## Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim Chapter 4

###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:1:1)

**משנה:** אֵין בֵּין הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לַמּוּדָּר הֵימֶנּוּ מַאֲכָל אֶלָּא דְרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל וְכֵלִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ. הַמּוֹדָּר הֲנָיַית מַאֲכָל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יַשְׁאִלֶינּוּ נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וְרֵחַיִם וְתַנּוּר. אֲבָל מַשְׁאִיל לוֹ חָלוּק וְטַלִּית נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ. מְקוֹם שֶׁמַּשְׂכִּירִין כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another¹ and one who is under a vow about use of food is passing through his real estate² and vessels that cannot be used to prepare food. One who is under a vow about use³ of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven. But he may borrow from him a robe or a stole, nose rings and finger rings, and anything that is not used to prepare food. At a place where one rents out any of these it is forbidden⁴.

footnotes:
¹ B made a vow that A may have no usufruct from him.. If A makes a vow that B shall have no usufruct from him, the expression is in the active mode, הַמּוֹדֵר בְּ.
² Setting his foot on the other’s property.
³ The word הניית is not in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. From the Halakhah it will be seen that it was not in the original version of the Mishnah.
⁴ Since he could buy food for the money saved by not renting; this is counted as usufruct used for food.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:1:2)

**הלכה:** אֵין בֵּין הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. הָא דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ אָסוּר. וְלֹא מִמַּאֲכָל נָדַר. אָמִר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אֵין בֵּין מוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיַית מַאֲכָל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ. תַּנֵּיי דְּבֵית רִבִּי כֵן. הַמּוֹדָּר הֲנָיַית מַאֲכָל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶינּוּ נָפָה וּכְבָרָה רֵיחַיִם וְתַנּוּר. תַּנֵּי. אֲבָל מַשְׁאִילוֹ כּוֹסוֹת וּקְעָרוֹת וְתַמְחוּיִין. שֶׁאֵינָן מֲהַנִּין אֶת הָאוֹכֶל אֲבָל מַכְנִסִין אֶת הָאוֹכֶל. לָפַּסִּים וּקְדֵירוֹת אָסוּר. לִטְחוֹן וְלִדְרוֹךְ אָסוּר. לִקְצוֹר צְרִיכָא וְלִבְצוֹר צְרִיכָה. הֲנָיַית מַהוּ. תַּנֵּי אֲבָל מַשְׁאִילוּ קוֹרְדּוֹם. הֲוֵינָן סָבְרִין מֵימַר. בְּקוֹרְדּוֹם שֶׁלַּבַּקַעִי. תִּיפְתָּר בְּקוֹרְדּוֹם שֶׁלַּמַּכּוּשׁ. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָהּ כְּלוּם. רִבִּי אֲבוּנָא אָמַר. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי אָהֵן יוסטה מִכֵּיוָן דִּי מְרָחֵק וַחֲשַׁר בָּהּ קִמְחָא אֲסִיר מִישְׁאַל לֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ⁷ 1:9, 71a 1. 73.“The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use³ of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven⁸.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans⁹ 7:4, Note 69. and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden¹⁰. Cutting is a problem, harvesting¹¹ is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that *ysṭ’*¹² זוֹסְטָא. Mussaphia sees Greek ζωστήρ -ῆρος, ὁ “belt” in the *Megillah* form; but is is difficult to separate coarse from fine flour by using a belt. {Cf. Latin *haustrum* (also *austrum*) from *haurire* “to draw (water), to pluck, take, etc.,” and gloss *hauritorium* (Greek ἀντλητήριος, adj., “for drawing up”), “a bucket” (Lewis and Short) (E. G.).}, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.

footnotes:
⁷ The entire paragraph is in Megillah
³ The word הניית is not in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. From the Halakhah it will be seen that it was not in the original version of the Mishnah.
⁸ This is the language of the Yerushalmi Mishnah. This and the explanation of R. Simeon ben Laqish shows that the Mishnah text was that of the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss: הַמּוּדָּר מַאֲכָל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ and that the Yerushalmi text is the corrected one. Question and answer are also in the Babli, 33a.
⁹ Greek; cf. Peah
¹⁰ Milling grain and pressing grapes.
¹¹ Cutting grains and harvesting grapes.
¹² In Megillah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:1:3)

רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. שֶׁהוּא כְנוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת לִיקַּח בָּהֶן כִּכָּר. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵי. מֵעַתָּה אָסוּר לְהַשְׁאִיל לוֹ מָעוֹת. שֶׁהוּא כְנוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת לִיקַּח בּוֹ כִּכָּר. רִבִּי אֲבִינָא אָמַר. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. אִילֵּין קוֹזְמִידַיָיא דְּאִית עֲלֵיהוֹן אֲסִיר מִישְׁאַל לוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Because it is as if he gave him money to buy a loaf with⁴. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Then is it forbidden to borrow money from him, for it is as if he gave him money to buy a loaf with? Rebbi Abina said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: That jewellery¹³ on them, is it forbidden to lend to them?

footnotes:
⁴ Since he could buy food for the money saved by not renting; this is counted as usufruct used for food.
¹³ J. Levy in his Dictionary refers to κοσμίδιον (κόσμιον) “jewellery” in Du Cange’s Greek glossary. S. Lieberman (הירושלמי כפשוטו2, New York -Jerusalem 1995, p. ח) thinks that this refers to professional dancers at weddings.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:2:1)

**משנה:** הַמּוּדָר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ שׁוֹקֵל לוֹ אֶת שִׁקְלוֹ וּפוֹרֵעַ לוֹ אֶת חוֹבוֹ וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֲבֵידָתוֹ. מְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר תִּיפּוֹל הֲנָיָיה לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another, [the other] may give his *šeqel*¹⁴ due every year. Since the money is paid to the Temple, B does not receive anything., pay his debt¹⁵ and return what he has lost¹⁶. At a place where one takes a fee for this, the gain should be given to the sacred fund¹⁷.

footnotes:
¹⁴ If A has vowed that B should have nothing from him, A may pay B’s Temple tax of half a šeqel
¹⁵ As long as the debt is not due, A simply restrains the creditor from asking money from B.
¹⁶ Since he returns B’s own property, B receives nothing from A.
¹⁷ The Temple, or in its absence the communal welfare fund.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:2:2)

