## Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim Chapter 5

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

**משנה:** הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁנָּדְרוּ הֲנָיָיה זֶה מִזֶּה אֲסוּרִין לִיכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר זֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין מִלְּהַעֲמִיד שָׁם רֵחַיִם וְתַנּוּר וּמִלְּגַדֵּל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם מוּדָּר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ הֲנָיָיה לֹא יִכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל הוּא לוֹמַר לוֹ לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי אֲנִי נִכְנָס וְאֵינִי נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּךְ. כּוֹפִין אֶת הַנּוֹדֵר לִמְכּוֹר אֶת חֶלְקוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Partners¹ who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another are forbidden to enter the courtyard². Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, each one enters into what is his³ 1:6 explains that the parties of a common courtyard can force a partition if the area of the courtyard exceeds a certain minimum. As the Babli explains, 46b, R. Eliezer ben Jacob refers only to a courtyard larger than the minimum. He holds that each square inch of the courtyard is potentially the property of one owner, only it was not determined who the actual owner is. Therefore, each of the partners can claim that he temporarily steps only onto his own property. It must be that R. Eliezer ben Jacob permits a straight walk from the entrance gate to the house door; this would be the domain belonging to the person’s house in a separation of properties.. Both are forbidden to put up there a grindstone or an oven, or to raise chickens there⁴. If one of them made a vow not to have usufruct from the other, he cannot enter the courtyard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one can say to the other, I enter into my property, I do not enter into yours. One forces the one who made the vow to sell his part⁵.

footnotes:
¹ People who own houses built around a common courtyard. They are partners in the courtyard. One exits from the houses to the street only through the courtyard.
² For the anonymous Tanna, the entire courtyard is common property; nobody can enter the courtyard without stepping into the property of both of them. Therefore, neither one can enter his courtyard without profiting from the other’s property.
³ Mishnah Baba batra
⁴ Everybody agrees that the common courtyard can be used for private purposes only by the consent of all owners. If the person forbidden by a vow did not object to the other using the courtyard for his private purpose, he would make him a present of monetary value.
⁵ According to the Babli, this statement refers to the majority position. According to the Yerushalmi, this is part of R. Eliezer ben Jacob’s statement and is explained in the Halakhah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:1:2)

**הלכה:** הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁנָּדְרוּ הֲנָיָיה זֶה מִזֶּה כול׳. רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. כָּל טֶפַח וְטֶפַח שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין הוּא. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. זֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. אִם הָיְתָה חָצֵר חֲלוּקָה פְּסֵיפָס אַף רַבָּנִין מוֹדֵיי. עָמַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן וּמָכַר אֶת חֶלְקוֹ אַף רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב מוֹדֶה. הִתְנוּ בֵינֵיהֶן עַל מְנָת לְוַותֵּר בְּחֶזְקַת שׁוּתָפִין הֵן. לֹא צוֹרְכָא דְּלָא הִתְנוּ בֵינֵיהֶן עַל מְנָת לְוַותֵּר. מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְהָא תַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. לוֹקֵחַ בְּיֶתֶר וּמוֹכֵר בְּפָחוֹת. מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְהָא דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶינּוּ וְלֹא יִשְׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ. מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְהָא דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. לֹא יִמְכֹּר וְלֹא יִקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ. וְהָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים. שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֵא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another,” etc. The rabbis say, every single [square] hand-breadth is common property of the partners. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, each one enters into what is his. If the courtyard was divided by pebbles⁶, even the rabbis agree. If one of them went and sold his part, even Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees⁷. If they contracted between themselves to concede⁸ but in the contract agreed that they would not insist on excluding the other party from entering the separate domain of the other party. Then for the rabbis the split did not change anything., it is still in the hands of the partners. It is only needed if they did not contract between themselves to concede; what is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And did we not state there, “he buys higher and sells lower⁹”? What is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And did we not state there, “he should not lend him nor ask him for anything¹⁰,”? What is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And what Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long¹¹?

footnotes:
⁶ Greek ψῆφος. If at some time they decide to mark the borders between the domains belonging to the different houses by rows of pebbles cemented into the ground, this amounts to a division of the common property and the rabbis will not hold that a formal contract is needed to disestablish the former common domain. (In modern Hebrew, the word means “mosaic”.)
⁷ If one of the partners sells his part, he can no longer claim to enter into what is his and even according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob he is forbidden to set foot in the courtyard.
⁸ They split the common courtyard as outlined in Baba batra
⁹ Chapter 3, Note 147. Does R. Eliezer ben Jacob permit transactions at the regular price?
¹⁰ Chapter 4, Note 99. Since no transfer of property is involved, does R. Eliezer ben Jacob agree?
¹¹ Chapter 4, Note 76. Does R. Eliezer ben Jacob agree that the visits have to be as short as possible?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:1:3)

שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין מִלְּהַעֲמִיד שָׁם רֵחַיִים וְתַנּוּר וּמִלְּגַדֵּל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין. נִצְרְכָה לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. דּוּ מַתְנִיתָא הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁנָּדְרוּ הֲנָיָיה זֶה מִזֶּה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנָּדְרוּ הֲנָיָיה זֶה מִזֶּה. הָא אִם לֹא נָדְרוּ הֲנָיָיה זֶה מִזֶּה סְתָמָן כִּמְוָו‍תְרִין אֵילּוּ לָאֵילּוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. נָהֲגוּ הַשּׁוּתָפִין לִהְיוֹת כִּמְוָותְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה בִדְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. הַמְגַדֵּל תַּרְנוֹגַלִּין בֶּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְיֵאוּת. מַה נַפְשָׁךְ. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְגַדֵּל הֲרֵי גִידֵּל. אִם אֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְגַדֵּל הֲרֵי הֶחֱזִיק. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בְּנָיָה. בַּכֹּל הַשּׁוּתָפִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה בְחָצֵר חוּץ מִן הַכְּבִיסָה. מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אֲמַר מָקוֹם שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים מְכַבְּסוֹת. אֲבָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָאֲנָשִׁים מְכַבְּסִין לָא בְדָא. וְדָא דְאַתְּ אֲמַר חוּץ מִן הַכְּבִיסָה בְחָצֵר. בְּכָל הֶחָצֵר. בְּרַם בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דְּחַבְרֵיהּ לֹא מָצֵי מִימְחֵי בְיָדֵיהּ. אִם הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם מְשׁוּפָּע אֲפִילוּ בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דִּבְחַבְרֵיהּ מִימְחֵי הוּא בְיָדֵיהּ. דּוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ שְׁפַךְ וְהוּא אָתֵי לְגַבִּי. תַּנֵּי. מְקוֹם הַתַּנּוּר מְקוֹם הַכִּירַיִים אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּ יֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. וּבִלְבַד קִירוּי שֶׁמּוֹעִיל לַתַּנּוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Both are forbidden to put a grindstone or an oven up there, or to raise chickens there⁴.” This is needed for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob¹², for what he states about “partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another.” Because they mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another, does this imply that if they had not made vows not to have usufruct from one another, they would be presumed to concede one to the other¹³? Rebbi Jeremiah said, partners have the custom to concede one to the other in these matters. There¹⁴ 3:6. It is stated there that simply putting a stove, a grindstone, or chickens into a courtyard does not create a presumption of ownership, but building a foundation for the grindstone or an enclosure for the oven does., we have stated: “The following establish presumption of ownership.¹⁵ 12, Note 29 (Mishnah *Baba batra* 3:4).” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raises chickens in a courtyard in which he does not dwell, this establishes presumption of ownership. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you look at it, if he had the right to raise them, he raised them. If he had no right to raise them, he established a presumption of ownership. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Partners can veto any activity of the other party in a courtyard except for washing¹⁶ 57b. The statement of R. Jeremiah does not appear in the Babli., for the honor of the daughters of Israel¹⁷. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, at a place where women wash, but not at a place where men wash¹⁸. And what you say except for washing in the courtyard [applies to] the entire courtyard except for the four cubits of that party where one cannot hinder anything¹⁹. But if the place was at an incline, one can veto even within the four cubits of another party since one might say to him, you pour out and it flows down to my place²⁰. It was stated: The place of an oven or a hearth does not establish a presumption of ownership, but roofing of any size on top of them establishes a presumption of ownership²¹ 3:6 it is asserted that only a wall of at least ten hand-breadths around an oven or a hearth does count. The text here is very close to Tosephta *Baba batra* 2:13: Putting an oven or a hearth in a courtyard does not establish a presumption of ownership, but making a roof of any size does.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, only if the wall is useful for the oven.

footnotes:
⁴ Everybody agrees that the common courtyard can be used for private purposes only by the consent of all owners. If the person forbidden by a vow did not object to the other using the courtyard for his private purpose, he would make him a present of monetary value.
¹² While the rabbis agree, for them the statement is immaterial since both partners are forbidden entry into the courtyard.
¹³ If somebody wants to put up an oven or a grindstone in the courtyard, can he presume to have the permission of all inhabitants of the courtyard without asking?
¹⁴ Mishnah Baba batra
¹⁵ In the absence of documents, a testimony of three years of undisturbed ownership together with a claim of legal acquisition (by buying, inheritance, or gift) entitles the occupant to a documentary title; cf. Yebamot
¹⁶ He disagrees with R. Jeremiah and the conclusion drawn from the formulation of the Mishnah. The same statement in the Babli, Baba batra
¹⁷ It cannot be expected that a Jewish woman would go to the river to do her washing there and be seen by everybody without shoes and with uncovered arms.
¹⁸ If men wash it is a commercial activity and that certainly needs the permission of the other dwellers in the courtyard.
¹⁹ A strip four cubits wide along the entire front of a house is private property of the owner of the house, not common property of the partners and, as a matter of principle, the owner of the house can do there anything he wants; the mistress of the house can wash there without asking anybody.
²⁰ That is not a matter of property rights but of torts; the injured party could claim damages.
²¹ In Mishnah Baba batra


