Nedarim - Daf 34
- Machlokes if one may return a lost item to a mudar hana’ah
The Gemara records another version of the machlokes between Rebbe Ami and Rebbe Assi, about which case of mudar hana’ah one may return a lost item. Here, the Gemara says that if the returner was mudar hana’ah from the owner, all agree that he would not be prevented from returning the item, because the potential benefit of not having to give tzedakah at that time is uncommon, as the Gemara said earlier. Their argument was in the case where the owner was mudar hana’ah from the returner. One said the item may not be returned to him, because it is considered a tangible benefit. The other opinion held it is permitted, because he is just getting back that which is his, as the Gemara had assumed on the previous Daf.
The Gemara challenges the first opinion, which held that the Mishnah is only speaking of where the returner is mudar hana’ah from the owner, for the Mishnah states:מקום שנוטלין עליה שכר תפול הנאה להקדש – in a place where people receive payment for returning lost items, the payment falls to hekdesh if the returner refuses payment. If the Mishnah is only speaking of where the returner is mudar hana’ah, why does the payment have to go to hekdesh, instead of the owner keeping it? The Gemara remains with a question.
- Me’ilah after saying ככר זו הקדש
Rava said: היתה לפניו ככר של הפקר – If an ownerless loaf was in front of him, and he said: ככר זו הקדש - “This loaf should be hekdesh,” the hekdesh takes effect. The Ran explains that the loaf was within his four amos, enabling him to acquire it for himself, but since he declared it hekdesh, he indicated he did not want to use his four amos to acquire it for himself, but for hekdesh. Rava continued: נטלה לאוכלה מעל לפי כולה – If he took it to eat it, he violated me’ilah according to its full value. By taking it for himself, he removed it from the possession of hekdesh, and therefore must repay hekdesh for its full value (plus the required fifth). להורישה לבניו מעל לפי טובת הנאה שבה – But if he took it to bequeath it to his sons, he violated me’ilah only according to the benefit of pleasure derived from his children’s gratitude to him. Since he did not take it for himself, he did not remove it from the property of hekdesh, but merely derived benefit from it, and he only needs to pay according to the amount benefited (plus a fifth).
- ככרי זו עליך ונתנה לו במתנה
Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rava: If one said: "ככרי עליך", ונתנה לו במתנה מהו – “My loaf is forbidden to you,” and he gave it to his friend as a gift, what is the halacha? He explained that his query was if the implication of “my loaf” meant to prohibit it only while it belonged to him, but once he gave it to his friend it would not be included in his neder, or did he prohibit the loaf to him completely? Rava answered that he certainly intended it to remain forbidden even after gifting it, because otherwise, for what purpose did he forbid the loaf to his friend? Rav Chiya bar Avin responded that perhaps his intent was only לאפוקי דאי אזמניה עלה – to exclude if he invited his friend to eat the loaf with him, that he may not do so, but he did not necessarily intend to prohibit the loaf after gifting it to his friend.
