MISHNAH: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use of food is passing through his real estate and vessels that cannot be used to prepare food. One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven. But he may borrow from him a robe or a stole, nose rings and finger rings, and anything that is not used to prepare food. At a place where one rents out any of these it is forbidden.
HALAKHAH: 1:9 , 71a 1. 73. “The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans 7:4, Note 69 . and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’ זוֹסְטָא. Mussaphia sees Greek ζωστήρ -ῆρος, ὁ “belt” in the Megillah form; but is is difficult to separate coarse from fine flour by using a belt. {Cf. Latin haustrum (also austrum ) from haurire “to draw (water), to pluck, take, etc.,” and gloss hauritorium (Greek ἀντλητήριος, adj., “for drawing up”), “a bucket” (Lewis and Short) (E. G.).} , since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Because it is as if he gave him money to buy a loaf with. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Then is it forbidden to borrow money from him, for it is as if he gave him money to buy a loaf with? Rebbi Abina said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: That jewellery on them, is it forbidden to lend to them?
MISHNAH: If one is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another, [the other] may give his šeqel due every year. Since the money is paid to the Temple, B does not receive anything. , pay his debt and return what he has lost. At a place where one takes a fee for this, the gain should be given to the sacred fund.
HALAKHAH: “If one is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. 13:2 (35d line 30 ff.) Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If somebody pays off somebody else’s debt without the latter’s knowledge, is that the disagreement of Ḥanan and the High Priests’ sons Mishnah 13:2 : “If somebody went overseas and another person paid for the upkeep of his wife (without a court order or a contract with the wife), Ḥanan said, that person lost his money. The High Priest’s sons disagreed with him and said, he shall swear how much he spent and collect it.” ? Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the High Priest’s sons is that nobody expects his wife to die from hunger. But here, [the debtor could say:] “I could negotiate with him and he would forgive some.” Think of it, if [the loan] was on a pledge! “I could negotiate with him and he would return my pledge.” So far about a creditor who does not push [for repayment]. Even for a creditor who pushes, we can hear from the following: “He may give his šeqel due every year. Since the money is paid to the Temple, B does not receive anything. . If somebody does not pay his šeqel , does one not take a pledge from him? This says, even for a creditor who pushes. You should know that this is so, as we have stated: “He can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges he could enter the Temple. For a male, Lev . 15:14 . For a female, Lev . 15:29 . , nests for childbirth. 12:8 , for the wife of a man who could not afford a sheep, Lev . 12:6 . , purification and reparation offerings. 4:27–5:26 . These sacrifices are in part burned on the altar, in part eaten by the priests; nothing is given to the offerer and his family, in contrast to well-being offerings. ” since nothing of these comes to [the other person’s] hand. And here also, that nothing should come into his hand.
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor except for annona and the head-tax were imposed as communal obligations. Cf. Demay 2, Note 12 . and head-tax. Rav said, anything for which one is held responsible for one’s neighbor has to be repaid. The strength of Rav is from the following 10:6 : “He who appropriated a field and oppressors took it, if the entire country is hit, he may say to him: Here is yours before you. But if it was because of the robber, he is obligated to give him another field. If a river washed it away, he may say to him: Here is yours before you.” Somebody took real estate from another by threats and/or force. In general, we say that “real estate cannot be stolen” since the original owner can prove his claim in court once anarchy has been suppressed. But here we deal with the case that something happened before the original owner could sue the robber and the field is no longer available. If the field was taken by an “oppressor”, a Roman official against whom there is no recourse in the courts then, if everybody’s field was taken, the original owner has no claim since the field would have been taken even if it had not been stolen. But if the field was taken because the robber had a run-in with the law, the robber must pay for a replacement even though legally the field was still the original owner’s property when it was taken. The Yerushalmi ( Neziqin , 7c, line 20) notes that even if the oppressors took the field from the robber because of the robbed, the robbed could claim replacement from the robber since he might say: Give me what is mine and let any other person deal with me. On this, R. Joshua ben Levi and Rav disagree there as they disagree here. : “He who appropriated a field and oppressors took it.” He did not hear that Rebbi Joḥanan said 10:6 . In the Babli, Baba Qama 116b/117a , it remains a question whether the rule represents a fine or a generally valid legal principle. , they exacted a fine from a robber. Rebbi Abin asked, (who was the father of) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus both said in the name of Samuel; one said, it is like annona and head-tax or head-tax. This supports R. Joḥanan that the rule represents a fine. The opposite opinion supports Rav against R. Joḥanan. ; the other one said, it is not like annona and head-tax.