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

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. הַשּׁוּתָפִין קוֹנִין זֶה מִזֶּה בְחָצֵר וְחַיָיבִין זֶה בְנִיזְקֵי זֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא. בְּאוֹמֵר. צְבוֹר וְאַקְנֶה. אֲבָל אִם צְבוּרִין לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיְּטַלְטֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners can acquire one from the other²² 8:1, Note 15, rabbinic practice does not recognize transfer of property by payment, but only by delivery or a symbolic act indicating delivery. Also, since anything found on a person’s real estate is his, one can state that real estate acquires for its owner (cf. *Peah* 5, Note 125; *Kilaim* 8, Note 46). If there is only one owner, delivery of goods into the courtyard is legal delivery and transfer of ownership. R. Joḥanan asserts here that even among partners on their common real estate one may assume, following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, that the place on which some merchandise is put is at least temporarily owned by the acquiring party alone. This supports the opinion in the Babli, 46b, that practice follows R. Eliezer ben Jacob. R. Abun bar Cahana follows the opinion of the anonymous majority, that common property is not divisible, and requires an action by the acquirer, either collecting the objects or at least moving them in a symbolic display of ownership rights. and are responsible for damages inflicted by one on the other²³ 3:8 to show that an owner is liable for injuries on his property suffered by anybody being on the property by right or invitation.. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, if he said, collect and acquire. But if they were collected he does not acquire unless he moves.

footnotes:
²² As explained in Ševi‘it
²³ This statement is taken in Baba qama


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

בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי אֲנִי נִכְנָס וְלֹא בְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּךְ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר. כּוֹפִין. לֹא עַל הָדָא אִיתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא. בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירָךְ אֲנִי נִכְנָס וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּךְ. עֲלֵיהּ כּוֹפִין אֶת המוכר שֶׁיִּמְכּוֹר חֶלְקוֹ. בְּאוֹמֵר הֲנָיָיתִי עָלֶיךָ. אֲבָל בְּאוֹמֵר. הֲנָיָיתָךְ עָלַי. לֹא בְדָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“I enter my property, I do not enter yours.” And you say, one forces him²⁵? It was not said on this, but on²⁶: “I enter your partner’s property, I do not enter yours.” In that case one forces the [maker of the vow] to sell his part. If he says, you shall not have any usufruct from me. But not if he says, I shall not have any usufruct from you²⁷.

footnotes:
²⁵ There seems to be no reason why R. Eliezer ben Jacob should require a sale of the property. It is clear that following the anonymous rabbis a person who by the vow of another is prevented to reach his own house can sue to remove this obstacle and force the maker of the vow to divest himself of the real estate.
²⁶ Mishnah 2, speaking of a third person C visiting a partner B while partner A had forbidden him any use of his property.
²⁷ There is trouble only if A forbids all his property to C but not if A forbids himself any of C’s properties. Unfortunately, the word מוּדָּר admits of both interpretations. If A makes the vow, מוּדָּר בּ- means that A takes nothing from C, מוּדָּר מ- that C may have nothing from A. The Babylonian Mishnah 2 follows the first alternative, the Yerushalmi one the second.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:2:1)

**משנה:** הָיָה אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק מוּדָּר מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲנָיָיה לֹא יִכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל הוּא לוֹמַר לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירָךְ אֲנִי נִכְנָס וְאֵינִי נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If anyone from outside was under a vow of no usufruct from one [of the partners], he should not enter the courtyard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, he can say to him, I enter your partner’s property, I do not enter yours.


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

**הלכה:** הָיָה אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק כול׳. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן כּוֹפִין. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אִם הָיָה נוֹדְרָן כּוֹפִין. דּוּ אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְיָית קֳדָמוֹהִי עָבְדַת לֵיהּ כֵּן. תִּינְיָינָא וְעָבְדַת לֵיהּ כֵּן. מִיכָּן וְאֵילַךְ אוֹ שְׁרֵי נִדְרָךְ אוֹ זְבִין חוּלְּקָךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If anyone from outside was,” etc. And we did not state “one forces”! Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “If he was a frequent maker of vows, one forces him,” because the other [partner] can say to him, one came to me and you did such and such to him; a second person and you did such and such to him; the third time he tells him either you undo your vow or sell your part.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:3:1)

**משנה:** הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ מֶרְחָץ וּבֵית הַבַּד מוּשְׂכָּרִים בָּעִיר אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בָהֶן תְּפִיסַת יָד אָסוּר אֵין לוֹ בָהֶן תְּפִיסַת יָד מוּתָּר. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹנָם לְבֵיתָךְ שֶׁאֲנִי נִכְנָס וְשָׂדָךְ שֶׁאֲנִי לוֹקֵחַ מֵת אוֹ מְכָרָן לְאַחֵר מוּתָּר. קוֹנָם לְבַיִת זֶה שֶׁאֲנִי נִכְנָס שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי לוֹקֵחַ מֵת אוֹ מְכָרָן לְאַחֵר אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one was under a vow not to have usufruct from another and he owns a bathhouse or an olive press leased out in town; if he retains the grip of a hand²⁸, Swiss legal German *Hand*, French (for real estate) *main*. on them, the other one is forbidden; if he retains no grip of a hand on them, the other one is permitted. If a person says to another, a *qônām* that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other one is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other one is forbidden.

footnotes:
²⁸ “Hand” here means “possession”, as in Middle High German hant


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:3:2)

**הלכה:** כָּמָּה הִיא תְפִיסַת יָד. לְמַחֲצִית וְלִשְׁלִישׁ וְלִרְבִיעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** What is the grip of a hand? One half, a third, or a quarter²⁹.

footnotes:
²⁹ If the lessee pays a percentage of revenue or gain (in the examples between 50% and 25%), the original owner is directly profiling from the other’s use of his facilities. But if the rent is a fixed sum, then no gain accrues directly to the building’s owner by people using bathhouse or olive press. The latter statement is explicit in the Babli, 46b.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:3:3)

