משנה: הַמּוּדָר הֲנָייָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ שׁוֹקֵל לוֹ אֶת שִׁקְלוֹ וּפוֹרֵעַ לוֹ אֶת חוֹבוֹ וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֲבֵידָתוֹ. מְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר תִּיפּוֹל הֲנָייָה לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. MISHNAH: If one is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another, [the other] may give his šeqel14If A has vowed that B should have nothing from him, A may pay B’s Temple tax of half a šeqel due every year. Since the money is paid to the Temple, B does not receive anything., pay his debt15As long as the debt is not due, A simply restrains the creditor from asking money from B. and return what he has lost16Since he returns B’s own property, B receives nothing from A.. At a place where one takes a fee for this, the gain should be given to the sacred fund17The Temple, or in its absence the communal welfare fund..
הלכה: הַמּוּדָר הֲנָייָה 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 מְפַייֵס הֲוֵינָא לֵיהּ וְהוּא מוֹחֵל לִי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דַהֲוָה גַבֵּיהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן. מְפַייֵס 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. בְּשֶׁלֹּא̇ נִכְנַס לְתוֹךְ יָדָיו כְּלוּם. וָכָא בְּשֶׁלֹּא יַכְנִס לְיָדָיו כְּלוּם. HALAKHAH: “If one is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. 20The entire Halakhah is found also in Ketubot 13:2:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.13.2.2-7">Ketubot 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’ sons21Ketubot 13:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.13.2.1">Ketubot 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 šeqel14If A has vowed that B should have nothing from him, A may pay B’s Temple tax of half a šeqel 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 stated22Nedarim 4:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.3.1">Mishnah 3, a continuation of Nedarim 4:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.2.1">Mishnah 2 about the person to whom usufruct from another was forbidden.: “He can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges23“Nest” is the technical term for a couple of birds from the pigeon family, prescribed sacrifice for the person healed from genital discharge before he could enter the Temple. For a male, Leviticus.15.14">Lev. 15:14. For a female, Leviticus.15.29">Lev. 15:29., nests for childbirth24Due before the mother could enter the Temple, Leviticus.12.8">Lev. 12:8, for the wife of a man who could not afford a sheep, Leviticus.12.6">Lev. 12:6., purification and reparation offerings25Leviticus.4.27-5.26">Lev. 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 here26In 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. also, that nothing should come into his hand.
רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אוֹמֵר. אֵין לָךְ נִתְפַּס עַל חֲבֵירוֹ וְחַייָב לִיתֵּן לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְנוֹן וּבְגוּלגּוֹלֶת. רַב אָמַר. כָּל־הַנִּתְפַּשׂ עַל חֲבֵירוֹ חַייָב לוֹ. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרַב מִן הָדָא. הַגּוֹזֵל שָׂדֶה וּנְטָלוּהָ מֵסִיקִין. לֹא שָׁמַע דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קְנָס קָֽנְסוּ בְּגַזְלָן. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעֵי דַּהֲוָה רַבֵּיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר לוּלְייָנִי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר. בְּאַרְנוֹן וּבְגוּלגּוֹלֶת. [וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. אֵינָהּ כְּאַרְנוֹן וּכְגוּלגּוֹלֶת.] Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor except for annona29The requisition for the Roman army, the amounts being determined in advance every year. It seems from this statement that both annona 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 following30Bava Kamma 10:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Kamma.10.6.1">Mishnah Baba Qama 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 said31Bava Kamma 10:6:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Kamma.10.6.2">Baba Qama 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 Abin32R. Abin II. 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-tax33If a Roman official took the field illegally it nevertheless has the status of annona 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.
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. There, we have stated34Nedarim 4:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.4.1">Mishnah 4. Personal healing is healing a human, which is a biblical commandment (Deuteronomy.22.2">Deut. 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 Nedarim 4:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.2.1">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 property35Nedarim 4:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.2.1">Mishnah 2 refers to a vow that B cannot personally have any gain from A; therefore A may return what B lost. Nedarim 4:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.3.1">Mishnah 3 deals with the case that B cannot have any material advantage from A; therefore A cannot heal B’s animal.. 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 healed36The personal skills of a medical man are not transferable..
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. Is not the property of the finder forbidden to the owner of the cow37If 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.? Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Isaac: If each man’s property was forbidden to the other.
מָאן תַּנָּא תִּפּוֹל הֲנָייָה לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. מוֹעֲלִין בְּאִיסָּרוֹת. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה 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 הֲנָייָה. 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 חִייָה. כֵּינִי בָאוֹמֵר. לֹא אוֹכְלֵינוּ וְלֹא אֶטְעָמֶנּוּ. לֹא אֲסָרוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא לַאֲכִילָה. עַד כְּדוֹן צְרִיכָה נָדַר מִן הַכִּכָּר מָהוּ לְחַמֵּם בּוֹ אֶת יָדָיו. Who is the Tanna of “the gain should be given to the sacred fund”? Rebbi Meïr! For Rebbi Meïr said, one commits sacrilege with prohibitions38If somebody forbids something for himself by the language of qorbān or any of its equivalents, the rules of sacrifices apply and any unauthorized use is sacrilege subject to the penalties described in Leviticus.5.14-16">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 hands39If the loaf is fresh from the oven.? Let us hear from the following40Tosephta 2:9, Nedarim.35a">Babli 35a, Šebuot22a/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 sacrilege41It follows all the rules of a sacrifice since it is called qorbān. But since a loaf of bread cannot be a sacrifice, it can be redeemed (Leviticus.27.11-14">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 goodwill42Since 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 (Nedarim 4:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.2.6">Note 38). but others would not commit sacrilege.” He said only, if he ate it. Therefore, to warm his hands is permitted43Even for R. Meïr.. 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 hands44For an unspecified vow and use which cannot be quantified in monetary terms. The question remains open.?