## Nedarim Daf 36b

###### Nedarim 36b:1
[Nedarim 36b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:1)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, צָרִיךְ דַּעְתּוֹ אוֹ לָא? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דִּזְכוּת הוּא לוֹ, לֹא צָרִיךְ דַּעַת. אוֹ דִּלְמָא מִצְוָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא, וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבְּדֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In the case of **one who separates *teruma* from his own** produce **on** behalf of the produce **of another,** does he **require the knowledge** and consent of the owner of the produce **or not? Do we say: Since it is a benefit for** the other to have his produce tithed, **it does not require his knowledge,** as one may act in a person’s interest in his absence? **Or, perhaps it is his mitzva, and** it is **preferable for him to perform** the mitzva himself, and therefore, it does not benefit him to have the produce tithed on his behalf.


###### Nedarim 36b:2
[Nedarim 36b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: תּוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמוֹתָיו וְאֶת מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא מִן בַּעַל הַכְּרִי עַל שֶׁל בַּעַל הַכְּרִי, וּלְדַעְתּוֹ דְּמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְדַעְתּוֹ דִּילֵיהּ — מַאן שַׁוְּויֵהּ שָׁלִיחַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: For one for whom benefit from him is forbidden by vow, **he separates his *teruma* and his tithes,** provided that it is **with his knowledge** and consent. The Gemara analyzes this statement: **With what are we dealing? If we say** that he separates *teruma* from the produce of the **owner of the pile for** the produce **of the** same **owner of the pile,** the question is: **And with the knowledge** and consent **of whom** may he do so? **If we say** it is **with the knowledge** of the one tithing the produce, **who designated him an agent** to do so? One cannot tithe another’s produce unless he is designated as an agent.


###### Nedarim 36b:3
[Nedarim 36b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:3)

אֶלָּא לְדַעְתּוֹ דְּבַעַל הַכְּרִי. הָא קָמְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ דְּקָעָבֵיד שְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ! אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁלּוֹ עַל שֶׁל הַכְּרִי. וּלְדַעְתּוֹ דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְדַעְתּוֹ דְּבַעַל הַכְּרִי — הָא קָמְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו, לְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, וּמִשֶּׁלּוֹ תּוֹרֵם עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ צָרִיךְ דַּעַת — הָא קָמְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו, אֵין צָרִיךְ דַּעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that he is tithing **with the knowledge of the owner of the pile.** However, in that case, by tithing the produce **isn’t he benefiting** the owner, as **he is performing** the action in fulfillment of the **agency** of the owner? **Rather,** it must be that he separates *teruma* **from his own** produce **on** behalf of the produce of the owner of **the pile.** The Gemara asks: **And with the knowledge** and consent **of whom** is he doing so? **If we say** it is **with the knowledge of the owner of the pile, isn’t he benefiting** the owner? He is performing the action in fulfillment of the agency of the owner. **Rather, is it not** that he is tithing **on** the basis of **his own knowledge, and he is separating from his own** produce **on** behalf of **the produce of another? And if you say that** in order to tithe from one’s produce on behalf of the produce of the owner, it **requires** the owner’s **knowledge** and consent, **isn’t he benefiting** the owner? **Rather, is it not** that one may conclude from here that in order to tithe from one’s produce on behalf of the produce of another, one **does not require** the **knowledge** and consent of the owner of the pile?


###### Nedarim 36b:4
[Nedarim 36b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:4)

לְעוֹלָם מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַכְּרִי עַל בַּעַל הַכְּרִי, כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל הָרוֹצֶה לִתְרוֹם יָבֹא וְיִתְרוֹם״, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּאוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that conclusion. **Actually,** it is a case where he separates *teruma* **from** the produce of the **owner of the pile for** the produce **of the** same **owner of the pile.** However, the circumstances here are parallel to those addressed by Rava in another context, **as Rava said** that there is a case **where one says: Anyone who wishes to come and separate *teruma* may come and separate *teruma*. Here too,** this is a case **where one says:** Anyone who wishes to come and separate *teruma* may come and separate *teruma*. In that case, one may tithe another’s produce without being designated as his agent.