בֵּיתָךְ זֶה. מִשֵּׁם מַה אַתָּה תוֹפְשׂוֹ. מִשֵּׁם בֵּיתָךְ זֶה. נָפַל וּבְנָאוֹ הוּא. לֵית לֵיהּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָאוֹמֵר לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. תְּנוּ בֵית חַתְנוּת לִבְנוֹ אוֹ בֵית אַרְמְלוּת לְבִתּוֹ. וְנָפַל. יוֹרְשִׁין חַיָיבִין לִבְנוֹתוֹ. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָאוֹמֵר לִבְנוֹ. קוֹנָם שֶׁאַתְּ נֶהֱנֶה לִי. אִם מֵת יִירָשֶׁנּוּ. בְּחַיַּי וּבְמוֹתִי. מֵת לֹא יִירָשֶׁנּוּ. [וְהָתַנֵּי. בְּחַיַּי. אִם מֵת יִירָשֶׁנּוּ. בְּמוֹתִי. אִם מֵת יִירָשֶׁנּוּ.] מַה בֵין לָהוּא דְאָמַר חָדָא חָדָא לָהוּא דְאָמַר תְּרֵיי תְּרֵיי. רַב יִרְמְיָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי [בֵּן חֲנִינָה] תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. קוֹנָם הֲנָיַית נְכָסַיי אֵילּוּ עָלַי בְחַיַּי וּבְמוֹתִי. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר. אֵילּוּ. אָסְרָן עָלָיו בֵּין בַּחַיִים בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּנִּינָן בִּנְדָרִים מַה דְלֹא תַנִּינָן בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת. קוֹנָם לְבֵיתָךְ שֶׁאֵינִי נִכְנָס. שָׂדָךְ שֶׁאֵינִי לוֹקֵחַ. מֵת אוֹ שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לְאַחֵר מוּתָּר. לְבַיִת זֶה שֶׁאֵינִי נִכְנָס. שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינִי לוֹקֵחַ. מֵת אוֹ שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לְאַחֵר אָסוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר. זֶה. הָא לֹא אָמַר. זֶה. אֲסָרוֹ עָלָיו בֵּין בַּחַיִּים בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“This, your house,” because of what do you catch him? Because of “your house,” “this”³³ to 46b) has a slightly enlarged text: משום ביתך או משום זה “because of ‘your house’ or because of ‘this’?” The text as it stands is completely intelligible. A vow because of “your house” becomes void if it is no longer the other’s, because of “this” is permanent.? If it collapsed and he himself rebuilt it, is it not “this”? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody said to his heirs, give a wedding house to my son or a widow’s house to my daughter, if it collapsed, the heirs are required to rebuild it.³⁴ does *not* say that if he said “this house” the heirs do not have to rebuild, it follows that “your house” is determining, not “this”. This means that if the house collapses and he rebuilds, it is forbidden, but if it is sold, it is permitted.” ³⁵ 9:14, source of the Mishnah. There, we have stated: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a *qônām* that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, [the son] inherits³⁶. 27:6–11), not by his father’s will.. ‘During my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, [the son] does not inherit.³⁷” [Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, [the son] inherits; ‘after my death’, [the son] inherits?] What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos³⁸ forbidding his property during his lifetime, is valid, but the second one for the time after his death is invalid since nobody can forbid to another person anything not in his possession. Why does it become valid if combined?? ³⁹ switches the Mishnaiot quoted, respectively, by Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose. Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose [ben Ḥanina] both say, ‘a *qônām* that I⁴⁰ cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade to him during his lifetime and after his death⁴¹. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in *Nedarim* what we did not state in *S̄ebuot*⁴². In *Baba Qama*, the text is: “We have stated in *Neziqin* what we did not state in *Nedarim*,” but there, the reference is to a Mishnah in *Neziqin*, cf. Note 39. The difference is *not* a variant reading.: “A *qônām* that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is forbidden.” Because he said “this”. Therefore, if he had not said “this”, he would have⁴³ forbidden”. In *Baba Qama* this last sentence is missing; the preceding one reads: “Because he said ‘these’, he forbade to him both during his lifetime and after his death.” forbidden to him both during his lifetime and after his death.

footnotes:
³³ Rashba (Novellae
³⁴ Since the baraita
³⁵ From here to the end of the paragraph there is an approximate parallel in Baba Qama
³⁶ Since he inherits by biblical decree (Num
³⁷ Cf. Chapter 2, Note 15; Babli 47a.
³⁸ If he makes two separate vows, the first one, a qônām
³⁹ The text in Baba Qama
⁴⁰ It seems that instead of עלי “for me” one has to read עליו “for him”, as is clear from the rest of the sentence.
⁴¹ Both of them disagree with the position taken earlier by the editors of the Yerushalmi and assert that “this” overrides “your house”. If the house collapses and he rebuilds, it is permitted, but if sold, it remains forbidden.
⁴² There is no comparable Mishnah in Tractate Šebuot
⁴³ It seems that one has to read “had not


