Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 33

1) DERIVING PLEASURE IN UNUSUAL WAYS

QUESTION: The Gemara states that if one makes a Neder not to have pleasure from his friend's food, he is prohibited to chew his friend's wheat kernels and place them on his wound in order to heal it.

This Isur is difficult to understand. Most of the types of pleasure that the Torah prohibits (Isurei Hana'ah) are prohibited only when the pleasure is derived in a normal manner (k'Derech Hana'asan; of course, the Rabanan prohibited deriving pleasure from an Isur Hana'ah in an unusual manner as well). The MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 466) writes that using wheat kernels to heal one's wounds is not the normal form of deriving pleasure from wheat kernels. Why, then, does the Gemara assume that one who prohibits himself to derive pleasure from wheat has intention to prohibit himself even from an unusual form of pleasure?

ANSWER: TOSFOS in Avodah Zarah (12b) says that when Hana'ah is prohibited, even unusual forms of Hana'ah are prohibited. The only time we apply the rule that an unusual form of Hana'ah is permitted is when the Torah uses the phrase "do not eat" to instruct us not to have any pleasure from an item. In such instances, we assume that only normal forms of deriving pleasure, similar to the pleasure of eating, are prohibited. Based on this, it is understood that if one makes a Neder not to have "pleasure," then even unusual pleasures are prohibited.

This answer has a problem, though. The Gemara in Pesachim (26a) says that one is permitted to sit in the shade of the walls of the Beis ha'Mikdash, since its walls were made to serve the *inside* of the Beis ha'Mikdash and not for the purpose of making shade outside. RASHI and TOSFOS there explain that deriving benefit from the walls of the Beis ha'Mikdash in this manner is permitted, since it is a Hana'ah which is derived in an unusual manner (i.e. this is not the purpose of the walls of a building). However, since Hekdesh is a form of Neder, why is it permitted to derive pleasure from an item of Hekdesh (the walls of the Beis ha'Mikdash) even in an unusual manner?

This question can be answered based on the words of Tosfos in Pesachim there. Tosfos asks why is it permitted to derive pleasure from Hekdesh in an unusual manner? The Torah does not use the phrase "do not eat" with regard to the prohibition of deriving Hana'ah from Hekdesh! Tosfos answers that the Isur of Hana'ah from Hekdesh is derived through a Gezeirah Shaveh from Terumah, where the Torah *does* use the phrase "do not eat." Therefore, deriving Hana'ah from Hekdesh, too, is permitted when it is not done in the normal manner.

This explains why it is permitted to have Hana'ah only from Hekdesh -- which is prohibited by the Torah with the phrase "do not eat" (via a Gezeirah Shaveh) -- when not done in the normal manner. When one makes a Neder, though, and he specifically states that pleasure is Asur, all pleasures are included in his Neder, even those that are derived in an unusual manner.

33b

QUESTION: The Mishnah (33a) states that when one makes a Neder not to give pleasure to his friend, he is permitted to pay the half-Shekel donation to the Beis ha'Mikdash for his friend, and he is permitted to pay his debts for him. The Gemara explains that this is permitted since he is only "chasing away a lion" from attacking his friend or his friend's property (i.e. he is removing a potential danger, and he is not giving positive pleasure).

Rav Oshiya explains that the Mishnah is following the opinion of Chanan who says that one who pays his friend's debts cannot force his friend to pay him back.

Although his friend is not required to pay him back, he still has pleasure from the fact that he does not have to pay back the debt anymore. Why is he permitted to receive this pleasure from the person from whom he is prohibited to have pleasure?

ANSWERS: There are two basic explanations why one is not required to pay back one who paid his debts.

(a) TOSFOS in Bava Kama 58a (see also Tosfos and Ritva here) explain that one is required to repay for any monetary pleasure that was given to him. Even if he was only saved from potential damage, he still must pay since he saved money through his friend's acts. Hence, he is not considered to have received benefit, since he must reimburse the benefactor. The only time he is not required to pay back is when he would not have lost the money, even if his friend did not pay for him, and by paying for him his friend merely saved him from discomfort. Since one who owes money can often convince the lender to forego the debt, or he can find other friends to pay the debt for him, one who pays the debt is not necessarily saving him money and thus the beneficiary is not required to pay him back, nor is it considered to be a transgression of the Neder prohibiting him from deriving benefit from his friend.

