohibited by an oath from benefiting,

that is, in our Mishna, it is speaking

of one who gave on condition that it not be repaid.

That is, when he lent him the money, he stipulated that the lender would not be able to compel him to repay it; rather, the borrower would repay it whenever he wished, 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 the borrower could have refrained from paying, this is not considered that the one who imposed the vow gave anything to the one prohibited by the vow .

What is the statement of Hanan?

With regard to which matter did Hanan say his statement?

For we learned in the Mishna: If one went overseas, and another arose and supported his wife

in his stead.

Hanan said: The other has lost

that man

his money,

and the husband is not obligated to pay him.

The sons of High Priests disagreed with him and said: He must take an oath

that man

as to how much he spent

for her,

and he shall take

the money from the husband.

Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas said: The halakha is in accordance with their words [

according to the words of the sons of High Priests].

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan spoke well!

Indeed,

he placed

that man

his money on the horn of a deer,

and he has nothing from the husband.

And we say:

Rava,

who interpreted our Mishna as referring to one who lent on condition that the loan not be repaid,

did not state his view in accordance with Rav Hoshaya,

who interpreted our Mishna as following the view of Hanan, because

he interprets the Mishna as according to everyone,

as Rava wished to interpret our Mishna as applying even according to the Rabbis.

Whereas

Rav Hoshaya did not state his view in accordance with Rava,

who interpreted our Mishna as referring to one who borrowed without a condition that the loan not be repaid, because he holds that even in such a case, according to the Rabbis, it is prohibited for the one who imposed the vow to pay his debt, because they decree

a decree against a loan that is not to be repaid -

because of a loan that is to be repaid.

That is, if we permit the case in which he borrowed on condition that the loan not be repaid, people will come to permit even the case in which he borrowed on condition that the loan be repaid.

We learned in our Mishna:

He returns his lost item to him.

Rav Ami and Rav Asi disagreed

on the interpretation of the words of our Mishna,

Rav Ami and Rav Asi.

One [

of them

said: They taught

that he returns his lost item

only when the property of the one returning

the lost item

is forbidden to the owner of the lost item.

Then,

when he returns

the one who imposed the vow returns his lost item to him -

he is returning something of his own to him [

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

But

when

the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning it -

the one prohibited by the vow does not return

the lost item of the one who imposed the vow to him, because

he benefits him

the one who imposed the vow through this,

“the peruta of Rav Yosef.”

That is, while he is returning the lost item to him, he is considered occupied with a mitzva; and if a poor person comes at that time to ask him for a peruta for charity, the one returning the item is exempt from giving it to him .

And another

of them

said: Even

when

the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning it -

he returns it to him, and

there is no prohibition

due to

the benefit enjoyed by the one prohibited by the vow, in that he is exempt from giving a peruta to a poor person, for

the peruta of Rav Yosef -

is uncommon.

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