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

**משנה:** הֲרֵינִי עָלֶיךָ חֵרֶם הַמּוּדָּר אָסוּר. הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי חֵרֶם הַנּוֹדֵר אָסוּר. הֲרֵינִי עָלֶיךָ וְאַתְּ עָלַי שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין בְּדָבָר שֶׁלְּעוֹלֵי בָבֵל וַאֲסוּרִין בְּדָבָר שֶׁלְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** “I am *ḥerein* for you⁴⁴ is an expression for a gift to the Temple of offerings that cannot be redeemed, *Lev*. 27:28. As a term for a vow, it is equivalent to *qorbān*.”, the addressee is forbidden⁴⁵. “You are for me *ḥerem*,” the vower is forbidden. “I am for you and you are for me,” both are forbidden. Both are permitted the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia⁴⁶ and forbidden the institutions of their own town⁴⁷.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ Ḥerem
⁴⁵ To have any usufruct from the vower’s property.
⁴⁶ These are detailed in Mishnah 5. They were destined for public use and are immune against private vows.
⁴⁷ Since both of them are partners in the public institutions of the town; cf. Mishnah 1.


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

**הלכה:** הֲרֵינִי עָלֶיךָ חֵרֶם כול׳. קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָךְ לְנִשְׁאַל לוֹ עָלֶיךָ. נִשְׁאַל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁאַל עַל הַשֵּׁינִי. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. נִשְׁאַל בֵּין עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן בֵּין עַל הַשֵּׁינִי. שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵף בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לְאַחַר הָאִיסָּר. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לְאַחַר הַנֵּדֶר. נֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטַל מִקְצָתוֹ בָטַל כּוּלּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “ “I am *ḥerem* for you”, etc. ‘A *qônām* that I shall not have any usufruct from you and anyone I would ask about you’, he has to ask about the first but not the second. Some Tannaïm state: He has to ask both about the first and the second⁴⁸. Samuel the son of Rebbi Joseph ben Rebbi Abun said, that follows the one who said “after the prohibition”⁴⁹. But for the one who said “after the vow”, a vow which is partially invalid is totally invalid⁵⁰.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ If a person vows not to have anything from a certain other person and any rabbi who would dissolve this vow, if he has second thoughts and asks a rabbi to disolve the vow, there are differing opinions on whether he then has to ask a second rabbi to dissolve his vow regarding the first rabbi. In the Babli, 90a/b, two questions are raised which are not found in the Yerushalmi: (1) What means first and second; maybe first is the rabbi whom he has to approach and second the object of the vow? (2) Is it clear whether a vow can be dissolved that has not yet led to any prohibition?
⁴⁹ This refers to the disagreement of R. Ismael and R. Aqiba (Chapter 3, Note 128; Halakhah 11:9, Babli 89a) whether the point in time which determines the rules is the moment the vow is made or the moment the prohibition is slated to begin. For R. Ismael, who holds that the moment of prohibition is determining, the second prohibition starts the moment the vower goes to see a rabbi. Therefore, that prohibition has to be dissolved also. But for R. Aqiba, who goes after the moment the vow was made, there is a vow only about one person and when that prohibition is lifted, the vow and the second case with it disappear.
⁵⁰ Mishnah 9:6, cf. Chapter 3, Note 84.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:4:3)

הַנּוֹדֵר מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר וּבָא אַחֵר וְיָשַׁב שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מוּתָּר בּוֹ. מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי הָעִיר וּבָא אַחֵר וְיָשַׁב שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אָסוּר בּוֹ. קוֹנָם הֲנָיָיתִי עַל בְּנֵי עִירִי. אֵינוֹ נִשְׁאַל לְזָקֵן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם. הֲנָיַית בְּנֵי עִירִי עָלַי. נִשְׁאַל לְזָקֵן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי אֲפִילוּ עַל קַדְמִיָיתָא נִשְׁאַל. שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְמֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי עַצְמוֹ. נֵדֶר שֶׁלָּרַבִּים אֵין לוֹ הֵיתֵר. הַנּוֹדֵר בָּרַבִּים. אֵין לוֹ הֵיתֵר. הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ בְפָנָיו לֹא יִשְׁאַל לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו נִשְׁאֲלִין לוֹ בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי הַבּוּשָׁה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁵¹ 8a, *Sanhedrin* 112a.“A person who makes a vow ‘to forbid himself the people of the town,’ if another person came and dwelled there for thirty days, [the vower] is permitted to deal with him. ‘From the inhabitants of the town,’ if another person came and dwelled there for thirty days, [the vower] is prohibited from dealing with him.⁵²” ‘A *qônām* that the people of my town cannot have any usufruct from me,’ he cannot ask the local rabbi⁵³. ‘The usufruct of the people of my town [is forbidden] to me’, he can ask the local rabbi. Some Tannaïm state, even in the first case he can ask, for it does not mean that [the rabbi] would dissolve his own vow⁵⁴. A vow of the community cannot be dissolved⁵⁵ 36a, *Makkot* 16a); since voter rolls change continuously, it is impossible to get all people who voted for the vow together to ask for dissolution.. A vow made in public cannot be dissolved⁵⁶ 36a, decides against this.. ⁵⁷“If somebody made a vow that another should not have usufruct from him, if the vow was made in the other’s presence, he can request the vow to be dissolved only in the other’s presence; if the vow was not made in the other’s presence, he can request the dissolution either in the other’s presence or in his absence.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of the shame; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because of the suspicion⁵⁸. 2:21), God dissolved his vow not at the Senna-bush but in Midian, with the consent of his family (*Ex*. 3:18)..