RABEINU TAM follows a similar logic, but he says that Chanan agrees that if one pays his friend's debt for him, his friend must pay him back since he benefited by not having to pay back with his own money. Chanan's opinion applies only when one gives food (Mezonos) to his friend's wife and children (Kesuvos 107b). In such a case, the benefactor is not considered to be saving the husband money, since they could work for their food and then the husband would not have to pay for the food (or they could eat less food, as Tosfos in Kesuvos says).

These Rishonim seem to understand that receiving benefit is defined as any benefit for which one must pay back, and if one is not required to reimburse the person who paid one's debts, then this proves that such an act is not considered receiving benefit. Alternatively, they understand that a Neder prohibiting one from receiving benefit includes only monetary benefit (benefit that has a quantifiable value) from his friend, and according to Chanan, paying one's debts is not a benefit that has a monetary value.

(b) TOSFOS in Kesuvos (108a, DH Ha Mani) understands that one whose debts have been paid *has* received benefit, but he is not required to reimburse the benefactor since the benefit was not given to him in a direct, positive manner, but rather it was given to him in a passive, indirect manner, by preventing damage from occurring. In such a case, Chanan says that this is considered an indirect giving of pleasure ("Grama") and it does not require reimbursement.

According to his logic, Rav Oshiya proves from Chanan that the benefit is only given indirectly and that is why the person against whom the Neder was made may receive this benefit, since it is only being given indirectly (see Nedarim 43a).

QUESTION: The Mishnah (33a) states that when one makes a Neder not to give pleasure to his friend, he is permitted to pay the half-Shekel donation to the Beis ha'Mikdash for his friend, and he is permitted to pay his debts for him. The Gemara in Kesuvos (108a) explains that paying the half-Shekel for him is permitted because he is doing a Mitzvah.

TOSFOS in Bava Kama (58a, see previous Insight) and others explain that whenever one saves his friend from definite loss of money, he has the right to be reimbursed. If so, why is one permitted to pay his friend's half-Shekel obligation? Hekdesh cannot forego the obligation, and therefore the benefactor is saving the beneficiary from a definite loss of money!

ANSWERS:

(a) The Gemara in Kesuvos (108a) answers that the Korbanos that are bought with the half-Shekel collection are bought on behalf of all of the people, even those who sent money and it became lost on the way, and those who did not yet send the money. The RITVA here (and RASHI in Kesuvos) explains that since one has a share in the Korbanos even if he "never gives" his half-Shekel, the actual giving of the half-Shekel is only for the sake of the Mitzvah and is not for material gain. Hence, it is not considered to be a prohibited benefit to the person who is prohibited to receive benefit, since "Mitzvos Lav Lihanos Nitnu," Mitzvos cannot be considered to be a source of physical benefit.

(b) TOSFOS here (33a) disagrees with Rashi and is of the opinion that one who never sends his half-Shekel does *not* have a share in the Korbanos. Tosfos explains that it is permitted to pay the half-Shekel for the person who is prohibited to receive benefit, if he had already sent his own half-Shekel and it got lost on the way. In such a case, he already has a share in the Korbanos even if he does not replace the lost half-Shekel.

According to TOSFOS in Kesuvos, there is no question, since paying a debt is not considered direct benefit and therefore it is permitted even when the benefactor is saving his friend from a definite loss of money. Tosfos understands that the Gemara in Kesuvos is explaining that even those who disagree with Chanan can agree with our Mishnah.

TOSFOS in Bava Kama (58a) also says that the Gemara in Kesuvos is explaining the Mishnah according to those who disagree with Chanan. According to Chanan, having one's debt paid is not considered benefit, since he can either persuade the lender to forego the debt, or he can always find other people to pay his debts for him.