**הלכה:** הַמּוּדָר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. הַפּוֹרֵעַ שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּחָנָן וּבנֵי כֹהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. טַעֲמָא דִבְנֵי כֹהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים. תַּמָּן לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתָּן שֶׁתָּמוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּרָעָב. בְּרַם הָכָא מְפַיֵיס הֲוֵינָא לֵיהּ וְהוּא מוֹחֵל לִי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דַהֲוָה גַבֵּיהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן. מְפַיֵיס הֲוֵינָא לֵיהּ וְהוּא יְהַב לִי מַשְׁכּוֹנִי. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁאֵינוֹ דוֹחֵק. וַאֲפִילוּ בְּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁדּוֹחֵק. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. [וְשׁוֹקֵל אֶת שִׁקלוֹ. וְלֹא שָׁקַל אֵין ממַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ.] תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנִּינָן. וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִינֵּי זָבִין קִינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִכְנַס לְתוֹךְ יָדָיו כְּלוּם. וָכָא בְּשֶׁלֹּא יַכְנִס לְיָדָיו כְּלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If one is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. ²⁰ 13:2 (35d line 30 ff.) Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If somebody pays off somebody else’s debt without the latter’s knowledge, is that the disagreement of Ḥanan and the High Priests’ sons²¹ Mishnah 13:2: “If somebody went overseas and another person paid for the upkeep of his wife (without a court order or a contract with the wife), Ḥanan said, that person lost his money. The High Priest’s sons disagreed with him and said, he shall swear how much he spent and collect it.”? Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the High Priest’s sons is that nobody expects his wife to die from hunger. But here, [the debtor could say:] “I could negotiate with him and he would forgive some.” Think of it, if [the loan] was on a pledge! “I could negotiate with him and he would return my pledge.” So far about a creditor who does not push [for repayment]. Even for a creditor who pushes, we can hear from the following: “He may give his *šeqel*¹⁴ due every year. Since the money is paid to the Temple, B does not receive anything.. If somebody does not pay his *šeqel*, does one not take a pledge from him? This says, even for a creditor who pushes. You should know that this is so, as we have stated²²: “He can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges²³ he could enter the Temple. For a male, *Lev*. 15:14. For a female, *Lev*. 15:29., nests for childbirth²⁴. 12:8, for the wife of a man who could not afford a sheep, *Lev*. 12:6., purification and reparation offerings²⁵. 4:27–5:26. These sacrifices are in part burned on the altar, in part eaten by the priests; nothing is given to the offerer and his family, in contrast to well-being offerings.” since nothing of these comes to [the other person’s] hand. And here²⁶ also, that nothing should come into his hand.

footnotes:
²⁰ The entire Halakhah is found also in Ketubot
²¹ Ketubot
¹⁴ If A has vowed that B should have nothing from him, A may pay B’s Temple tax of half a šeqel
²² Mishnah 3, a continuation of Mishnah 2 about the person to whom usufruct from another was forbidden.
²³ “Nest” is the technical term for a couple of birds from the pigeon family, prescribed sacrifice for the person healed from genital discharge before
²⁴ Due before the mother could enter the Temple, Lev
²⁵ Lev
²⁶ In the case of a debt paid by the third party, the deal has to be structured so that nothing ever comes into the possession of the debtor.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:2:3)

רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אוֹמֵר. אֵין לָךְ נִתְפַּס עַל חֲבֵירוֹ וְחַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְנוֹן וּבְגוּלגּוֹלֶת. רַב אָמַר. כָּל הַנִּתְפַּשׂ עַל חֲבֵירוֹ חַיָיב לוֹ. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרַב מִן הָדָא. הַגּוֹזֵל שָׂדֶה וּנְטָלוּהָ מֵסִיקִין. לֹא שָׁמַע דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קְנָס קָנְסוּ בְּגַזְלָן. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעֵי דַּהֲוָה רַבֵּיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר לוּלְיָינִי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר. בְּאַרְנוֹן וּבְגוּלגּוֹלֶת. [וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. אֵינָהּ כְּאַרְנוֹן וּכְגוּלגּוֹלֶת.]

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor except for *annona*²⁹ and the head-tax were imposed as communal obligations. Cf. *Demay* 2, Note 12. and head-tax. Rav said, anything for which one is held responsible for one’s neighbor has to be repaid. The strength of Rav is from the following³⁰ 10:6: “He who appropriated a field and oppressors took it, if the entire country is hit, he may say to him: Here is yours before you. But if it was because of the robber, he is obligated to give him another field. If a river washed it away, he may say to him: Here is yours before you.”
Somebody took real estate from another by threats and/or force. In general, we say that “real estate cannot be stolen” since the original owner can prove his claim in court once anarchy has been suppressed. But here we deal with the case that something happened before the original owner could sue the robber and the field is no longer available. If the field was taken by an “oppressor”, a Roman official against whom there is no recourse in the courts then, if everybody’s field was taken, the original owner has no claim since the field would have been taken even if it had not been stolen. But if the field was taken because the robber had a run-in with the law, the robber must pay for a replacement even though legally the field was still the original owner’s property when it was taken. The Yerushalmi (*Neziqin*, 7c, line 20) notes that even if the oppressors took the field from the robber because of the robbed, the robbed could claim replacement from the robber since he might say: Give me what is mine and let any other person deal with me. On this, R. Joshua ben Levi and Rav disagree there as they disagree here.: “He who appropriated a field and oppressors took it.” He did not hear that Rebbi Joḥanan said³¹ 10:6. In the Babli, *Baba Qama* 116b/117a, it remains a question whether the rule represents a fine or a generally valid legal principle., they exacted a fine from a robber. Rebbi Abin³² asked, (who was the father of) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus both said in the name of Samuel; one said, it is like *annona* and head-tax³³ or head-tax. This supports R. Joḥanan that the rule represents a fine. The opposite opinion supports Rav against R. Joḥanan.; the other one said, it is not like *annona* and head-tax.

footnotes:
²⁹ The requisition for the Roman army, the amounts being determined in advance every year. It seems from this statement that both annona
³⁰ Mishnah Baba Qama
³¹ Baba Qama
³² R. Abin II.
³³ If a Roman official took the field illegally it nevertheless has the status of annona


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:2:4)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מְרַפְּאֵהוּ רְפוּאַת נֶפֶשׁ אֲבָל לֹא רְפוּאַת מָמוֹן. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חַד אָמַר. כָּאן בִּמְדִירָה מִגּוּפוֹ וְכָאן בִּמְדִירָה מִנְכָסָיו. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. כָּאן בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִי שֶׁיְרַפְּאֶנּוּ וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִי שֶׁיְרַפְּאֶנּוּ. אִם בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִי שֶׁיְרַפְּאֶנּוּ אֲפִילוּ רְפוּאַת נֶפֶשׁ לֹא יְרַפְּאֶנּוּ. לֹא מִכָּל אָדָם זוֹכֶה לְהִתְרַפּוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated³⁴. 22:2) and cannot be abolished by a vow. Financial healing is veterinary medicine. The question is, if he is required to return what the other one had lost as required in Mishnah 2, why can he not heal his cow which is lost without medical help?: “He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing.” Rebbi Judan and Rebbi Yose. One of them said, here if the vow refers to his body, there if the vow refers to his property³⁵. But the other one said, here if he has somebody else who can heal him, there if there is nobody else who can heal him. If he has somebody else who can heal him, he should not be able to heal him personally! Not by everybody is a person successfully healed³⁶.

