Nedarim - Daf 85

  • If Kohanim and Leviim who are mudar hana’ah can take terumah and maaser

On the previous Daf, the Gemara posed a contradiction: The Mishnah says that when one prohibits Kohanim or Leviim, they may take his terumah and maaser. This indicates that טובת הנאה אינה ממון – the benefit of pleasure is not an equity, i.e., the fact that he can choose whom to give them to (and accept payment to do so) is not considered a monetary ownership of the terumah and maaser. Therefore, the Kohanim and Leviim are not receiving something of his. The next case states that if he prohibits specific Kohanim, then others should take the terumah, but these Kohanim may not. This shows that he does have a monetary ownership because of tovas hana’ah!? Rav Hoshaya answered that they reflect the opinions of two Tannaim who argue about this question. After the Gemara rejects his interpretation of that machlokes, Rava finally answers: Our Mishnah holds tovas hana’ah is a monetary ownership, which explains the last case. The reason for the first case is that since terumah is only fit for Kohanim, then by attempting to prohibit it to all Kohanim, שויא עפרא בעלמא – he has rendered it mere dust to himself. Since it is impossible for him to give it to any Kohen, he has forfeited those monetary rights, and rendered it like hefker.

  • A neder not to work for her husband - three opinions

The next Mishnah states: If a woman said to her husband, “Konam that I will not work for my father,” he cannot revoke the neder, because it is not inuy nefesh, nor does it impact him. If she says: שאיני עושה על פיך – “[Konam] that I will not work for your mouth,” the Tanna Kamma says no hafarah is necessary, because since she is obligated to work for him, the neder is ineffective. Rebbe Akiva says: יפר שמא תעדיף עליו יותר מן הראוי לו – He should revoke it, for perhaps she will produce more than his due, and the excess, which belongs to her, would become forbidden to him. The Tanna Kamma holds that even the excess belongs to him and remains permitted. Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri says: יפר שמא יגרשנה ותהי אסורה עליו – He should revoke it, for perhaps he will divorce her, and she will become forbidden to him. Although he also holds that excess produce is not prohibited by her neder, he holds that the neder will take effect after divorce, prohibiting to him all she produces, which will make it impossible for him to remarry her.

  • How a neder which is ineffective now can take effect after divorce

Shmuel said the halachah is like Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri. The Gemara says that by allowing her neder to take effect on what will be produced after her divorce, Shmuel seems to holdאדם מקדיש דבר שלא בא לעולם – a person may consecrate something which does not yet exist (because a neder is similar to hekdesh). However, this contradicts another ruling of Shmuel’s: It was stated in a Mishnah that if one is makdish his wife’s earnings, she can continue to produce her needs and they remain permitted. Her excess earnings, however, are forbidden according to Rebbe Meir. Rebbe Yochanan Hasandler says they are also permitted, because he cannot be makdish earnings that do not yet exist, and Shmuel said the halachah accords with Rebbe Yochanan Hasandler! Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered: באומרת יקדשו ידי לעושיהן – Our Mishnah is a case where she says, “My hands should be consecrated to their Maker,” (or in our case, konam) דידים הא איתנהו בעולם – because her hands exist in the world and are subject to hekdesh. The Gemara clarifies that since her hands are obligated to her husband, she must have added “when I become divorced.” The next Daf will discuss the efficacy of such a neder.