There, we have stated. 22:2 ) and cannot be abolished by a vow. Financial healing is veterinary medicine. The question is, if he is required to return what the other one had lost as required in Mishnah 2 , why can he not heal his cow which is lost without medical help? : “He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing.” Rebbi Judan and Rebbi Yose. One of them said, here if the vow refers to his body, there if the vow refers to his property. But the other one said, here if he has somebody else who can heal him, there if there is nobody else who can heal him. If he has somebody else who can heal him, he should not be able to heal him personally! Not by everybody is a person successfully healed.
Is not the property of the finder forbidden to the owner of the cow? Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Isaac: If each man’s property was forbidden to the other.
Who is the Tanna of “the gain should be given to the sacred fund”? Rebbi Meïr! For Rebbi Meïr said, one commits sacrilege with prohibitions or any of its equivalents, the rules of sacrifices apply and any unauthorized use is sacrilege subject to the penalties described in Lev . 5:14–16 : A sacrifice in the value of one Temple šeqel and restitution of 125% of the value taken. . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If somebody made a vow [to forbid] a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands? Let us hear from the following22a/23b, in the name of R. Meïr. In all Babli sources, R. Simeon dissents. : “If he said, this loaf shall be dedicated, if he or another person ate it, they committed sacrilege. But since a loaf of bread cannot be a sacrifice, it can be redeemed ( Lev . 27:11–14 .) ; therefore, it can be redeemed. But if he said, it is for me [as if dedicated], if he ate it he committed sacrilege on goodwill but others would not commit sacrilege.” He said only, if he ate it. Therefore, to warm his hands is permitted. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: That is if he said I shall not eat it nor taste it; if he forbade only eating to himself. But the question was, if somebody made a vow [to forbid] a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands?
MISHNAH: Also he can separate his heave and tithes with the other’s knowledge, and can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges he could enter the Temple. For a male, Lev . 15:14 . For a female, Lev . 15:29 . , nests for childbirth. 12:8 , for the wife of a man who could not afford a sheep, Lev . 12:6 . , purification and reparation offerings. 4:27–5:26 . These sacrifices are in part burned on the altar, in part eaten by the priests; nothing is given to the offerer and his family, in contrast to well-being offerings. and teach him interpretations and Sifry . , religious rules, and sermons; but he may not teach him Bible; he may teach Bible to his sons and daughters 3:4, Note 85 . . Also, he can feed his wife and children even though the other is obligated for their upkeep. But he cannot feed his animals, whether pure or impure; Rebbi Eliezer says, he may feed his impure animals but not the pure ones. They asked him, what is the difference between pure and impure animals? He said to them, the pure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his, but the impure’s soul and body is Heaven’s. They said to him, also the impure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his, since he could sell it to Gentiles. 9:3 . or feed it to the dogs.
HALAKHAH: “Also he can separate his heave” etc. If somebody fixes the harvest of another person without the latter’s knowledge, who receives the goodwill from the tithes? Rebbi Abbahu says, the one who does the fixing. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, the owner of the produce. Rebbi Ze‘ira is consistent since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish50b , Zebaḥim 6a , Temurah 2b , 10b ), a statement of R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan states that the person purged only can make the exchange but the goodwill belongs to the person who gives the produce. The Babli also quotes R. Ze‘ira in the same sense as the Yerushalmi but clearly prefers R. Abbahu over R. Ze‘ira against the Yerushalmi. , if somebody gave the sacrifice of a nazir . 6:14–15 . or of a [healed] person afflicted with skin disease. 14:10 . , the person purged makes (heave), makes no sense since the sacrifices are given to the Cohen who alone directs the purging ceremony. With all commentaries one has to read תְמוּרָה “substitution” instead of תְרוּמָה “heave”, a simple metathesis. It is asserted that if somebody dedicates an animal as somebody else’s obligatory sacrifice, then only the person for whom the sacrifice is destined may substitute another animal (which action is sinful, Lev . 27:9–10 ). If the donor would substitute another animal after dedication, the action would be invalid and the substitute profane as before. In analogy, R. Simeon ben Laqish must hold that sanctified food can be disposed of only by the person whose obligation is satisfied by the sanctification. . The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Also he can separate his heave and tithes with his knowledge.” Explain it, that [it was stipulated] that the other should not get the goodwill.