footnotes:
³⁴ Mishnah 4. Personal healing is healing a human, which is a biblical commandment (Deut
³⁵ Mishnah 2 refers to a vow that B cannot personally have any gain from A; therefore A may return what B lost. Mishnah 3 deals with the case that B cannot have any material advantage from A; therefore A cannot heal B’s animal.
³⁶ The personal skills of a medical man are not transferable.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:2:5)

וְלֹא נִיכְסֵי הַמַּחֲזִיר הֵן שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לְבַעַל הַפָּרָה. עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ נִיכְסֵי זֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל זֶה וְנִיכְסֵי זֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Is not the property of the finder forbidden to the owner of the cow³⁷? Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Isaac: If each man’s property was forbidden to the other.

footnotes:
³⁷ If A’s property was forbidden to B and A returned a stray cow to B, why should the finder’s fee go to charity and not to A? It must be that B’s property was forbidden to A.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:2:6)

מָאן תַּנָּא תִּפּוֹל הֲנָיָיה לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. מוֹעֲלִין בְּאִיסָּרוֹת. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵי. נָדַר מִן כִּכָּר מָהוּ לְחַמֵּם בּוֹ אֶת יָדָיו. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמַר. כִּכַּר זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אֲכָלוֹ בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחֵר מָעַל. לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לוֹ פִדְיוֹן. אִם אָמַר. הֲרֵי הוּא עָלַי. אֲכָלוֹ מָעַל בּוֹ בְטוֹבַת הֲנָיָיה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אֲחֵרִים לֹא מָעֲלוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹ פִדְיוֹן. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא אֲכָלוֹ. הָא לְחַמֵּם בּוֹ אֶת יָדָיו מוּתָּר. תַּלְמִידוֹהִי דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. כֵּינִי בָאוֹמֵר. לֹא אוֹכְלֵינוּ וְלֹא אֶטְעָמֶנּוּ. לֹא אֲסָרוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא לַאֲכִילָה. עַד כְּדוֹן צְרִיכָה נָדַר מִן הַכִּכָּר מָהוּ לְחַמֵּם בּוֹ אֶת יָדָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Who is the Tanna of “the gain should be given to the sacred fund”? Rebbi Meïr! For Rebbi Meïr said, one commits sacrilege with prohibitions³⁸ or any of its equivalents, the rules of sacrifices apply and any unauthorized use is sacrilege subject to the penalties described in *Lev*. 5:14–16: A sacrifice in the value of one Temple *šeqel* and restitution of 125% of the value taken.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If somebody made a vow [to forbid] a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands³⁹? Let us hear from the following⁴⁰22a/23b, in the name of R. Meïr. In all Babli sources, R. Simeon dissents.: “If he said, this loaf shall be dedicated, if he or another person ate it, they committed sacrilege⁴¹. But since a loaf of bread cannot be a sacrifice, it can be redeemed (*Lev*. 27:11–14.); therefore, it can be redeemed. But if he said, it is for me [as if dedicated], if he ate it he committed sacrilege on goodwill⁴² but others would not commit sacrilege.” He said only, if he ate it. Therefore, to warm his hands is permitted⁴³. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: That is if he said I shall not eat it nor taste it; if he forbade only eating to himself. But the question was, if somebody made a vow [to forbid] a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands⁴⁴?

footnotes:
³⁸ If somebody forbids something for himself by the language of qorbān
³⁹ If the loaf is fresh from the oven.
⁴⁰ Tosephta 2:9, Babli 35a, Šebuot
⁴¹ It follows all the rules of a sacrifice since it is called qorbān
⁴² Since he cannot eat the loaf or use it commercially, the only use open to him is to donate the loaf to somebody. The monetary value of the goodwill acquired in this act is the basis for computing the restitution (Note 38).
⁴³ Even for R. Meïr.
⁴⁴ For an unspecified vow and use which cannot be quantified in monetary terms. The question remains open.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:3:1)

**משנה:** וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ. וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִינֵּי זָבִין קִינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וּמְלַמְּדוֹ מִדְרָשׁ הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת וְלֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ מִקְרָא אֲבָל מְלַמֵּד הוּא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנוֹתָיו מִקְרָא. וְזָן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתָן. וְלֹא יָזוּן אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בֵּין טְמֵיאָה וּבֵין טְהוֹרָה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר זָן אֶת הַטְּמֵיאָה וְאֵינוֹ זָן אֶת הַטְּהוֹרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ מַה בֵּין טְמֵיאָה לַטְּהוֹרָה. אָמַר לָהֶן שֶׁהַטְּהוֹרָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהטְּמֵיאָה נַפְשָׁהּ וְגוּפָהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַף הטְּמֵיאָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה הֲרֵי מוֹכְרָהּ לַגּוֹיִם אוֹ מַאֲכִילָהּ לַכְּלָבִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Also he⁴⁵ can separate his heave and tithes with the other’s knowledge, and can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges²³ he could enter the Temple. For a male, *Lev*. 15:14. For a female, *Lev*. 15:29., nests for childbirth²⁴. 12:8, for the wife of a man who could not afford a sheep, *Lev*. 12:6., purification and reparation offerings²⁵. 4:27–5:26. These sacrifices are in part burned on the altar, in part eaten by the priests; nothing is given to the offerer and his family, in contrast to well-being offerings. and teach him interpretations⁴⁶ and *Sifry*., religious rules, and sermons⁴⁷; but he may not teach him Bible; he may teach Bible to his sons and daughters⁴⁸ 3:4, Note 85.. Also, he can feed his wife and children⁴⁹ even though the other is obligated for their upkeep. But he cannot feed his animals⁵⁰, whether pure or impure; Rebbi Eliezer says, he may feed his impure⁵¹ animals but not the pure ones. They asked him, what is the difference between pure and impure animals? He said to them, the pure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his⁵², but the impure’s soul and body is Heaven’s. They said to him, also the impure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his, since he could sell it to Gentiles⁵³. 9:3. or feed it to the dogs.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ The person who made a vow that the other shall have no profit from him. Heave and tithes diminish the farmer’s wealth; they do not increase it.
²³ “Nest” is the technical term for a couple of birds from the pigeon family, prescribed sacrifice for the person healed from genital discharge before
²⁴ Due before the mother could enter the Temple, Lev
²⁵ Lev
⁴⁶ Rabbinic interpretations of biblical verses, of the kind preserved in the Mekhiltot, Sifra,
⁴⁷ As the Halakhah explains, in imitation of Moses who taught the Children of Israel without taking money, one may not take money for teaching the Oral Law. (In rabbinic practice, one may take money for teaching during regular business hours to make up for the loss incurred by not being in business at that time.)
⁴⁸ Since Moses wrote the Torah only at the end of his life, he never taught it. Therefore, one may take money to teach to read, sing, and understand the biblical text. This anonymous Mishnah proves that practice should not follow R. Eliezer in Mishnah Soṭah
⁴⁹ If they are needy, since charity is a universal obligation.
⁵⁰ Since this would increase the animal’s worth; i. e., the other man’s property.
⁵¹ Those which cannot be eaten.
⁵² As food.
⁵³ Who may eat any kind of animal; Gen