footnotes:
⁵¹ Tosephta 2:10, a slightly different version in the Babli, Baba Batra
⁵² “People of the town” are its taxpayers. The obligation to pay local taxes starts only with a residence of 12 months. “Town dwellers” are those who have to contribute to the local welfare fund. That obligation starts after thirty days.
⁵³ Since he is an interested party.
⁵⁴ The rabbi does not have to disqualify himself since formally he is only forbidden to dissolve his own vows and it is probably embarrassing to him to deal with a person who makes that kind of vow.
⁵⁵ This is generally agreed on (Babli Giṭṭin
⁵⁶ The Babli, Giṭṭin
⁵⁷ Tosephta 2:10.
⁵⁸ R. Joḥanan feels that the maker of an inappropriate vow should be shamed, R. Joshua ben Levi requires the other party to be present lest he thought that the vower broke his vow. The Babli, 65a, disagrees and holds that the rule is biblical. Since Moses had sworn to Reuel to stay in Midian (Ex


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

וְאַתְיָין אִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא כְּאִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא. דְּתַנֵּי. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת הַחֵטְא. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר. חַד בַּר נַשׁ נָדַר דְּלָא מִרְוְוחָא. אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִמַּאי אִישְׁתַּבָּעַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. דְּלָא מִרְוְוחָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹדָן. וְכֵן בַּר נַשׁ עֲבִיד. [אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּקֻבְּיוֹסְטָא]. אָמַר. בָּרוּךְ שֶׁבָּחַר בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַחֲכָמִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ. צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It turns out that one disagreement is like an other other disagreement, as it was stated: On the Day of Atonement, one has to detail one’s deeds, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not have to detail the sin⁶⁰, Yerushalmi 1:9 (45c, 1. 48); Babli 86b. [There, the first author is R. Jehudah ben Baba. In the first hand of the Munich ms. the second author is R. Jehudah; this seems to have been the reading of Maimonides (*Tešubah* 2:3) and *Tosafot Yešenim ad loc*.]. Some Tannïm state, one has to detail the vow; some Tannïm state, one does not have to detail the vow. A person made a vow not to earn money. He came before Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom. He asked him, what did you forswear to yourself? He said to him, not to earn money. Rebbi Yudan said to him, is there anyone doing that? He said to him, as a gambler⁶¹. He said, praise to Him Who chose the Torah and the Sages who said, one has to detail the vow⁶².

footnotes:
⁶⁰ Yoma
⁶¹ Perhaps Greek κυβευτής, ὁ “gambler”. (In rabbinic practice, a professional gambler is inadmissible as a witness.)
⁶² If he had not asked, he would have dissolved the vow which did not warrant dissolution.


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

**משנה:** וְאֵי זֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁלְּעוֹלֵי בָבֵל. כְּגוֹן הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת וְהַבְּאֵר שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע הַדֶּרֶךְ. וְאֵי זֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁלְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר כְּגוֹן הָרְחָבָה וְהַמֶּרְחָץ וּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְהַתֵּיבָה וְהַסְּפָרִים וְהַכּוֹתֵב חֶלְקוֹ לַנָּשִׂיא. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב לַנָּשִׂיא וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב לַהֶדְיוֹט. מַה בֵין כּוֹתֵב לַנָּשִׂיא לַכּוֹתֵב לַהֶדְיוֹט שֶׁהַכּוֹתֵב לַנָּשִׂיא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת וְהַכּוֹתֵב לַהֶדְיוֹט צָרִיךְ לוֹ לְזַכּוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה צְרִיכִין לְזַכּוֹת. לֹא דִבְּרוּ בַנָּשִׂיא אֶלָּא בַהוֹוֶה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין אַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל צְרִיכִין לִכְתּוֹב שֶׁכְּבָר כָּתְבוּ אֲבוֹתָם עַל יְדֵיהֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** What are the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia? For example, the Temple Mount, the courtyards⁶³, and the cistern in the middle of the road⁶⁴. What are the institutions of that town? For example, the town square, the bathhouse, the synagogue with the ark and the scrolls. And he writes his part to the Patriarch⁶⁵.
Rebbi Jehudah says, one of them writes to the Patriarch and the other to a private person⁷². What is the difference between him who writes to the Patriarch and him who writes to a private person? The one who writes to the Patriarch does not have to perform an act of delivery⁷³ 4:8). Following the terminology of the Book of Ruth, in Babylonian/rabbinic terminology this act is called קִנְיָן “acquisition”., the one who writes to a private person has to perform an act of delivery. But the Sages say, in either case one has to perform an act of delivery. Rebbi Jehudah says, the people of Galilee do not have to write since their forefathers already wrote for them⁷⁴.

footnotes:
⁶³ The Temple courtyards.
⁶⁴ Traditionally made for pilgrims.
⁶⁵ In the case of Mishnah 4, if each one writes over his part of the public institutions of the town to the Patriarch, both of them are permitted to walk in the town and to use its institutions.
⁷² This is a continuation of the previous Mishnah. R. Jehudah permits either of the parties to donate their usufruct of public property to a third party even though public property is not transferable in this way.
⁷³ In talmudic legal theory, a transfer of property is only valid if the point in time of the transfer of property rights or of claims to property is well defined. This usually is done by the buyer (or recipient) or his representative giving to the seller (or donor) or his representative a vessel (or edge of garment) to hold temporarily. In talmudic theory, Boaz took off his shoe to acquire the right to buy back Elimelekh’s property and with it Ruth (by preliminary marriage) from Tob (Ruth
⁷⁴ They never recognized private rights of the citizens to public property. Therefore, the vower and the subject of his vow can use public property without formalities.


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

**הלכה:** וְאֵי זֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁלְּעוֹלֵי בָבֵל כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. רְחָבָה שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים מַפְסַקְתָּהּ כְּעוֹלֶי בָבֵל הִיא. חַד בַּר נַשׁ קִידֵּשׁ בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי שׁוֹבְתַי וְרִבִּי חֲסִידָא אַעֲלוּן עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְאָמַר. אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. אַנְתְּ קָרָת אִיגַּרְתָּא וּכְתִיב בְּגַוָּהּ. וְלֹא עוֹד. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. קַשִּׁיתָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. מַהוּ וְלֹא עוֹד. בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁלְּיָחִיד קִידֵּשׁ. אָמַר לוֹן. אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אָתָא מֵימַר לָךְ אֲפִילוּ בְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁלָּרַבִּים קִידֵּשׁ. וְהִינּוֹ וְלֹא עוֹד. אָתָא מֵימַר לָךְ אֲפִילוּ בְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁלַּיְּחִידִי קִידֵּשׁ. וְהִינּוֹ אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “What are the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A town square which is crossed by a public road is as if from the returnees from Babylonia⁶⁶. A man used a Torah scroll for his preliminary marriage⁶⁷2:3, Note 46; *Demay* 4:2, Note 19; *Yebamot* 1:1, Note 63. to a woman. Rebbi Sabbatai and Rebbi Ḥasida brought the matter before Rebbi Yose who said, she is not married⁶⁸. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, you read the letter⁶⁹ and there is written in it “not only”. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before Rebbi Ḥizqiah, what means “not only”? Did he marry with a Torah scroll which is private property⁷⁰ 3:7, end), it is doubtful whether monetary value was transferred. (For that reason, a modern marriage is concluded by the gift of a gold ring without a stone, whose commercial value can be easily determined.)? He said to us, she is not married. That comes to tell you, even if he used the public Torah scroll⁷¹ to marry, that is “not only”. But that means, even if he used a privately owned Torah scroll to marry, that is “she is not married.”

footnotes:
⁶⁶ Tosephta 2:10. This is not an emendation of the Mishnah but an explanation: A town square which is crossed by an imperial highway is imperial, not local, property.
⁶⁷ Where the man has to give his fiancee something of value; cf. Peah
⁶⁸ A Torah scroll cannot serve as a marriage gift.
⁶⁹ Maybe it should be: I read the letter.
⁷⁰ Since a Torah scroll may be sold only if a person is in extreme difficulties (Bikkurim
⁷¹ In which every member of the synagogue has partial ownership. But since only the town council backed by a vote of the entire population could sell a Torah scroll, even if the man transferred his interest to his bride, he did not transfer disposable value.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:5:3)

רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב חֶלקוֹ לַנָּשִׂיא כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. צָרִיךְ לִכְתּוֹב חֶלְקוֹ לַנָּשִׂיא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi Jehudah says, even if only one signs over his part to the Patriarch,” etc. So is the Mishnah: One of them has to sign over his part to the Patriarch⁷⁵.

footnotes:
⁷⁵ Not both of them to ordinary citizens. Cf. J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה 2, Jerusalem-Tel Aviv 1964, p. 361, who raises the question whether the “Patriarch” is the head of the Academy or the head of the city administration.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:6:1)

**משנה:** הַמּוּדָר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹאכַל נוֹתְנוֹ לְאַחֵר מִשֵּׁם מַתָּנָה וְהַלָּהּ מוּתָּר בָּהּ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית חוֹרוֹן בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו מוּדָּר מִמֶּנּוּ הֲנָיָיה וְהָיָה מַשִּׂיא אֶת בְּנוֹ וְאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֲרֵי הֶחָצֵר וְהַסְּעוֹדָה נְתוּנִין לָךְ בְּמַתָּנָה וְהֵן בְּפָנֶיךְ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אַבָּא וְיֹאכַל עִמָּנוּ בַּסְּעוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ אִם שֶׁלִּי הֵם הֲרֵי הֵן מוּקְדָּשִׁין לַשָׁמַיִם. אָמַר לוֹ לֹא נָתַתִּי לָךְ אֶת שֶׁלִּי שֶׁתַּקְדִּישֵׁם לַשָּׁמַיִם. אָמַר לוֹ לֹא נָתַתָּה לִי אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ אֶלָּא שֶׁתְּהֵא אַתָּה וְאָבִיךָ אוֹכְלִים וְשׁוֹתִים וּמִתְרַצִּין זֶה לָזֶה וִיהֵא עָוֹן תָּלוּי בְּרֹאשִׁי. וּכְשֶׁבָּא דָבָר לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים אָמְרוּ כָּל מַתָּנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁאִם הִקְדִּישָהּ אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת אֵינָהּ מַתָּנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a person who by a vow was forbidden usufruct from another has nothing to eat, the other donates [food] as a gift to a third party and the person is permitted it⁷⁶. It happened in Bet Ḥoron with a person whose father was by a vow forbidden usufruct from him; when he married off his son he said to a friend, here the courtyard⁷⁷ and the meal are given to you as a gift and they shall be yours until my father has come and eaten with us at the [wedding] meal. He said to him, if they are mine, they are dedicated to Heaven⁷⁸. He said, I did not give you my property that you should dedicate it to Heaven. He said to him, you gave me your property only that you and your father should eat, drink, and be friendly with one another and let the sin hang on my head. When the case came before the Sages they said, any gift with the proviso that if [the recipient] dedicated, it was not sanctified, is no gift.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ This was already stated in Mishnah 4:10; it is repeated as introduction to the definition of “gift”.
⁷⁷ His own courtyard, where the wedding takes place and his father is forbidden entry.
⁷⁸ They are Temple property to be sold for the upkeep of the Temple.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:6:2)