It is written. 4:5 . The same argument in the Babli, 37a . : “Behold, I taught you laws and rules.” Just as I did it for free, so you have to do it for free. One could think the same is true for Bible and translations? The verse says laws and rules. You have to teach laws and rules for free; you do not have to teach Bible and translations for free. But do we not see that the baraita teachers take their fees? Rebbi Yudan, the son of Rebbi Ismael, said: They take payment for lost time.
Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their words [we can deduce] whether he may feed his slaves or may not feed his slave. They wanted to say that he who says “the pure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his,” and this one, because her body and soul is Heaven’s, he may feed his slave. And he who says, since he could sell it to Gentiles or feed it to the dogs, since this one’s body is his but he cannot sell her to Gentiles nor feed her to the dogs, he may feed his slave. It was found stated: He may feed his slave. The reason is given that slaves are not bought for fattening. .
MISHNAH: If somebody is forbidden by a vow any profit from another person and that one comes to make a visit, he may stand but not sit down. He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing. 22:2 ) and cannot be abolished by a vow. Financial healing is veterinary medicine. The question is, if he is required to return what the other one had lost as required in Mishnah 2 , why can he not heal his cow which is lost without medical help? , and may bathe with him in a large pool but not in a small one, and he may sleep with him on the same couch. Rebbi Jehudah says, in summer but not in the rainy season because he would profit. He can lie with him [at a dinner] on the same couch and eat with him at one table but not from the same pot. But he may eat with him from a returning pot.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody is forbidden by a vow any profit from another person,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long.
The Mishnah [deals with the case] that the healer forbade his property on the sick person. But if the sick person forbade his property on the healer he sinned against himself.
“But not in a small pool,” for he heats it. It was stated: He bathes with him in a small bathhouse, for he takes away heat.
It was stated: From the returning pot. What is a returning pot? There, they say, portions. The rabbis here say, a pot which contains [enough food] to eat, to be full, and to leave leftovers. It was stated: From the returning cup. What is a returning cup? The rabbis there say, spiced wine (cf. Berakhot 6:5, Note 157 ). This is drunk only in small portions. . The rabbis here say, one fills a מיסורס, they draw, drink, and return.
MISHNAH: He should not eat with him from the common pot set before the workers. nor work with him in a profession, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he can work at a distance from him.
HALAKHAH: “He should not eat,” etc. In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is forbidden to teach him a trade. In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is forbidden to act in his defense.
MISHNAH: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat from the overhang. In the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter his field but he can eat from the overhang. If he vowed not to eat from the other before the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field but he cannot eat of its fruits. During the Sabbatical year he enters and eats.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year,” etc. Why can he not enter? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long.
Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat from the overhang. In the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field and eat of the fruits eat of the fruits.” This makes no sense. It seems that the text should be corrected to וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת “In the Sabbatical year, he can not enter his field but eat of the fruits” where the fruits are either the overhang or harvested by others on the field. This version is quoted in the Babli, 42a , as concurrent opinion of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. A similar statement in Tosephta 2:8 . . If he vowed during the Sabbatical year, he enters and eats. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish explains the Mishnah: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat of its fruits. If he made the vow in the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter his field but he can eat of the fruits eat of the fruits.” This makes no sense. It seems that the text should be corrected to וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאוֹכֵל מִן הַפֵּירוֹת “In the Sabbatical year, he can not enter his field but eat of the fruits” where the fruits are either the overhang or harvested by others on the field. This version is quoted in the Babli, 42a , as concurrent opinion of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. A similar statement in Tosephta 2:8 . . If he vowed not to eat from the other before the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field but he cannot eat of its fruits. If he made the vow during the Sabbatical year he enters and eats. That statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Yose said, for his vow preceded his abandoning, his abandoning his vow 6:1 (fol. 19b), Demay 3:2 (fol. 23b), Nedarim 4:10 ] rejects the concept of ownerless property and holds that the owner has full responsibility for his abandoned property until it is taken up and acquired by another person. . Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose agrees that he is permitted in the case of biblical abandoning.