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:3:2)

**הלכה:** וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ כול׳. הַמְתַקֵּן פֵּירוֹתָיו שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָיַית מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו שֶׁל מִי. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלַּמְּתַקֵּן. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר שֶׁלַּבַּעַל הַפֵּירוֹת. רִבִּי זְעִירָא כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הִפְרִישׁ קָרְבַּן נָזִיר וְקָרְבַּן מְצוֹרָע שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ הַמִּתְכַּפֵּר הוּא שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה (תְרוּמָה). מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְתוֹרֵם תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ לְדַעְתּוֹ. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָיָיה בָהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Also he can separate his heave” etc. If somebody fixes the harvest of another person without the latter’s knowledge, who receives the goodwill⁵⁴ from the tithes? Rebbi Abbahu says, the one who does the fixing⁵⁵. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, the owner of the produce. Rebbi Ze‘ira is consistent since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁵⁶50b, *Zebaḥim* 6a, *Temurah* 2b, 10b), a statement of R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan states that the person purged only can make the exchange but the goodwill belongs to the person who gives the produce. The Babli also quotes R. Ze‘ira in the same sense as the Yerushalmi but clearly prefers R. Abbahu over R. Ze‘ira against the Yerushalmi., if somebody gave the sacrifice of a *nazir*⁵⁷. 6:14–15. or of a [healed] person afflicted with skin disease⁵⁸. 14:10., the person purged makes (heave)⁵⁹, makes no sense since the sacrifices are given to the Cohen who alone directs the purging ceremony. With all commentaries one has to read תְמוּרָה “substitution” instead of תְרוּמָה “heave”, a simple metathesis. It is asserted that if somebody dedicates an animal as somebody else’s obligatory sacrifice, then only the person for whom the sacrifice is destined may substitute another animal (which action is sinful, *Lev*. 27:9–10). If the donor would substitute another animal after dedication, the action would be invalid and the substitute profane as before. In analogy, R. Simeon ben Laqish must hold that sanctified food can be disposed of only by the person whose obligation is satisfied by the sanctification.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Also he can separate his heave and tithes with his knowledge.⁶⁰” Explain it, that [it was stipulated] that the other should not get the goodwill⁶¹.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ That value is estimated by what a third party Israel would be willing to pay to the farmer to have the latter give his heave to his grandson, the son of his daughter and his Cohen son-in-law, or the tithes to a levitic grandson. “To fix” means to separate heave and tithes, to prepare the harvest for use and sale.
⁵⁵ Since he uses his own produce to make the other person’s produce permitted for profane use.
⁵⁶ In the Babli, 36b (and also Yoma
⁵⁷ Num
⁵⁸ Lev
⁵⁹ This word, found in the ms. and the editio princeps
⁶⁰ In that case, A would make a donation of the value of the goodwill to B while B is forbidden to receive any gain from A!
⁶¹ This stipulation overrides any general rule and makes the transaction legal.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:3:3)

כְּתִיב רְאֵה לִימַּדְתִּי אֶתְכֶם חוּקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים. מָה אֲנִי בְחִינָּם אַף אַתֶּם בְּחִינָּם. יָכוֹל מִקְרָא וְתַרְגּוּם כֵּן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים. חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים אַתֶּם מְלַמְּדִים בְּחִנָּם. וְאֵי אַתֶּם מְלַמְּדִין בְּחִנָּם מִקְרָא וְתַרְגּוּם. וְכֵן חָמֵיי מַתְנִיָיתָא נָסְבִין אַגְרִיהוֹן. אָמַר רִבּי יוּדָן בֵּירִבִּי יִשְׁמָעַאל. שְׂכָר בְּטֵילָן הֵן נוֹטְלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written⁶². 4:5. The same argument in the Babli, 37a.: “Behold, I taught you laws and rules.” Just as I did it for free, so you have to do it for free. One could think the same is true for Bible and translations? The verse says laws and rules. You have to teach laws and rules⁶³ for free; you do not have to teach Bible and translations for free⁶⁴. But do we not see that the *baraita* teachers take their fees? Rebbi Yudan, the son of Rebbi Ismael, said: They take payment for lost time.

footnotes:
⁶² Deut
⁶³ In their practical rabbinic form.
⁶⁴ Elementary school teachers have to be paid well. The text is quoted by Ran, commentary to 37a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:3:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן זָן אֶת עֲבָדָיו וְאֵינוֹ זָן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ. הֲווֹן בָּעֶיי מֵימַר. מָאן דָּמַר. הַטְּהוֹרָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְגוֹפָהּ וְנַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם זָן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ. מָאן דָּמַר. שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה הֲרֵי מוֹכְרָהּ לַגּוֹיִם אוֹ מַאֲכִילָהּ לַכְּלָבִים. וזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכְרָהּ לַגּוֹיִם וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִילָהּ לַכְּלָבִים זָן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. זָן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their words [we can deduce] whether he⁶⁵ may feed his slaves or may not feed his⁶⁶ slave⁶⁷. They wanted to say that he who says⁶⁸ “the pure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his,” and this one, because her⁶⁷ body and soul is Heaven’s, he⁶⁵ may feed his⁶⁶ slave. And he who says⁶⁹, since he could sell it to Gentiles or feed it to the dogs, since this one’s body is his⁶⁶ but he cannot sell her to Gentiles⁷⁰ nor feed her to the dogs, he may feed his slave. It was found stated: He may feed his slave⁷¹. The reason is given that slaves are not bought for fattening..

footnotes:
⁶⁵ A, the maker of the vow.
⁶⁶ B, the person forbidden profit from A.
⁶⁷ The inconsistencies in number and gender are in the text.
⁶⁸ R. Eliezer.
⁶⁷ The inconsistencies in number and gender are in the text.
⁶⁵ A, the maker of the vow.
⁶⁶ B, the person forbidden profit from A.
⁶⁹ The Sages.
⁶⁶ B, the person forbidden profit from A.
⁷⁰ Since a circumcized slave cannot be sold to Gentiles and an uncircumcized slave cannot be kept in the household.
⁷¹ In the Babli, 38b, a named baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:4:1)

