How does the sabbatical year impact prohibiting benefit? There seems to be a disagreement between Rav and Shmuel on one side and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish on the other side on today's daf TB Nedarim 42.
"Rav and Shmuel who
both say that if one vowed before the Sabbatical Year: Benefit
from this property is forbidden to you, the
other may neither enter his field, nor eat from the
produce that leans out of the field, even though the
Sabbatical Year arrived in the interim, because the prohibition of the
produce took effect before the Sabbatical Year and remained in effect after the
Sabbatical Year began." (Sefaria.com translation)
"And it is Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish who
both say Benefit from my property is forbidden to
you... When the Sabbatical Year arrives, he may not enter his
field; however, he may eat from the produce that leans out of the
field, because the produce is ownerless." (Sefaria.com translation)
The Gemara tries to analyze the point
of dissension. It can't be whether a person cannot render an item in
his possession forbidden and have the possession forbidden when it leaves his
possession. Based upon a
close reading of our Mishnah, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish's argument would have been stronger if
they used the language "this property" instead
of "my property," "Is there
anyone who says that a person cannot
render an item in his possession forbidden and have the prohibition
remain in effect when it leaves his possession? If so, if Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish hold
that one cannot do so, let them disagree in the case of one
who said: Benefit from this property is forbidden to
you, and that would be true all the more so if
he said: Benefit from my property is forbidden to you. In the
latter case, it is clear that the prohibition remains in effect only as long as
the item remains in his possession." (Sefaria.com translation)
Nor can the
disagreement be about the specific language of the vow,
"this property" versus "my property." Can we say
that Rav and Shemuel do not differentiate between the language "this
property" and "my property?" "But didn’t we learn in a
mishna (46a): If one says to another: Entering into your house is konam for
me, or: Buying your field is konam for me, then
if the owner died or sold the property to another, it
is permitted for the one who vowed to enter the house or buy
the field, as the prohibition is in effect only as long as it belongs to that
person. However, if he said: Entering this house is konam for
me, or: Buying this field is konam for
me, then if the owner died or sold the property to
another, it remains forbidden. Apparently, there is a
difference between a case where he simply renders an item forbidden and a case
where he renders an item belonging to a particular individual forbidden." (Sefaria.com
translation)
I'm happy to
report that these amoraim are arguing at all. Each
couple is discussing a different scenario. "Rather, this is the explanation of the
statements of the amora’im: When Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish said that
the prohibition is no longer in effect after the item is no longer in his
possession, it was in a case where he said: My
property. And when Rav and Shmuel said
that the prohibition remains in effect after the item is no longer in his
possession, it was in a case where he said: This
property. And they do not disagree, as each pair of amora’im addressed
a different situation."
We should remember that Rav and Shmuel lived in Babylonia and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish lived
in the land of Israel. It's not possible they were discussing together with
each other this Mishnah. It is very likely that this is just an intellectual
exercise by the stam gemarra plumbing the depths of these amoraims'
statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment