Resources for Nedarim 85

The גמרא discusses whether טובת הנאה ממון or not. There is an important חקירה of the פּרי יצחק in חלק ב׳ סימן נ on our סוגיא. Is the reason טובת הנאה is possibly ממון because the fact that the כהן will be מכיר טוב to you for giving it to him (or the fact that you simply have the power to do what you want) is considered ממון, or is the reason it is considered ממון because you have the right to actually get money for your giving תרומה to a particular כהן? רש"י in קידושין דף נ"ח ד"ה ואפילו sounds like it is just the right to give it to others that is considered ממון if you hold טובת הנאה ממון. However, תוספות and the ר"ן earlier on דף ל"ו ע"ב say that the טובת הנאה by a תרומה is that you have a right to charge another ישראל money to give your תרומה to his grandson. If we understand like רש"י, we can see why it would be a מחלוקת if טובת הנאה ממון since no actual money is involved. However, according to the ר"ן and תוספות, how can טובת הנאה not be considered ממון? The קרן אורה on the previous דף says that this is actually a ירושלמי and the מחלוקת is whether you are allowed to take money for giving your תרומה to a particular כהן. If you hold that you aren’t allowed to take money for giving your תרומה to a particular כהן, then we can understand why it isn’t considered ממון. The פּרי יצחק thinks the ירושלמי can be read other ways. The דבר יעקב brings this פּרי יצחק and also brings a שערי יושר in ה־ו ד"ה וכן who says that everyone really holds that you are allowed to take money for giving your תרומה to a particular כהן. The מחלוקת is whether this right to collect money is considered a direct part of the גוף החפץ or is it a זכות חיצוני in which case it wouldn’t count as real ownership of something. It would seem that this explanation would not fit here since it doesn’t matter by נדרים whether you own it but rather whether you can get benefit from someone. וצ"ע.

The ר"ן in ד"ה אלא that based on our גמרא, if someone is מדיר הנאה from something, we consider it to be הפקר and other people can come and take it. This sounds like he is assuming that איסורי הנאה are not considered owned by a person. This should be relevant if someone needs something to "לכם" and it is אסור בהנאה that they would not be יוצא since it wouldn’t be considered לכם (like אתרוג של ערלה). However, the מנחת שלמה says that this has nothing to do with that סוגיא. All we are saying here is that when someone is מדיר הנאה from something on themselves, we understand that their intent is to be מפקיר it. The נפק מינה might be that you should need three people around as הפקר needs other people. Unless we say נדר is different. (The רמב"ם actually says the inverse as well--that all regular הפקר works מטעם נדר.)