**משנה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִכְנַס לְבַקְּרוֹ עוֹמֵד אֲבָל לֹא יוֹשֵׁב. וּמְרַפְּאֵהוּ רְפוּאַת נֶפֶשׁ אֲבָל לֹא רְפוּאַת מָמוֹן. וְרוֹחֵץ עִמּוֹ בְאַמְבָּטִי גְדוֹלָה אֲבָל לֹא בִקְטַנָּה. וְיָשֵׁן עִמּוֹ בַּמִּיטָּה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה אֲבָל לֹא בִימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְהַנֵּהוּ. וּמֵסֵיב עַמּוֹ עַל הַמִּיטָּה וְאוֹכֵל עִמּוֹ עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַתַּמְחוּי. אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא עִמּוֹ מִן הַתַּמְחוּי הַחוֹזֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody is forbidden by a vow any profit from another person and that one comes to make a visit, he may stand but not sit down⁷². He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing³⁴. 22:2) and cannot be abolished by a vow. Financial healing is veterinary medicine. The question is, if he is required to return what the other one had lost as required in Mishnah 2, why can he not heal his cow which is lost without medical help?, and may bathe with him in a large pool but not in a small one⁷³, and he may sleep with him on the same couch. Rebbi Jehudah says, in summer but not in the rainy season because he would profit. He can lie with him [at a dinner] on the same couch and eat with him at one table but not from the same pot⁷⁴. But he may eat with him from a returning pot⁷⁵.

footnotes:
⁷² If B is forbidden any profit from A it is obvious that B cannot sit on any of A’s chairs. But here it is stated that A cannot sit in B’s chair even if he makes a medical visit.
³⁴ Mishnah 4. Personal healing is healing a human, which is a biblical commandment (Deut
⁷³ If the pool is so small that one additional person visibly raises the water level, this would be a profit and is forbidden. (In modern Hebrew, the word means “bathtub”. The root ابط means “hollow”).
⁷⁴ One is afraid that he purposely would take less food so the other man would have more.
⁷⁵ As explained in the Halakhah, a pot so full that in any case it will not be emptied by the guests.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:4:2)

**הלכה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבִירוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים אָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֶא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody is forbidden by a vow any profit from another person,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long⁷⁶.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ There is no intrinsic reason why A cannot sit in B’s chair (Note 72). The rule is simply a precaution that A should not come to violate his own vow. The same tradition is mentioned in the Babli, 39a, in the name of R. Simeon ben Elyaqim.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:4:3)

מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאָסַר הָרוֹפֵא נְכָסָיו עָלָיו. אֲבָל אִם אָסַר הָחוֹלֶה נְכָסָיו עָלָיו שֶׁלָּרוֹפֵא הוּא חָטָא עַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The Mishnah [deals with the case] that the healer forbade his property on the sick person⁷⁷. But if the sick person forbade his property on the healer he sinned against himself⁷⁸.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ We did not say that the knowledge of the healer is his capital and he is forbidden to heal the sick.
⁷⁸ The healer is forbidden to treat the sick person since the sick forbade to himself to pay the healer or to show any recognition for the services received.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:4:4)

אֲבָל לֹא בְאַמְבָּטִי קְטַנָּה. דְּהוּא מְרַתֵּחַ לֵיהּ. תַּנֵּי רוֹחֵץ עִמּוֹ בְּמֶרְחַץ קְטַנָּה. דִּי נְסַב אֶישַתָֿא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“But not in a small pool,” for he heats it. It was stated: He bathes with him in a small bathhouse, for he takes away heat.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:4:5)

תַּנֵּי. מִן הַתַּמְחוּי הַחוֹזֵר. מָהוּ תַמְחוּי הַחוֹזֵר. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. פִּיסְגָּתָא. רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. תַּמֲחוּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל וְלִשְׂבּוֹעַ וּלהוֹתִיר. תַּנֵּי. מִן הַכּוֹס הַחוֹזֵר. אֵי זֶהוּ כוֹס הַחוֹזֵר. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין קוֹנְדִּיטוֹן. רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. מָלֵיי מי סורס וְקָרְחִין וְשָׁתְיָין וּמַחֲזִירִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: From the returning pot. What is a returning pot? There, they say, portions⁸³. The rabbis here say, a pot which contains [enough food] to eat, to be full, and to leave leftovers. It was stated: From the returning cup. What is a returning cup? The rabbis there say, spiced wine⁸⁴ (cf. *Berakhot* 6:5, Note 157). This is drunk only in small portions.. The rabbis here say, one fills a מיסורס, they draw, drink, and return⁸⁵.

footnotes:
⁸³ The pot contains equal portions for everybody; there is no possibility that one guest would take less so the other could have more. In the Babli, 41b, the explanation of the rabbis “here” (in Galilee) is accepted.
⁸⁴ Latin conditum vinum
⁸⁵ The vessel is newly filled for each guest; there is no fear of interference.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:5:1)

**משנה:** לֹא יֹאכַל עִמּוֹ מִן הָאֵבוּס שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה עִמּוֹ בָאוֹמֶן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עוֹשֶׂה הוּא בְרָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He should not eat with him from the common pot set before the workers⁸⁶. nor work with him in a profession⁸⁷, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he can work at a distance from him.

footnotes:
⁸⁶ It belongs to the standard contract of day laborers that the employer has to feed them. This he usually does by preparing a pot from which everybody takes (literally “a trough”). This is then the same as a non-returning tamḥui
⁸⁷ This is the interpretation of the Yarushalmi. The Babli, 41b, takes אומן to be a synonym of ניר “a furrow” and holds that both cannot work on the same field at the same time.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:5:2)

**הלכה:** לֹא יֹאכַל כו׳. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָסוּר לְלַמְּדוֹ אוֹמָנוּת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָסוּר לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He should not eat,” etc. In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is forbidden to teach him a trade. In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is forbidden to act in his defense.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:6:1)

**משנה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לִפְנֵי שְׁבִיעִית לֹא יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִן הַנּוֹטוֹת. וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית לֹא יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא מִן הַנּוֹטוֹת. נָדַר הֵימֶינּוּ מַאֲכָל לִפְנֵי שְׁבִיעִית יוֹרֵד בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת. וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית יוֹרֵד וְאוֹכֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat from the overhang⁸⁸. In the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter his field⁸⁹ but he can eat from the overhang. If he vowed not to eat from the other before the Sabbatical year, he can enter⁹⁰ his field but he cannot eat of its fruits. During the Sabbatical year he enters and eats.

footnotes:
⁸⁸ Fruits of trees that hang over a public road, which do not belong to the tree’s owner but are ownerless.
⁸⁹ As the Halakhah points out, if by biblical decree everybody is permitted to eat from the yield of the Sabbatical, it must be permitted to enter all agricultural property for the purpose of harvesting. But in our case, if the maker of the vow would stay one moment too long, he would be sinning.
⁹⁰ Since he did not forbid that for himself.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:6:2)

**הלכה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לִפְנֵי שְׁבִיעִית כול׳. וְיֵרֵד. כִּדְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים. שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year,” etc. Why can he not enter⁸⁹? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long⁹¹.