**הלכה:** הַמּוּדָר הֲנָיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִיכָּר הוּא זֶה שֶׁהוּא תַּלְמִיד חָכָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a person who by a vow was forbidden usufruct from another,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is obvious that this one was learned.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:6:3)

שְׁמוֹנִים זוּג שֶׁלְּתַלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְהִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן. גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל. וְהַקָּטָן שֶׁבָּהֶן רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי. פַּעַם אַחַת חָלָה וְנִכְנְסוּ כוּלָּן לְבַקְּרוֹ. עָמַד לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי בֶּחָצֵר. אָמַר לָהֶן. הֵיכַן הוּא הַקָּטָן שֶׁבָּכֶם שֶׁהוּא אַב לְחָכְמָה וְאַב לְדוֹרוֹת. אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּכֶם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. הֲרֵי הוּא בֶחָצֵר. אָמַר לָהֶן. יִכָּנֵס. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנַס אָמַר לָהֶן. לְהַנְחִיל אוֹהֲבַיי יֵשׁ וְאוֹצְרוֹתֵיהֶם אֲמַלֵּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷⁹ 28a. Hillel the Elder had eighty pairs of students. The greatest among them was Jonathan ben Uzziel, the least important Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. Once he fell sick and all came to visit him. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai waited in the courtyard. He said to them, where is the least important among you who is a head in wisdom and a head for generations? Unnecessary to speak of the greatest among you! They said, he is in the courtyard. He said to them, let him enter. When he entered, he said to them “to let my lovers inherit substance; their treasuries I shall fill.⁸⁰. 8:21. Cf. Mishnah *Uqeṣin* 3:12.”

footnotes:
⁷⁹ Cf. Babli Sukkah
⁸⁰ Prov


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:6:4)

וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִיכָּר זֶה שֶׁהוּא תַּלְמִיד חָכָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אָכֵין הֲוָה עוֹבְדָא. יוֹנָתָן בַּר עוּזִּיאֵל הִדִּירוֹ אָבִיו מִנְּכָסָיו וְעָמַד וּכְתָבָן לְשַׁמַּי. מַה עָשָׂה שַׁמַּי. מָכַר מִקְצָת וְהִקְדִּישׁ מִקְצָת וְנָתַן לוֹ מַתָּנָה אֶת הַשְּׁאָר וְאָמַר. כָּל מִי שֶׁיָּבוֹא וִיעַרְעֵר עַל הַמַּתָּנָה הַזֹּאת יוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלְּקוּחוֹת וּמִיַּד הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יוֹצִיא מִיַּד זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is obvious that this one was learned.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is what happened⁸¹ 133b with Shammai trying and failing to attack the method.: Jonathan ben Uzziel’s father vowed not to let him have any usufruct from him and in his will gave his⁸² part to Shammai. What did Shammai do? He sold some, gave some to the sacred fund, gave him⁸² the remainder as a gift, and said: He who wants to attack this gift⁸³, let him first get back [the merchandise] from the buyers and from the sacred fund; after that he can get [the remainder] back from this⁸² one⁸⁴.

footnotes:
⁸¹ The background of the last Mishnah. A similar story, with Jonathan ben Uzziel in the role given here to Shammai, is in the Babli, Baba Batra
⁸² Jonathan ben Uzziel.
⁸² Jonathan ben Uzziel.
⁸³ As circumventing the will of the donor.
⁸² Jonathan ben Uzziel.
⁸⁴ If somebody wants to shield himself from an accusation of “Beth Ḥoron gift”, he should give something away before giving to the person prohibited by the vow.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/5:6:5)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעֵי. מֵעַתָּה אֵין אָדָם נוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יַקְדִּישֶׁנָּהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. כָּל מַתָּנָה שֶׁהִיא כְמַתְּנַת בֵּית חוֹרוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה בְהַעֲרָמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁאִם הִקְדִּישָׁהּ אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת אֵינָהּ מַתָּנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does this mean that nobody can give a gift to a friend on condition that he not dedicate it to Heaven⁸⁵? So is the Mishnah: Any gift similar to that of Beth Ḥoron, which was dishonest in that if [the recipient] dedicated, it was not sanctified, is no gift⁸⁶.

footnotes:
⁸⁵ Does such a clause invalidate any gift even if given honestly and permanently?
⁸⁶ In the language of the Babli, 48a: If the end proved that the beginning was dishonest. The Babli prefers to emend the first, not the last, sentence of the Mishnah.