Nedarim 43a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

:

Granted, he should not lend to him,

because

he benefits him.

But

what we learned:

he should not borrow from him,

why?

How does he benefit him?

In what does the one prohibited by vow from benefiting benefit from the one who imposed the prohibition by his lending to him?!

And granted, he should not borrow from him and should not purchase from him,

it is still possible to say that this is because

the one prohibited by vow from benefiting benefits from him,

for example, he lent him inferior coins, and the one who imposed the prohibition repaid him with superior coins. And likewise, concerning what we learned, that the one who imposed the prohibition should not purchase from the one prohibited by vow from benefiting, it is possible to say that it refers to a transaction from which the seller benefits.

But

what we learned, that

the one who imposed the prohibition should not borrow from him,

the one who imposed the prohibition from the one prohibited by vow from benefiting,

how does the one prohibited by vow from benefiting benefit from him

by his lending it to him?

Rav Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said:

Our Mishna speaks of

a case where they vowed

two people

not to benefit from one another,

and therefore they are forbidden both to borrow and to lend, and so forth.

Abaye said:

In truth, when the one who imposed the prohibition borrows from the one prohibited by vow from benefiting, the latter does not benefit at all. And the reason that our Mishna forbade the one who imposed the prohibition to borrow is

a decree because of borrowing—

because of lending.

That is, lest the one who imposed the prohibition come to lend to the one prohibited by vow from benefiting, in which case he certainly benefits him!

And likewise in all of them,

also with a loan and with a sale—the prohibition is because of

a decree.

Mishna:

He said to him

to his fellow:

Lend me your cow!

He said to him: It is not available.

His fellow said

his fellow, because he was angry with his fellow for not wishing to lend it to him

Konam, my field, that I shall never plow it with it [that is, I vow that I shall never plow my field with your cow]!

(то есть: «Я даю обет никогда не пахать своим полем с твоей коровой»)!

If it was his practice to plow

his field himself, then

he is forbidden

to plow with it,

but every person—

is permitted.

For since he himself plows the field, the meaning of his words is only that he himself is included.

But if it is not his practice to plow, he and every person are forbidden.

For he did not intend by his words the plowing of himself, since he does not plow at all. Rather, he intended that he should not benefit from the plowing of his field, even if it was done by another.

One prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow, and he has no

for his fellow

anything

that

to eat, the one who imposed the prohibition goes

to

to the shopkeeper [according to the version of the Ran, even to a shopkeeper who regularly serves him]

[согласно версии Рана, даже к лавочнику, который обычно имеет с ним дело]

and says: “So-and-so is prohibited by vow from benefiting from me, and I do not know what I should do” [that is, I would like to benefit him, but I cannot]!

[то есть: «Я хотел бы оказать ему пользу, но не могу»]!

And he,

the shopkeeper,

gives it to him

to the one prohibited by vow from benefiting.

And the shopkeeper comes

—

and takes payment from him [from the one who imposed the prohibition. And the one who imposed the prohibition is not obligated to pay him; rather, if he wishes, he pays].

[с наложившего запрет. Наложивший запрет не обязан платить ему, но если хочет — платит].

And likewise, if

his house

of the one prohibited by vow from benefiting needed

to be built,

or if

his fence

needed

to be fenced,

or if

his field

needed

to be reaped,

the one who imposed the prohibition goes

to

to the laborers and says: “A certain man

is prohibited by vow from benefiting from me, and I do not know what I should do!”

And they perform the work for him,

with the one prohibited by vow from benefiting, the work that he requires,

and they come and take their wages from him [from the one who imposed the prohibition; and if he wishes, he pays them, but he is not obligated].

[с наложившего запрет; а если тот хочет, то платит ему, но не обязан].

If

the one who imposed the prohibition and the one prohibited by vow from benefiting

were walking on the road, and he had no

for the one prohibited by vow from benefiting

anything

that

to eat,

the one who imposed the prohibition gives

food

to one person

food

as a gift, and

then

the other one,

the one prohibited by vow from benefiting,

is permitted to partake of it,

for he does not benefit from the one who imposed the prohibition, but from the recipient of the gift.

If there is no other person with them, he places

the food, the one who imposed the prohibition,

on a rock or on a fence, and says: “Behold, they are ownerless for anyone who wishes!”

And the other takes and eats,

for he does not benefit from the one who imposed the prohibition, but from the ownerlessness.

But Rabbi Yosei forbids [his reason will be explained in the Gemara].

[его причина будет разъяснена в Гемаре].

Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

Because

he holds

that

ownerlessness—

it is

like a gift. Just as with a gift,

if he said, “I hereby give a gift to so-and-so,” he may retract

until it passes from the domain of the giver

to the domain of the recipient,

so too ownerlessness,

does not leave the domain of the owners—

until it comes into the domain of one who acquires it.

And therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that ownerlessness is not effective here, since in the end the one prohibited by vow from benefiting acquires from the one who imposed the prohibition.

Rav Abba objected:

“If they were walking on the road, etc., he places it on the rock, etc., and says, ‘Behold, they are ownerless,’ etc.”

And the other takes and eats.

But Rabbi Yosei forbids.

Rabbi Yosei said: When

is he forbidden?

When they vowed

by which he prohibited his benefit to his fellow—it was

before his declaring it ownerless.