Gemara Clarity

Nedarim 34a

נדרים ל״ד ע״א

Learn Nedarim 34a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Nedarim 34a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Returning a lost object between people under a נדר forbidding benefit: two versions of the dispute between רבי אמי and רבי אסי, each tested against the משנה's rule that payment goes to הקדש.

Overview

The גמרא tests the dispute between רבי אמי and רבי אסי against the משנה's line that, where people normally get paid for returning a lost object, the payment goes to הקדש. In the first version, that line fits the view that one returns the object even when the owner's property is forbidden to the returner. It seems hard for the view that he does not return it then. The גמרא answers that the משנה is talking about only one case: where the returner's property is forbidden to the owner. Then the גמרא brings a second version of the dispute with the reasoning flipped. Here one opinion dismisses the worry of פרוטה דרב יוסף as rare and forbids returning when the returner's property is forbidden to the owner. The other opinion allows it, since he is only giving back the owner's own object. The משנה's payment rule fits the second opinion. For the first opinion the גמרא ends with an unanswered קשיא.

Opening lines

תְּנַן: מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר

We learned: In a place where people take payment for it

תִּפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

the benefit should fall to the Temple treasury.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר

It makes sense according to the one who says

אֲפִילּוּ בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה

that even when the property of the owner of the lost object

The steps (8)

  1. ChallengeThe משנה fits the lenient view
  2. ChallengeThe משנה seems hard for the strict view
  3. ResolutionThe משנה teaches only one case
  4. StatementSecond version of the dispute, with the reasoning flipped
  5. StatementThe second opinion: returning is allowed even when the returner's property is forbidden to the owner
  6. ChallengeThe משנה's payment rule fits the second opinion
  7. ChallengeHow can the first opinion explain the משנה's payment rule?
  8. ConclusionThe question stays unanswered