Commentary for Nedarim 168:9

אמר רב הושעיא לא קשיא הא רבי והא ר' יוסי ב"ר יהודה דתניא הגונב טבלו של חבירו ואכלו משלם לו דמי טבלו דברי רבי רבי יוסי בר"י אומר אינו משלם אלא דמי חולין שבו מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי

'KONAM BE THE BENEFIT PRIESTS AND LEVITES HAVE FROM ME,' THEY CAN SEIZE, ETC. Thus we see that goodwill benefit has no monetary value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the priest and Levites, who may not benefit from him, can seize the dues against his wishes, though he possesses the right of disposing of them at will. ');">¹⁶</span> Then consider the last clause: [BUT IF HE VOWS]. 'KONAM BE THE BENEFIT THESE PRIESTS AND LEVITES HAVE FROM ME.' OTHERS TAKE [THE DUES]: but not these, thus proving that goodwill benefit has monetary value? — Said R. Hoshaia:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Joseph. ');">¹⁷</span> There is no difficulty: the one [clause] accords with Rabbi, the other with R. Jose son of R. Judah. For it was taught: If one steals his neighbour's <i>tebel</i> and consumes it, he must pay him the value of the <i>tebel</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the value of the hullin (v. Glos.) it contains and the monetary value of his disposal rights over the terumah and tithes therein. ');">¹⁸</span> that is Rabbi's ruling. R. Jose son of R. Judah said: He must pay him only for the value of its hullin. Now presumably they differ in this:

Explore commentary for Nedarim 168:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.