footnotes:
⁸⁹ As the Halakhah points out, if by biblical decree everybody is permitted to eat from the yield of the Sabbatical, it must be permitted to enter all agricultural property for the purpose of harvesting. But in our case, if the maker of the vow would stay one moment too long, he would be sinning.
⁹¹ The same in the Babli, 42b.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:6:3)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לִפְנֵי שְׁבִיעִית אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִן הַנּוֹטוֹת. וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת. וְאִם נָדַר בַּשְּׁבִיעִית יוֹרֵד וְאוֹכֵל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לִפְנֵי שְׁבִיעִית לֹא יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת. וְאִם נָדַר בַּשְּׁבִיעִית לֹא יוֹרֵד בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ אֲבָל אוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת. נָדַר מִמֶּנּוּ מַאֲכָל לִפְנֵי שְׁבִיעִית יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת. וְאִם נָדַר בַּשְּׁבִיעִית יוֹרֵד וְאוֹכֵל. וַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דּוּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדַם נִדְרוֹ לְהֶפְקֵירוֹ. כֵּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. שֶׁקָּדַם נִדְרוֹ לְהֶבְקֵירוֹ הֶבְקֵירוֹ לְנִדְרוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּהֶבְקֵר תּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹתָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat from the overhang⁹³. In the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field and eat of the fruits⁹⁴ eat of the fruits.” This makes no sense. It seems that the text should be corrected to וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת “In the Sabbatical year, he can*not* enter his field but eat of the fruits” where the fruits are either the overhang or harvested by others on the field. This version is quoted in the Babli, 42a, as concurrent opinion of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. A similar statement in Tosephta 2:8.. If he vowed during the Sabbatical year, he enters and eats⁹⁵. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish explains the Mishnah: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat of its fruits⁹⁶. If he made the vow in the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter his field but he can eat of the fruits⁹⁴ eat of the fruits.” This makes no sense. It seems that the text should be corrected to וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת “In the Sabbatical year, he can*not* enter his field but eat of the fruits” where the fruits are either the overhang or harvested by others on the field. This version is quoted in the Babli, 42a, as concurrent opinion of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. A similar statement in Tosephta 2:8.. If he vowed not to eat from the other before the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field but he cannot eat of its fruits. If he made the vow during the Sabbatical year he enters and eats⁹⁵. That statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Yose said, for his vow preceded his abandoning, his abandoning his vow⁹⁷ 6:1 (fol. 19b), *Demay* 3:2 (fol. 23b), *Nedarim* 4:10] rejects the concept of ownerless property and holds that the owner has full responsibility for his abandoned property until it is taken up and acquired by another person.. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose agrees that he is permitted in the case of biblical abandoning⁹⁸.

footnotes:
⁹³ While the fruits overhanging the public domain are ownerless, the tree belongs to the person he forbade to himself.
⁹⁴ The reading here is uncertain. The text given is that of the first hand of the ms. The corrected version reads וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת “In the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field but not
⁹⁵ This last clause of the Mishnah applies to both cases; there is no difference whether the vow refers to all property or only to food.
⁹⁶ Including the overhang.
⁹⁴ The reading here is uncertain. The text given is that of the first hand of the ms. The corrected version reads וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת “In the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field but not
⁹⁵ This last clause of the Mishnah applies to both cases; there is no difference whether the vow refers to all property or only to food.
⁹⁷ These two words are probably superfluous; they are missing in the parallel in Halakhah 10. It is stated in Mishnah 10 that if A and B walk together and B has no food, then A may put some food on a rock and declare it ownerless, whereupon B can take it. R. Yose objects since A’s food remains forbidden to B if nobody else acquired it before it came to A. R. Yose [Peah
⁹⁸ Sabbatical produce is available for everybody by biblical decree, not by human action. Therefore, there is no comparison between Mishnaiot 6 and 10.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:7:1)

**משנה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ וְלֹא יִשְׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ לֹא יַלְוֶינּוּ וְלֹא יִלְוֶה מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא יִמְכּוֹר לוֹ וְלֹא יִקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמַר לוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי פָרָתָךְ אָמַר לוֹ אֵינָהּ פְּנוּיָה. אָמַר קוֹנָם שֶׁאֲנִי חוֹרֵשׁ בָּהּ לְעוֹלָם אִם הָיָה דַרְכּוֹ לַחֲרוֹשׁ הוּא אָסוּר וְכָל אָדָם מוּתָּרִין. אִם אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לַחֲרוֹשׁ הוּא וְכָל אָדָם אֲסוּרִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow, he should not borrow from him nor ask him for anything⁹⁹, should not give him a loan nor take a loan for him, should not sell to him nor buy from him. If he said, lend me your cow, he says: she is not available. If he said, a *qônam* that I shall never plough with her, if he usually ploughs, he is forbidden, the rest of the world is permitted¹⁰⁰. If he does not usually plough, he and the rest of the world are forbidden.

footnotes:
⁹⁹ Tools or animals.
¹⁰⁰ His agricultural workers may still use that cow to plough his field.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:7:2)

**הלכה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶינּוּ כול׳. בְּאוֹמֵר. קוֹנָם שָׂדִי שֶׁאֵינִי חוֹרֵשׁ לְעוֹלָם. כְּאוֹמֵר. קוֹנָם שָׂדִי נֶחֱרֶשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow, he should not lend him,” etc. If somebody says, a *qônām* that I shall never plough, it is the same as if he said, a *qônām* that my field should never be ploughed¹⁰¹.

footnotes:
¹⁰¹ The grocer understands that he has to acquire the money before he gives anything to X in order not to infringe on the vow.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:8:1)

**משנה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹאכַל הוֹלֵךְ אֵצֶל הַחֶנְוָונִי וְאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מוּדָּר מִמֶּנּוּ הֲנָיָיה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה אֶעֱשֶׂה. וְהוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ וּבָא וְנוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow and he has nothing to eat, the other person goes to the grocer and tells him, X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do¹⁰¹. Then he pays him and X comes and takes from him.

footnotes:
¹⁰¹ The grocer understands that he has to acquire the money before he gives anything to X in order not to infringe on the vow.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:8:2)

**הלכה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹאכַל כול׳. שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בַּדִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow and he has nothing to eat,” etc. For he cannot recover from him in a court of law¹⁰².

footnotes:
¹⁰² Neither the donor nor the recipient can go to court if the grocer takes the money and does not deliver since the donor cannot be more explicit if he does not want to violate his vow. Therefore, the money really becomes the grocer’s and this method is not circumventing the law.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:9:1)

**משנה:** הָיָה בֵיתוֹ לִבְנוֹת גְּדֵירוֹ לִגְדּוֹר שָׂדֵהוּ לִקְצוֹר הוֹלֵךְ אֵצֶל הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מוּדָּר מִמֶּנּוּ הֲנָיָיה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה אֶעֱשֶׂה. הֵן עוֹשִׂין עִמּוֹ וּבָאִין וְנוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר מִזֶּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If he had his house to build, his fence to repair, his field to harvest, the other person goes to the journeymen and tells them, X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do. They work with him and come and take their wages from the other person.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:9:2)

