ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 33
(a) What makes Resh Lakish change the text in our Mishnah from 'Mudar
Ma'achal' to 'Mudar Hana'as Ma'achalcha' is - that according to the current
text, seeing as he said explicitly 'Ma'achal', why should he be forbidden to
benefit from anything other than food itself?
(b) Rava asks that - according to Resh Lakish's text, the additional word
appears to include wheat kernels to chew and place on his wound (external
uses of the food itself) rather than vessels with which the food is
(c) Rava therefore amends the text to 'Hana'ah ha'Mevi'ah li'Yedei
Ma'achalcha Alai'. Some believe that this also incorporates wheat- kernels
to chew and place on his wound - but we do not agree with this. We maintain
that 'Hana'as Ma'achalcha' incorporates the one, and 'Hana'ah ha'Mevi'ah
li'Yedei Ma'achalcha Alai', the other.
(a) According to the new text - the Mudar is also forbidden to borrow a sack
from the Madir in order to transport fruit.
(b) Rav Papa (the author of the previous Chidush), then asks whether he is
permitted to walk through the Madir's land to get to his fruit. This might
be different than borrowing a sack to transport fruit - because there, he is
doing something that effects the fruit, by bringing the fruit to himself,
whereas here, he is only bringing himself to the fruit.
(a) Rav Papa also asks about borrowing a horse from him and a ring to create
the impression of being an important man - so that he will receive a more
substantial portion of food.
(b) We try to resolve this She'eilah from our Mishnah, which permits
borrowing clothes and rings, a Chidush that seems totally unnecessary
(seeing as these things have no connection with food) - unless the Mudar
needs them in order look important (as we just explained).
(c) We refute this proof however - on the grounds that the Tana may have
merely mentioned these cases to balance with the Reisha, where he needed to
list the things that are forbidden.
(a) What Rav Papa's She'eilos have in common is - that they are all cases of
G'rama (where the Hana'ah is indirect).
(b) We rule in all the cases Lechumra (like we always do regarding
unresolved She'eilos concerning Nedarim), because of the principle 'Safek
(a) In a place where one tends to rent out vessels, the Mudar is not even
permitted to borrow vessels that are *not* used for food - because the rent
which he would have had to pay and now saves, is Hana'ah that leads to food.
(b) In that case, the Reisha which forbids borrowing vessels that are used
for food, speaks even when it is not customary to rent them out. These are
forbidden despite the fact that they are easily obtainable from any of his n
eighbors free of charge - because, as we have already ascertained, the
author of the Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer, who forbids even the most minimal
Hana'ah on someone who is Mudar Hana'ah.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah permits the Madir to pay the Mudar's annual
half-Shekel as well as his debts - he is only preventing his creditors from
claiming from him, but not giving him any fresh Hana'ah.
(b) He also permits him to return his lost articles - because he is only
returning to him what is his already.
(c) The adds that where it is customary to take payment for returning them,
the money must go to Hekdesh. He is referring to the payment that the Madir
is entitled to receive, but declines to. This is now a positive benefit,
which the Mudar may not retain. So Chazal obligated him to give it to
(d) The money that the owner pays in this case, is not for the Mitzvah - but
to cover the expenses or the losses incurred by the finder in returning it
to him, which is permitted.
(a) We just learned that the Madir is permitted to pay the Mudar's
half-Shekel because he is only 'Mavri'ach Ari'. He is not benefiting him
with a portion in the daily Korbenos Tzibur (towards which the half-Shekel
contributes) - because we have learned in a Beraisa 'Tormin al ... ve'Al
he'Asid Ligavos' (meaning that he receives a portion in the Korbenos Tzibur
anyway [whether he has already paid his half-Shekel or not], and the money
becomes a debt).
(b) Rav Hoshaya establishes our Mishnah (which does not consider 'Mavri'ach
Ari', Hana'ah) like Chanan - who says that someone who sustains his friend's
wife whilst he is away, cannot subsequently claim reimbursement from her
husband upon his return (because it is only 'Mavri'ach Ari').
(c) According to Rava, the author of our Mishnah could even be the
Chachamim. Seeing as they consider Mavri'ach Ari, Hana'ah, our Mishnah must
be speaking in the case of ...
1. ... 'Porei'a Lo Chovo' - when the debtor borrowed the money on the
express condition that he does not need to pay if he does not want to.
(d) The Chidush of our Mishnah will then be - that even though it was
customary to make a point of paying under such circumstances, the Madir is
permitted to pay on the Mudar's behalf, seeing as the creditors cannot force
him to pay.
2. ... 'Shokel Lo Shiklo' - when the Mudar had already sent his half-Shekel,
but it got stolen or lost after the Terumas ha'Lishkah had already taken
place, in which case he is Patur from replacing it.
(a) In the previous Machlokes, Rava disagrees with Rav Hoshaya, because he
prefers to establish our Mishnah unanimously than to confine it to the
opinion of Chanan. And Rav Hoshaya declines to learn like Rava (who
maintains that the Rabbanan concede to Chanan that as long as the debtor is
absolved from repaying his loan, the Madir may pay the Mudar's loans) -
because, he maintains, seeing as the Rabbanan forbid Hana'ah in a case where
he is obligated to pay, they would not have permitted it when he is not (but
would rather have decreed the latter case on account of the former).
(b) The Sugya in K'suvos explains that Rav Hoshaya disagrees with Rava -
because, granted the Mishnah speaks when the Mudar is exempt from repaying
his loan, but is he not morally obligated to pay? And that moral obligation
is certainly worth a Perutah.
(a) We just cited Chanan, who rules that if a man sustains his friend's wife
in his friend's absence, he cannot reclaim his money upon his friend's
return. The Rashba qualify Chanan's ruling - restricting it to when he
stipulates that he is sustaining her specifically in the form of Mezonos,
but that if he sustains her S'tam, it is a regular loan, which he may later
reclaim from his wife, and she, from her husband.
(b) We might have agreed with him if the man had explicitly stated that he
is lending the woman the money, but not when he does so S'tam - because
granted that he meant the money to be a loan, he nevertheless intended to
reclaim it from the husband, and Chanan's principle 'Ibad Ma'osav'
('Hini'ach Ma'osav al Keren ha'Tzvi') prevails (since it is no more than
(c) We rule like Chanan, as we learned in K'suvos - and the Madir will be
permitted to pay the Mudar's debt even if the creditor is pushing for the
money, as is evident from the case of 'Shokel Lo es Shiklo' (which is
permitted even though there is not the least possibility that he will be
able to appease the Gizbarim of Hekdesh.
(d) According to Chanan, the man who pays his friend's debt will lose his
money even if the creditor has a security (a Mashkon). Whether the Rabbanan
argue with him there too, or whether they concede to him that he loses his
money (because the debtor can counter that he would have persuaded the
creditor to return the Mashkon) - is a Machlokes Between the Yerushalmi
(which holds that they do concede) and the Bavli (which holds that they
(a) According to Rav Yosef, someone who returns a lost article is a Shomer
Sachar, because he gains 'Perutah de'Rav Yosef' - the Perutah that he would
have had to pay a poor man who appeared at the door asking for alms, but
from which he is now exempt, due to the fact that he is busy with the
Mitzvah of returning a lost article ('ha'Osek ba'Mitzvah, Patur min
(b) Rav Ami and Rav Asi (or Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi) argue as to whether the
Mudar is permitted to return the lost article of the Madir because he gains
'P'rutah de'Rav Yosef'. One of them permits it - not because he disagrees
with Rav Yosef in principle, but because due to the unlikely event of it
occurring, it is not considered Hana'ah in this regard.