###### Nedarim 36b:5
[Nedarim 36b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:5)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: הַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁל מִי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: אִי לָאו פֵּירֵי דְּהַאיְךְ, מִי מִתַּקְּנָא כַּרְיָא דְּהָהוּא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא: אִי לָאו כַּרְיָא דְּהָהוּא, לָא הָוְיָין פֵּירֵי דְּהָדֵין תְּרוּמָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira:** In a case where **one separates *teruma* from his own** produce **for** the produce **of another, who** is entitled to **the discretionary benefit,** i.e., the right to give the *teruma* to the priest of his choosing? **Do we say: If not for the produce of this** one separating the *teruma*, **would the pile of that** owner of the produce **be properly tithed,** and therefore the one separating the *teruma* is entitled to the discretionary benefit? **Or, perhaps** we say: **If not for the pile of that** owner of the pile, **the produce of this** one separating the *teruma* **would not be *teruma*,** and therefore the owner is entitled to the discretionary benefit.


###### Nedarim 36b:6
[Nedarim 36b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֵת כׇּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ ... וְנָתַתָּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira **said to him** that as **the verse states:** “You shall tithe **all the produce of your seed…and you shall give”** (Deuteronomy 14:22, 26), this indicates that the discretion to give the *teruma* to the priest of his choosing is the prerogative of the one to whom the pile of the produce belongs.


###### Nedarim 36b:7
[Nedarim 36b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: תּוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמוֹתָיו וְאֶת מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה דְּבַעַל הַכְּרִי, הָא קָא מְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה דִּילֵיהּ. אָמְרִי: לֹא, מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַכְּרִי עַל שֶׁל בַּעַל הַכְּרִי, וּלְדַעְתּוֹ דְּבַעַל הַכְּרִי, בְּאוֹמֵר ״כֹּל הָרוֹצֶה לִתְרוֹם יָבֹא וְיִתְרוֹם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya **raised an objection to** Rabbi Zeira from the mishna: For someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him, **he separates his *teruma* and his tithes,** provided that it is **with the knowledge** and consent of the owner of the produce. **And if you say** that the right to **the discretionary benefit** belongs **to the owner of the pile,** by separating *teruma* for his produce, **isn’t he benefiting** the owner? **Rather, conclude from** the mishna that the right to **the discretionary benefit** belongs **to** the one separating the *teruma*. The Sages **say: No,** actually this could even be a case where one separates *teruma* **from** the produce **of the owner of the pile for** the produce **of the owner of the pile, and** he does so with the **knowledge of the owner of the pile, where he says: Anyone who wishes to come and separate *teruma* may come and separate *teruma*.**


###### Nedarim 36b:8
[Nedarim 36b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר — עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. וְהַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ — טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a resolution of Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma, **as Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** In a case where one consecrates an animal as an offering for another and it becomes blemished, only **the one who consecrates** the animal **adds one-fifth** to the cost of redeeming the animal, and the one seeking atonement through this offering does not. **And** since the body of the animal belongs to **the one seeking atonement** through the offering, only he **renders** a non-sacred animal, exchanged for the sacred animal, consecrated as **a substitute. And** in the case of **one who separates *teruma* from his own** produce **for** produce **that is not his, the discretionary benefit is his.**


###### Nedarim 36b:9
[Nedarim 36b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36b:9)

מְלַמְּדוֹ מִדְרָשׁ הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ מִקְרָא. מִקְרָא מַאי טַעְמָא לֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָמְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ, מִדְרָשׁ נָמֵי קָמְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר עַל הַמִּקְרָא וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר עַל הַמִּדְרָשׁ. מַאי פַּסְקָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ We learned in the mishna that one **teaches** someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him **midrash, *halakhot*, and *aggadot*, but he may not teach him Bible.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that **he may not teach him Bible?** Is it **due to** the fact **that** the teacher **benefits** the one for whom benefit from him is forbidden by teaching him Bible? When he teaches him **midrash he also benefits him. Shmuel said:** The mishna is referring **to a place where one takes payment for** teaching **Bible and one does not take payment for** teaching **midrash.** By teaching him Bible, the one for whom benefit is forbidden - benefits from the fact that he does not pay. The Gemara asks: **Why** was the *halakha* stated **without qualification?** There is no apparent fundamental difference between Bible and midrash. Why did the mishna refer specifically to a case where payment is taken for teaching Bible?