**הלכה:** הָיָה בֵיתוֹ לִבְנוֹת גְּדֵירוֹ לִגְדּוֹר כול׳. מָהוּ דְיֵימַר. מָאן דַּעֲבַד לָא מַפְסִיד. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מַן הָדָא. בְּיוֹמוֹי דְרִבִּי אִמִּי נָפְלָה דְלֵיקָה בַּכְּפָר. וְאַפִּיק רִבִּי אִמִּי כְרוּז בְּשׁוּקָאֵי דַאֲרָמָאֵי וְאָמַר. כָּל דַּעֲבַד לָא מַפְסִיד. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. סַכָּנָה הֲוֵית. וְאִי סַכָּנָה הֲוֵית אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי אִימִּי יִטְפֵּי. לֹא תַנֵּי. כָּל דָּבָר סַכָּנָה אֵין אוֹמְרִים. יֵיעָשׂוּ בַגּוֹיִם וּבַקְּטַנִּים. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ בַגְּדוֹלִים וַאֲפִילוּ בְיִשְׂרָאֵל. מַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנָּפְלָה דְלֵיקָה בַּחֲצַר יוֹסֵי בֶּן סִימַאי בְשִׁיחִין. וְיָרְדוּ בְנֵי קַצְרָה שֶׁלְּצִיפּוֹרִין לְכַבּוֹתוֹ וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ לָהֶן לְכַבּוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶן. הַנִּיחוּ לְגַבַּאי שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה אֶת חוֹבוֹ. מִיָּד קָשַׁר עָלָיו הֶעָנָן וְיָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים וְכִיבּוּהוּ. בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת שָׁלַח לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן סֶלַע. וּלְאֶפַּרְכוֹס שֶׁלָּהֶן חֲמִשִׁים דֵּינָר. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. לֹא הֲוָה צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. חַד כּוּתַיי הֲוָה מְגֵירֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה. נָפְלָה דְלֵיקָה בִּמְגִירוּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה. אֲזַל הַהוּא כּוּתָאָה בָּעֵי מִיטְפַיֵיהּ וְלָא שָׁבְקֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּגִין מִדְּלִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִין. וְאִישְׁתֵּיזִיב כּוּלָּהּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה דִכְפַר אִימִּי פָּרַס גּוּלְתֵיהּ עַל גָּדִישָׁא וְנוּרָא עָרְקַת מִינָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If he had his house to build, his fence to repair,” etc. May he say, he who works will not lose¹⁰³? Let us hear from the following. ¹⁰⁴ 16, fol. 15c 1. 35. It refers to Mishnah *Šabbat* 15:7: “If a Gentile comes to extinguish a fire, one does not tell him to extinguish or not extinguish since one is not responsible for his rest.” All fires mentioned here happened on a Sabbath. In the days of Rebbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rebbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.¹⁰⁵ 121a, R. Ammi (= Immi) says directly that suggesting payment is permitted in the case of a fire on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rebbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state¹⁰⁶ 84b., in any case of danger to life one does not say that [the necessary work] be done by Gentiles or minors, but [it should be done] even by important Jewish persons. It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Šiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks¹⁰⁷. “military camp, barracks, fortress.” of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due¹⁰⁸. Immediately there formed a cloud, there was rain which extinguished it¹⁰⁹. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander¹¹⁰(*castrorum*). 50 denarii. Rebbi Ḥanina said, there was no need for him to do that¹¹¹ 121a, this is the opinion of the Sages, based on the Mishnah (Note 104), while Yose ben Simai wanted to encourage them to fight Sabbath fires at Sepphoris. A Samaritan was a neighbor of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; he wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him¹¹². He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes¹¹³. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

footnotes:
¹⁰³ While clearly A cannot contract with the workers that they should work with X on his account, can he tell them that he will pay (in a way which would not be enforceable in court if they were not journeymen under special protection by biblical law and custom.)
¹⁰⁴ From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Šabbat
¹⁰⁵ Therefore, in the case here one also is permitted to assure people of their wages. In the Babli, Šabbat
¹⁰⁶ Also in the Babli, Yoma
¹⁰⁷ Latin castra, -orum, n
¹⁰⁸ Since the fire was on a Sabbath, he took it as divine punishment.
¹⁰⁹ As reward for his piety.
¹¹⁰ Greek ἔπαρχος, equivalent of Latin praefectus
¹¹¹ In the Babli, Šabbat
¹¹² Since as a Samaritan he has to keep the Sabbath and, therefore, might fight fires only if there is a danger to life, rather than to property.
¹¹³ R. Jonah agreed to be responsible for the Samaritan’s loss if the fire reached his property.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:10:1)

**משנה:** הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹאכַל נוֹתֵן לְאַחֵר לְשֶׁם מַתָּנָה וְהַלָּהּ מוּתָּר בָּהּ. אִם אֵין עִמָּהֶן אַחֵר מַנִּיחַ עַל הַסֶּלַע אוֹ עַל הַגֶּדֶר וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הֶן מוּבְקָרִים לְכָל מִי שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹץ וְהַלָּהּ נוֹטֵל וְאוֹכֵל וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If they were walking on the road and he had nothing to eat, the other gives something to a third person as a gift, and this one is permitted it. If nobody is with them, he puts it on a rock or a fence and says, this is ownerless for everyone to take and this one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids⁹⁷ 6:1 (fol. 19b), *Demay* 3:2 (fol. 23b), *Nedarim* 4:10] rejects the concept of ownerless property and holds that the owner has full responsibility for his abandoned property until it is taken up and acquired by another person..

footnotes:
⁹⁷ These two words are probably superfluous; they are missing in the parallel in Halakhah 10. It is stated in Mishnah 10 that if A and B walk together and B has no food, then A may put some food on a rock and declare it ownerless, whereupon B can take it. R. Yose objects since A’s food remains forbidden to B if nobody else acquired it before it came to A. R. Yose [Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:10:2)

**הלכה:** הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹאכַל כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָדָם מַבְקִיר יָצָא דָבָר מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵין הֶבְקֵר יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַבְּעָלִים אֶלָּא בִּזְכִיָיה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִיָיה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּנוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לָעֲשָׂרָה וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. הִבְקִיר שָׂדֵהוּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מָאן דָּמַר. חוֹזֵר. כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הֶבְקֵר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְחַיָיב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. מָה אָמַר. הֶבְקֵר. לֹא מַתָּנָה. אָתָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֶׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הֶבְקֵר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְחַיָיב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. הֶבְקֵר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וּבָא הַלֵּוִי כִּי אֵין לוֹ וגו׳. מִמָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָךְ וְאֵין לוֹ חַיָיב אַתָּה לִיתֵּן לוֹ. יָצָא הֶבְקֵר שֶׁיָּדָךְ וְיָדוֹ שָׁוִין בּוֹ. הִיא לֶקֶט הִיא שִׁכְחָה הִיא פֵיאָה הִיא הֶבְקֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated: Rebbi Meïr says that as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, it is no longer in his possession. Rebbi Yose says, nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up by another person¹¹⁵. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, both say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The words of Rebbi Yose [deal with the case] that a person gave a gift to ten people and this one was one of them¹¹⁶. If somebody abandoned his field, some Tannaïm say, he can retract¹¹⁷, but some Tannaïm say, he cannot retract. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The one who says that he can retract follows Rebbi Yose¹¹⁸. But the one who says that he cannot retract follows Rebbi Meïr. Does this mean that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes¹¹⁹ 1:1, Notes 18–23.? What did he say? Abandoned property, not gift¹²⁰! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes. There¹²¹, they say that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is not subject to tithes, ¹²² 1:1, Note 20. since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: ¹²³. 14:29.“The Levite shall come,” etc. You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, *peah*, and abandoned property are all equal.