MISHNAH: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow, he should not borrow from him nor ask him for anything, should not give him a loan nor take a loan for him, should not sell to him nor buy from him. If he said, lend me your cow, he says: she is not available. If he said, a qônam that I shall never plough with her, if he usually ploughs, he is forbidden, the rest of the world is permitted. If he does not usually plough, he and the rest of the world are forbidden.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow, he should not lend him,” etc. If somebody says, a qônām that I shall never plough, it is the same as if he said, a qônām that my field should never be ploughed.
MISHNAH: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow and he has nothing to eat, the other person goes to the grocer and tells him, X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do. Then he pays him and X comes and takes from him.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow and he has nothing to eat,” etc. For he cannot recover from him in a court of law.
MISHNAH: If he had his house to build, his fence to repair, his field to harvest, the other person goes to the journeymen and tells them, X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do. They work with him and come and take their wages from the other person.
HALAKHAH: “If he had his house to build, his fence to repair,” etc. May he say, he who works will not lose? Let us hear from the following. 16, fol. 15c 1. 35. It refers to Mishnah Šabbat 15:7: “If a Gentile comes to extinguish a fire, one does not tell him to extinguish or not extinguish since one is not responsible for his rest.” All fires mentioned here happened on a Sabbath. In the days of Rebbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rebbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose. 121a , R. Ammi (= Immi) says directly that suggesting payment is permitted in the case of a fire on the Sabbath. ” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rebbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state 84b . , in any case of danger to life one does not say that [the necessary work] be done by Gentiles or minors, but [it should be done] even by important Jewish persons. It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Šiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks. “military camp, barracks, fortress.” of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud, there was rain which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander( castrorum ). 50 denarii. Rebbi Ḥanina said, there was no need for him to do that 121a , this is the opinion of the Sages, based on the Mishnah (Note 104), while Yose ben Simai wanted to encourage them to fight Sabbath fires at Sepphoris. A Samaritan was a neighbor of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; he wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.
MISHNAH: If they were walking on the road and he had nothing to eat, the other gives something to a third person as a gift, and this one is permitted it. If nobody is with them, he puts it on a rock or a fence and says, this is ownerless for everyone to take and this one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids 6:1 (fol. 19b), Demay 3:2 (fol. 23b), Nedarim 4:10 ] rejects the concept of ownerless property and holds that the owner has full responsibility for his abandoned property until it is taken up and acquired by another person. .
HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr says that as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, it is no longer in his possession. Rebbi Yose says, nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up by another person. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, both say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The words of Rebbi Yose [deal with the case] that a person gave a gift to ten people and this one was one of them. If somebody abandoned his field, some Tannaïm say, he can retract, but some Tannaïm say, he cannot retract. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The one who says that he can retract follows Rebbi Yose. But the one who says that he cannot retract follows Rebbi Meïr. Does this mean that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes 1:1, Notes 18–23. ? What did he say? Abandoned property, not gift! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes. There, they say that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is not subject to tithes, 1:1, Note 20. since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: . 14:29 . “The Levite shall come,” etc. You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah , and abandoned property are all equal.
6:1, explained there in Notes 23–27 . So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during three days.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it says only “three days”. Therefore, after three days he may not cancel his action. Rebbi Simeon Dayana stated before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Even after three he may cancel his action. He said to him, since you say after three days, is it the same after three or after many? A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “About when is this said? If he abandoned in an unspecified way. But if he said: My field shall be abandoned one day, one week, one month, one year, a sabbatical period, as long as nobody took it over, either he or another person, he may cancel. But after somebody acquired it, either he or somebody else, he cannot cancel.” This means that short or long periods are the same. It also means that they were not worried about dishonesty. This means that a person may abandon and reacquire. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeira had said, are short and long times the same?
“This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Because his vow preceded his abandonment. Therefore, not if his abandonment preceded his vow. They asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference if his vow preceded his abandonment? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah said, so they asked before him: That means, not if it applies to a single person? But did we not state: “This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids”? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq: If somebody abandons his field to ten persons he cannot retract. Rebbi Yose said, that follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana asked: When you said, “to three,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of three”? Instead of asking about Rebbi Meïr, ask about Rebbi Yose! When you said, “to ten,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of ten”? He said to him, if he abandoned it before two persons, he can retract and it remains subject to tithes. If he abandoned it before three persons, he cannot retract and it is free from tithes.