Blog Yomi – Nedarim #34/Daf 35

Let’s begin in the middle of דף ל״ה עמוּד א:

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: יֵשׁ מְעִילָה בְּקוּנָּמוֹת, אוֹ לָא

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Nacḥman: Is there liability (מְעִילָה) for misuse of consecrated property (הֶקְדֵשׁ) in cases of konamos or not? Since the legal status of an item that was rendered to be a konam is like that of הֶקְדֵשׁ in that it is forbidden to the one who one make the נֶדֶר, is it like הֶקְדֵשׁ in every sense, including מְעִילָה for misuse of הֶקְדֵשׁ?

As the ר״ן frames the question:

יש מעילה בקונמות – האוסר דבר עליו בקונם ונהנה ממנו מי מחייב מעילה או לא מי אמרינן דעשאו כקרבן וחייב עליו אשם מעילה כנהנה מן הקדשים

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: מְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר — תִּיפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. לְמֵימְרָא כִּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, מָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה — אַף קוּנָּמוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה

Rav Nacḥman said to him: You learned this halacha from a mishna (33a): In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. That is to say, an item forbidden by a konam is like הֶקְדֵשׁ. Just as with regard to הֶקְדֵשׁ there is liability for misuse, so too with regard to konamos there is liability for misuse.

As the ר״ן weighs in again:

תפול הנאה להקדש למימרא כהקדש – דאי לא דמי קונמות להקדש הוה ליה למימר יוליך הנאה לים המלח כדקתני בכל דוכתא אלא משום דבקונמות יש בהן מעילה כהקדש כיון דבהקדש עסיק תנא תפול הנאה להקדש

The Gemara comments further:

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״קוּנָּם כִּכָּר זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ וַאֲכָלָהּ, בֵּין הוּא וּבֵין חֲבֵירוֹ — מָעַל, לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. ״כִּכָּר זוֹ עָלַי לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ״ וַאֲכָלָהּ, הוּא — מָעַל, חֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא מָעַל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר

This dilemma is like a dispute between tanna’im. If one said: This loaf is konam to all like consecrated property, and he ate it, then, whether he ate it or whether another ate it, the one who ate it misused consecrated property. Therefore, since its status is that of consecrated property, it has the possibility of desanctification through redemption. If one said: This loaf is konam for me like הֶקְדֵּשׁ and he eats it, he misused הֶקְדֵּשׁ. If another eats it, he did not misuse הֶקְדֵּשׁ, as he said: To me. Therefore, it does not have the possibility of desanctification through redemption, since its status is not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא מָעַל, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְעִילָה בְּקוּנָּמוֹת

And the חֲכָמִים say: In the case of both נְדָרִים taken in this manner, and נְדָרִים taken in that manner, no one misused הֶקְדֵּשׁ because there is no liability for misuse of consecrated objects in cases of konamos. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in konamos.

As the ר״ן elaborates:

וחכ״א בין כך ובין כך לא מעל לפי שאין מעילה בקונמות – בין בקונם כללי שאסר לכל בין בקונם פרטי: ולענין הלכה קי״ל כר״מ דיש מעילה בקונמות דהא רב נחמן פשיט ליה לרבא ממתניתין שיש מעילה ובפ’ שבועות שתים בתרא (שבועות דף כב:) נמי מפכינן דר״מ לרבנן הלכך קי״ל דיש מעילה וקי״ל נמי דקונם כללי יש לו פדיון ומסתפקא לי מאן דמעל בקונמות אי מישתרי ההוא קונם לבתר דמעיל כהקדש שיוצא לחולין ע״י מעילה

When there is a קוֹנָם made, and an item acquires the status of הֶקְדֵשׁ, what is the status of the item once it has been used by someone for חוּלִין? Does it lose its status of הֶקְדֵשׁ for the person who used it, yet if acquired by another individual would it retain its status of הֶקְדֵשׁ? Or, does the fact that a violation occurred, and it was used for a secular purpose remove the original declaration that it is הֶקְדֵשׁ? Permit me to share an analogy that I found helpful. Let’s say you park in a restricted area, and you get a parking ticket. It would be tempting to think that once you receive a ticket, you can leave the car in the spot indefinitely because you’ve already received a ticket. The violation has occurred and it cannot recur because you have been held accountable for the violation by the first ticket. The answer is no – the spot retains its intrinsic status as being designated as a restricted area. If you leave your care there indefinitely, you will receive an indefinite number of tickets (and at some point your car will be impounded).

Even when we can supply answers, as is so often the case in the Gemara, answers lead to more questions. So here is the final question that takes us to our next Mishnah:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: ״כִּכָּרִי עָלֶיךָ״ וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, מִי מָעַל? לִמְעוֹל נוֹתֵן — הָא לָא אֲסִירָא עֲלֵיהּ! לִמְעוֹל מְקַבֵּל — יָכוֹל דְּאָמַר: הֶיתֵּירָא בְּעֵיתִי, אִיסּוּרָא לָא בְּעֵיתִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְקַבֵּל מָעַל לִכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיא, שֶׁכל הַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְחוּלִּין, כְּסָבוּר שֶׁל חוּלִּין הוּא — מוֹעֵל. אַף זֶה — מוֹעֵל

Rav Acḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and he then gave it to him as a gift, which of them misused consecrated property? If you say: Let the one who gives the loaf be liable for misuse, why would he be liable; the loaf is not forbidden to him? If you say: Let the one who receives the loaf be liable for misuse, he can say: I wanted to receive a permitted item; I did not want to receive a forbidden item. Since the loaf is forbidden, if I accepted it from you, it was not my intention to do so. Rav Ashi said to him: The one who receives the loaf is liable for misuse when he utilizes the loaf, as the principle with regard to misuse is that anyone who utilizes consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, when he is under the impression that it is non-sacred, misuses consecrated property. This person who received the loaf also misuses consecrated property.

In other words … know the history of the object you are purchasing, or even receiving as a gift. If it at any point was designated as הֶקְדֵּשׁ, just because a previous owner used it as חוּלִּין at some point doesn’t mean you get a free pass to use it as חוּלִּין.

Now on to the next Mishnah, and deep into the topic of קָרְבָּנוֹת and the role of the כֹּהֵן:

וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ, וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִינֵּי זָבִין, קִינֵּי זָבוֹת, קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. וּמְלַמְּדוֹ מִדְרָשׁ הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ מִקְרָא. אֲבָל מְלַמֵּד הוּא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנוֹתָיו מִקְרָא

The Mishnah proceeds to list other tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him. And he separates his teruma and his tithes, provided that it is with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the produce. And he sacrifices for him the bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons and turtledoves, of zavin (see Vayikra 15:13–15); the bird nests of zavos (see Vayikra 15:28–30); the bird nests of women after childbirth (see Vayikra 12:6–8); sin-offerings; and guilt-offerings. And he teaches him midrash, halachos, and aggados, but he may not teach him Bible (מִקְרָא). However, he may teach his sons and daughters מִקְרָא.

Admittedly I faded out for the Gemara’s elaboration on this Mishnah, so I leave it to Rabbi Stern to serve as your guide.

About Leonard J. Press, O.D., FAAO, FCOVD

Developmental Optometry is my passion as well as occupation. Blogging allows me to share thoughts in a unique visual style.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Blog Yomi – Nedarim #34/Daf 35

  1. doctuhdon says:

    Liked the parking ticket 🎫 analogy !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s