footnotes:
¹¹⁵ E. g., if somebody is injured on abandoned property which had not been taken up by another person, the original owner has to pay according to R. Yose but not according to R. Meïr.
¹¹⁶ R. Yose compares abandoning property to giving something to a group of people without specifying who gets what. In that case, the transfer of ownership rights certainly depends on the new owner taking possession. This is also R. Joḥanan’s position in the Babli, 43a.
¹¹⁷ If nobody took the property in the meantime.
¹¹⁸ Since the property still is his to do with as he pleases.
¹¹⁹ Since a gift does not remove the obligation of heave and tithes; cf. Ma‘serot
¹²⁰ Since the statement of R. Yose is about abandoned property; it cannot follow all the rules of gifts.
¹²¹ In Babylonia.
¹²² From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is from Ma‘serot
¹²³ Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:10:3)

עַד כְּדוֹן כְּשֶׁמַּבְקִירָהּ לִזְמָן מְרוּבֶּה. אֲפִילּוּ הִבְקִירָהּ לִזְמָן מְמוּעָט. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַמַּבְקִיר שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים חוֹזֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָָׁה. הָא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. תַּנִּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דַּיָינָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן דְּאַתְּ אָמַר. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. הִיא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה הִיא לְאַחַר כַּמָּה יָמִים. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְרִבִּי זְעִירָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אָמוּרִים. בְּשֶׁהִבְקִיר סְתָם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. שָׂדִי מוּבְקֶרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד שַׁבָּת אַחַת חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד שָׁנָה אַחַת שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד. עַד שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר יָכוֹל הוּא לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. מִשֶּׁזָּכָה בָּהּ בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. הָדָא אָמְרָה הוּא זְמָן מְרוּבֶּה הוּא זְמָן מְמוּעָט. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁלֹּא חָשׁוּ לָהַעֲרָמָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאָדָם מַבְקִיר וְחוֹזֵר וְזוֹכֶה. הָדָא פָשְׁטָה שְׁאֵלַת דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. הוּא זְמָן מוּעָט הוּא זְמָן מְרוּבָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²⁴ 6:1, explained there in Notes 23–27. So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during three days.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it says only “three days”. Therefore, after three days he may not cancel his action. Rebbi Simeon Dayana stated before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Even after three he may cancel his action. He said to him, since you say after three days, is it the same after three or after many? A *baraita* supports Rebbi Ze‘ira¹²⁵: “About when is this said? If he abandoned in an unspecified way. But if he said: My field shall be abandoned one day, one week, one month, one year, a sabbatical period, as long as nobody took it over, either he or another person, he may cancel. But after somebody acquired it, either he or somebody else, he cannot cancel.” This means that short or long periods are the same. It also means that they were not worried about dishonesty. This means that a person may abandon and reacquire. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeira had said, are short and long times the same?

footnotes:
¹²⁴ The entire paragraph is also in Peah
¹²⁵ Babli 44a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/4:10:4)

וְהַלָּהּ נוֹטֵל וְאוֹכֵל וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדַם נִדְרוֹ לְהֶבְקֵירוֹ. הָא הֶבְקֵירוֹ לְנִדְרוֹ לֹא. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדַם נִדְרוֹ לְהֶבְקֵירוֹ. מָה בֵּין שֶׁקָּדַם הֶבְקֵירוֹ לְנִדְרוֹ. אָמַר לוֹן. לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לֶאֱסוֹר מַה שֶׁהִבְקִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. הָכֵין קָשׁוֹן קֳדָמוֹי. הָא הֶבְקֵר יָחִיד לֹא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן וְהַלָּהּ נוֹטֵל וְאוֹכֵל וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. אֲמַר לוֹן. לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לֶאֱסוֹר מַה שֶׁהִבְקִיר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי אַבָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. הַמַּבְקִיר שָׂדֵה לָעֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אַתְיָיא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. מָה אַתְּ אָמְרָת. לִשְׁלֹשָׁה. לִפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. עַל דְּאַתְּ מַקְשֵׁי עַל רִבִּי מֵאִיר קְשִׁיתָהּ עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מָה אַתְּ אָמְרָת. לָעֲשָׂרָה. לִפְנֵי עֲשָׂרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הִבְקִירָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ וְחַיָיב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Because his vow preceded his abandonment. Therefore, not if his abandonment preceded his vow. They asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference if his vow preceded his abandonment¹²⁶? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned¹²⁷. Rebbi Jonah said, so they asked before him: That means, not if it applies to a single person¹²⁸? But did we not state: “This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids”? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq: If somebody abandons his field to ten persons he cannot retract¹²⁹. Rebbi Yose said, that follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana asked: When you said, “to three,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of three”? Instead of asking about Rebbi Meïr, ask about Rebbi Yose! When you said, “to ten,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of ten”? He said to him, if he abandoned it before two persons, he can retract and it remains subject to tithes¹³⁰. If he abandoned it before three persons, he cannot retract and it is free from tithes¹³¹.

footnotes:
¹²⁶ Why does R. Yose accept abandonment before the vow as valid when he holds that everything remains the person’s own until it is picked up by somebody else?
¹²⁷ It has nothing to do with property rights. A vow cannot refer to anything that was not in the vower’s mind.
¹²⁸ The reference is to the second half of the paragraph where it is stated that for everybody abandonment declared before three adult witnesses is immediately valid since it is a public act; even for R. Meïr an act before less than three witnesses is not valid. But in the Mishnah it is stated that no witnesses are present and nevertheless R. Meïr holds that in respect to the vow the abandonment is valid.
¹²⁹ In the Babli, 45a, three people. (R. Joshua ben Levi holds that this requirement is rabbinic.)
¹³⁰ If any of the persons knowing of the abandonment takes the property for himself, he cannot prove the title if the original owner reneges on his abandonment since he can support his claim only by one witness, which is not enough. Therefore, if the owner abandons the real estate and then reclaims it, it never left his potential possession and all produce grown on his field was never totally abandoned; the duty of tithing was never disestablished..
¹³¹ Any one of the three can take the real estate and has two witnesses to back up his claim. If the original owner would retake it when nobody else had taken it, he takes genuinely abandoned property and no tithes are due (cf. Note 106).