Nedarim - Daf 35

  • יש מעילה בקונמות או לא

Rava asked Rav Nachman: יש מעילה בקונמות או לא – Is there mei’lah for items forbidden by konam or not? The Ran explains the question, that if one declares that something is konam, is it like a korbon that one who uses it violates mei’lah and is obligated in the requisite korbon and payment? Rav Nachman brought a proof from our Mishnah, which taught that in a place where payment is given to one who returns a lost item [and the returner declined payment, and the owner cannot keep it because of a neder], תיפול הנאה להקדש – the money falls to hekdesh. The Tanna saying that the money goes to hekdesh indicates that konamos have a halachah of hekdesh. The Gemara adds that this is actually a machlokes Tannaim: If one said, “"קונם ככר זו הקדש – “Konam this loaf [like] hekdesh,” ואכלה בין הוא ובין חבירו מעל – and either he or his friend ate it, that person has violated mei’lah. לפיכך יש לה פדיון – Therefore, it can be redeemed like true hekdesh. But if he said, “ "ככר זו עלי להקדש – “This loaf is [like] hekdesh to me only,”ואכלה הוא מעל חבירו לא מעל - if he eats it, he has violated mei’lah; if his friend eats it, he has not. לפיכך אין לה פדיון – Therefore, it cannot be redeemed. Because the prohibition is not to everyone, it is not strong enough to be redeemed. This is the opinion of Rebbe Meir, but the Chachomim say, in both cases he has not violated mei’lah, becauseאין מעילה בקונמות - there is no mei’lah by cases of konam.

  • ככרי עליך ונתנה לו במתנה מי מעל

Rav Acha brei d’Rav Avya asked Rav Ashi: If one said: ככרי עליך ונתנה לו במתנה, מי מעל – “My loaf is forbidden to you,” and he then gave it to him as a gift, who has violated mei’lah? למעול נותן הא לא אסירא עליה – If you will say the giver commits mei’lah by giving it- but it is not forbidden to him! The loaf is fully permitted to him for all benefits. If you will say that the recipient commits mei’lah by accepting it - but he can say: - היתירא בעיתי איסורא לא בעיתי “I wanted permitted loaves, not forbidden ones!” The Ran explains that the recipient can claim that he would not have accepted the loaf had he known it was prohibited, and it is therefore an acquisition made in error and should be void. Rav Ashi agreed that thus far no one has committed mei’lah and added: מקבל מעל לכשיוציא – The recipient commits mei’lah when he utilizes it, despite his lack of knowledge that it is forbidden,שכל המוציא מעות הקדש לחולין כסבור של חולין הוא מועל, אף זה מועל – because anyone who spends hekdesh funds for chullin use, thinks they are chullin, and nonetheless commits mei’lah, so too this one commits mei’lah.

  • הני כהני שלוחי דידן הוו או שלוחי דשמיא

The Gemara asks: הני כהני שלוחי דידן הוו או שלוחי דשמיא – These Kohanim, are they our agents in their capacity of sacrificing our korbonos, or agents of Heaven? The Gemara explains that the nafka mina is if a Kohen may sacrifice a korbon for someone who is mudar hana’ah from him; if he would be considered the agent of the owner of the korbon, he would not be allowed to sacrifice the korbon for him. The Gemara suggests a proof from our Mishnah, which states: מקריב עליו קיני זבין – One may sacrifice bird-offerings of zavin for a mudar hana’ah, as well as other similar atonement korbonos. We see, then, that Kohanim are agents of Heaven, for otherwise he would not be allowed to sacrifice for the owner. The Gemara responds that if anything, the Mishnah indicates the opposite, because why did the Mishnah list only korbonos of those requiring atonement, instead of more generally saying he can sacrifice any korbon for him? Rather, we should say מחוסרי כפרה שאני – those requiring atonement are different, based on a statement of Rebbe Yochanan that although korbonos generally need the consent of the owner to be brought, the korbon of a mechusar kapparah does not. Since his consent is not required, the Kohen performing the service is not acting as his agent.