THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) "ME'ILAH" FOR "KONAMOS"
OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses whether "Yesh Me'ilah l'Konamos" or "Ein
Me'ilah l'Konamos" -- is there a Chiyuv of Me'ilah when one makes a Neder
("Konam") and then violates the Neder?
2) WHO IS PUNISHED FOR TRANSGRESSING THE NEDER
There are two obligations included in the Chiyuv of Me'ilah, when one uses
the property of Hekdesh for his personal benefit. First, he has to pay
Hekdesh for the benefit that he received, just like he has to pay his friend
when he steals his friend's object. Second, he is required to bring a Korban
When the Gemara says that one who violates a Neder is Chayav Me'ilah, does
it mean that the item prohibited by the Neder is treated as property of
Hekdesh and therefore one who uses it must pay Hekdesh? Or does it mean that
he must bring a Korban Me'ilah but does not have to pay Hekdesh, since the
item is not actually in the property of Hekdesh.
(a) The Gemara proves that there is Me'ilah for violating a Neder from our
Mishnah. The Mishnah says that if one finds a lost object and returns it to
the owner who is prohibited to receive Hana'ah from the finder, and the
finder does not accept the compensation he deserves, the owner of the lost
item should give the money of the compensation to Hekdesh instead. We see
from here that an item prohibited by a Neder is treated like Hekdesh, and
just like there is Me'ilah for Hekdesh, there is Me'ilah for Konamos.
The ROSH explains that if one receives monetary gain from violating the
Neder, it is not enough to destroy the money that he gained so that he not
receive further pleasure from it, but it must be paid to Hekdesh. The Rosh
seems to understand that we treat an item prohibited by a Neder like the
property of Hekdesh, and the person must pay Hekdesh.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Me'ilah 4:10) writes that the laws of Me'ilah apply to a
Neder only if the person received a Perutah's worth of benefit from the
item. He seems to understand that Me'ilah of Konamos has all of the laws of
Me'ilah of Hekdesh.
(b) The RAN writes that the Gemara is asking only whether he must bring a
Korban Me'ilah. The Ran explains that when the Gemara proves from the
Mishnah that "Yesh Me'ilah l'Konamos," it does not mean to say that the
money must be given to Hekdesh. Rather, when the Gemara says "it should go
to Hekdesh" it means that we treat the item prohibited by a Neder like
Hekdesh (so that one must bring a Korban). The Ran agrees that the violator
must destroy the monetary gain so that he will not have pleasure from it,
but he says that he does not have to give it to Hekdesh.
TOSFOS (34b) says that if there is Me'ilah for Konamos, then one is Chayav
Me'ilah even if the benefit that he receives from the item that is Asur is
worth less than a Perutah. For benefiting from normal Hekdesh, one is Chayav
Me'ilah only when one receives benefit worth at least a Perutah. It seems
that Tosfos learns like the Ran, that the laws of Me'ilah for Konamos differ
from the laws of Me'ilah for Hekdesh. The Chiyuv of Me'ilah for Hekdesh is
for stealing and misusing the property of Hekdesh, and therefore there is no
Me'ilah when the benefit is worth less than Perutah since no monetary claim
can be made against one who steals less than a Perutah. In contrast,
personally benefiting from an item of Konam is not considered stealing
property of Hekdesh, and therefore as long as one receives personal benefit
from the item he has transgressed the prohibition of the Neder, even if the
benefit he received was worth less than a Perutah.
OPINIONS: The Gemara asks which person is Chayav Me'ilah when one person
declares to his friend, "My loaf of bread is Konam to you" and then he gives
the loaf to his friend. The Gemara says that the one who gives the loaf is
certainly not Chayav Me'ilah, since the loaf is not prohibited to him, but
is prohibited to his friend.
(a) The RAN says that this disproves the opinion of the RAMBAM, who says
that if one made a Neder prohibiting his friend from having benefit from his
object, and then he gave the object to his friend, the owner of the object
transgresses the Isur of "Lo Yachel Devaro," violating his word. The Ran
seems to equate the Isur of Me'ilah (using a sanctified item for personal
benefit) with the Isur of "Lo Yachel;" hence, since our Gemara says that the
owner of the object is not Chayav Me'ilah, so, too, learns the Ran, that he
does not transgress the Isur of "Lo Yachel."
(b) It is possible to say that the Ran's proof is based on his understanding
that even if there is Me'ilah for benefiting from an item prohibited by a
Neder, this is not because it is treated like the property of Hekdesh, but
rather simply that the transgression of a Neder requires a Korban Me'ilah,
as we wrote in the previous Insight. Based on this view, the Ran proves that
if the Gemara says that the owner of the loaf is not Chayav for Me'ilah,
this is a proof that he also does not transgress the Isur of "Lo Yachel,"
because the Chiyuv of Me'ilah is dependent on the Isur of "Lo Yachel."
The Rambam, though, may hold that the two issues (Me'ilah and "Lo Yachel")
are not related. There is one issue of violating the Neder ("Lo Yachel"),
and there is a separate issue of obtaining forbidden pleasure from the
Neder, which is considered like having pleasure from Hekdesh (see Rambam as
cited in the previous Insight). Even if the owner of the loaf transgresses
his Neder by giving it to the one to whom it is prohibited, he still is
*not* Mo'el, since he did not have any forbidden pleasure from it.
3) ARE THE KOHANIM HASHEM'S MESSENGERS OR OURS
QUESTION: The Gemara inquires whether the Kohanim who offer our Korbanos for
us in the Beis ha'Mikdash are considered to be our messengers, or they are
considered to be the messengers of Hashem.
The Gemara in Yoma (19a) and Kidushin (23b) discusses the same issue and
immediately resolves it by saying that the Kohanim must be the messengers of
Hashem, since there is a rule that one cannot make a Shali'ach for something
he cannot do himself. Since we, as non-Kohanim, cannot offer our Korbanos in
the Beis ha'Mikdash on our own (a Yisrael is only permitted to perform the
Shechitah and nothing else), we cannot make the Kohanim our messengers to do
so. Why, then, does the Gemara here in Nedarim have a lengthy discussion on
this issue? Why does it not resolve the question like the Gemara does in
Yoma and Kidushin?
(a) The RAN and TOSFOS here write that although there is a logical
resolution to this question (like the Gemara in Yoma and Kidushin presents),
our Sugya is searching for a a proof from a Mishnah or from a Beraisa.
(b) TOSFOS in Yoma and Kidushin (see Maharsha there) offers another answer.
Tosfos understands that the Gemara in Yoma is discussing whether the Kohanim
are *only* the messengers of Hashem or *only* our messengers. Our Sugya, on
the other hand, is based on the conclusion of those Gemaras that the Kohanim
must be the messengers of Hashem, and it is now asking whether they are
*also* our messengers! Although the Gemara knows that we do not have the
power to appoint the Kohanim as our messengers since we cannot offer the
Korbanos ourselves, the Gemara is asking that perhaps once the Kohanim are
appointed by Hashem, they are doing the Avodah directly for us as well and
thus they are also our messengers.
Based on the Tosfos, we can answer another question. Our Gemara states that
the practical difference of this question is whether a Kohen is permitted to
bring a Korban on behalf of someone to whom he is prohibited to give
pleasure. Why does the Gemara not give the simple practical difference that
if Kohanim are our messengers, then they cannot offer the Korbanos without
being appointed by the owners?
The answer is that according to Tosfos, our Gemara assumes that Hashem
appoints them and there is no need to be appointed by the owner. The only
issue that is being discussed is whether the Kohen is doing a service for
the owner of the Korban (in which case he would be prohibited to bring the
Korban for him if there was a Neder prohibiting him from giving the owner
pleasure), or whether he is doing it solely for Hashem and the fact that the
owner of the animal gains from the fact that his Korban was offered is only
an indirect result ("Grama") of the Kohen's act and not its primary purpose.
Therefore, the practical ramification of the Gemara's question is not
whether the owners need to appoint the Kohanim as their messengers, but
whether or not it is permitted for a Kohen to bring the Korban of a person
prohibited to receive Hana'ah from the Kohen.