## Nedarim Daf 39a

###### Nedarim 39a:1
[Nedarim 39a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/39a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִי בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל חוֹלֶה — אֲפִילּוּ יוֹשֵׁב נָמֵי? אִי בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי חוֹלֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל הַמְבַקֵּר — אֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֵד נָמֵי לָא! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְעוֹלָם בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל הַחוֹלֶה, וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר עַל הַיְּשִׁיבָה, וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר עַל הָעֲמִידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **With what are we dealing? If** it is a case **where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, even** if he is **sitting,** this should **also** be permitted. **If** it is a case **where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor, even** if he is **standing,** it should **also not** be permitted, as one derives benefit from entering the house. **Shmuel said: Actually,** it is a case **where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, and** it is **in a place where one takes payment for** visiting and **sitting** with an ill person **and one does not take payment for** visiting and **standing** with an ill person. Therefore, by sitting with the ill person the visitor provides him forbidden benefit by sparing him the expense of hiring another person to sit with him.


###### Nedarim 39a:2
[Nedarim 39a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/39a:2)

מַאי פַּסְקָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַף בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר, עַל הַיְּשִׁיבָה — בָּעֵי לְמִשְׁקַל, עַל הָעֲמִידָה — לָא בָּעֵי לְמִשְׁקַל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהֶא בַּעֲמִידָה. הָכָא נָמֵי גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהֶא בִּישִׁיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Why** was this distinction stated **without qualification?** There is no apparent fundamental difference between sitting and standing when visiting the ill. The Gemara answers: It **teaches us this: Even in a place where one takes payment** for visiting the ill, **for sitting, one ought to take** payment, but **for standing, one ought not to take** payment. **And if you wish, say** instead that the distinction can be explained **in accordance with** the statement that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim** said elsewhere (42a), that one who is prohibited to derive benefit from another due to a rabbinic **decree** may not enter a field that is owned by the latter, **lest he remain standing** there longer than permitted. **Here too,** sitting is prohibited due to a rabbinic **decree, lest he remain sitting** there longer than is necessary to perform the mitzva of visiting the ill.


###### Nedarim 39a:3
[Nedarim 39a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/39a:3)

עוּלָּא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי חוֹלֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל הַמְבַקֵּר, וּכְגוֹן דְּלָא אַדְּרֵיהּ מִן חַיּוּתֵיהּ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ יוֹשֵׁב נָמֵי! הָא אֶפְשָׁר בַּעֲמִידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said: Actually,** it is a case **where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor, and where** the ill person **did not vow** that his property would be forbidden in cases where its use enables the visitor to meet needs pertaining to **his** continued **existence.** The Gemara asks: **If so,** then **even sitting** should be permitted **as well,** since the vow did not prohibit use pertaining to his existential needs. The Gemara answers: **Isn’t it possible** to meet those needs and visit the ill **while standing?** Therefore, sitting is not an existential need.


###### Nedarim 39a:4
[Nedarim 39a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/39a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: חָלָה הוּא — נִכְנָס לְבַקְּרוֹ, חָלָה בְּנוֹ — שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בַּשּׁוּק. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי חוֹלֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל הַמְבַקֵּר, וּכְגוֹן דְּלָא אַדְּרֵיהּ מִן חַיּוּתֵיהּ — שַׁפִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **If he became ill, he enters to visit him; if his son became ill, he inquires** about **his** son’s health **in the marketplace** but may not enter the house to visit him. **Granted, according to Ulla, who said:** It is a case **where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor and where** the ill person **did not vow** that the property be forbidden in cases pertaining to his continued **existence,** this works out **well,** as he excluded his own existential needs from the vow, not his son’s existential needs.


###### Nedarim 39a:5
[Nedarim 39a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/39a:5)

אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל הַחוֹלֶה, מַאי שְׁנָא הוּא וּמַאי שְׁנָא בְּנוֹ? אָמַר לָךְ: מַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל הַחוֹלֶה, בָּרַיְיתָא בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי חוֹלֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל הַמְבַקֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, according to Shmuel, who said:** It is a case **where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, what is different** about **him and what is different** about **his son?** Why is it prohibited for him to visit when the son is ill? The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have **said to you: The mishna** is referring to a case **where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person; the *baraita*** is referring to a case **where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor.**


###### Nedarim 39a:6
[Nedarim 39a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/39a:6)

מַאי פַּסְקָא? אָמַר רָבָא: (אָמַר) שְׁמוּאֵל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** was this distinction between the mishna and the *baraita* stated **without qualification? Rava said:** With regard to **Shmuel,**