Nedarim 169

דרבי סבר טובת הנאה ממון ורבי יוסי בר רבי יהודה סבר טובת הנאה אינה ממון

Rabbi holds that goodwill benefit has money value, whilst R. Jose son of R. Judah holds that goodwill benefit has no money value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the first clause of the Mishnah under discussion agrees with R. Jose b. R. Judah, and the second with Rabbi. ');">¹</span>

לא דכולי עלמא טובת הנאה אינה ממון אלא הכא במתנות שלא הורמו קא מיפלגי

— No. All agree that goodwill benefit has no monetary value, but here they disagree over unseparated [priestly] dues.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi regards the whole as hullin, whilst R. Jose b. R. Judah maintains that since they would have had to be separated eventually, they are regarded as though already removed from the whole, and therefore he must pay only for its hullin. ');">²</span>

ואי טובת הנאה אינה ממון מה לי הורמו מה לי לא הורמו

But since goodwill benefit has no monetary value, what does it matter whether they have been separated or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they must eventually be separated. ');">³</span>

אלא היינו טעמא דרבי קנסוה רבנן לגנב כי היכי דלא ליגנוב ורבי יוסי בר ר' יהודה סבר קנסוה רבנן לבעל הבית כי היכי דלא לישהי לטיבליה

— But this is Rabbi's reason: the Rabbis penalised the thief, that he may not steal; whereas R. Jose son of R. Judah maintains that the Rabbis penalised the owner, that he should not delay with his <i>tebel</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But render its dues immediately after harvesting. He therefore receives a payment only for its hullin. Presumably he is nevertheless required to render the priestly dues or their value on the stolen produce. ');">⁴</span>

רבא אמר שאני תרומה דהיינו טעמא דיטלו על כרחו משום דתרומה לא חזיא אלא לכהנים וכיון דקא אתי למיסרא עלייהו שויא עפרא בעלמא

Raba said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reconciling the discrepancy between the two clauses. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> קונם שאיני עושה על פי אבא ועל פי אביך ועל פי אחי ועל פי אחיך אינו יכול להפר שאיני עושה על פיך אינו צריך להפר

<i>Terumah</i> is different, this being the reason that they can take it against his will: for <i>terumah</i> is fit only for priests, and since he came and forbade it to them, he rendered it just like dust.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., entirely valueless, as far as he is concerned, and therefore the priests can take it. ');">⁶</span>

רבי עקיבא אומר יפר שמא תעדיף עליו יותר מן הראוי לו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IF SHE VOWS,] 'KONAM THAT I DO NOT AUGHT FOR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for the mouth'. ');">⁷</span>

ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר יפר שמא יגרשנה ותהי אסורה עליו

MY FATHER,' 'YOUR FATHER,' 'MY BROTHER,' OR, 'YOUR BROTHER,' [THE HUSBAND] CANNOT ANNUL IT. 'THAT I DO NOT AUGHT FOR YOU,' HE NEED NOT ANNUL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she is bound to work for him. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן נורי למימרא דקסבר שמואל אדם מקדיש דבר שלא בא לעולם ורמינהי המקדיש מעשה ידי אשתו

R. AKIBA SAID: HE MUST ANNUL IT, LEST SHE EXCEED HER OBLIGATIONS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The amount of work she is obliged to do for him is prescribed in Keth. 64b. Her vow is valid in respect of everything above that, and therefore the husband must annul the vow. ');">⁹</span> R. JOHANAN B. NURI SAID: HE MUST ANNUL IT, LEST HE DIVORCE HER AND SHE THEREBY BE FORBIDDEN TO HIM. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Samuel said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Johanan b. Nuri. Shall we say that in Samuel's opinion a man can consecrate that which is non-existent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a thing that has not come into the world'. For the prohibition of a vow is a manner of consecration, v. p. 105, n. 8. Now, according to R. Johanan b. Nuri that prohibition is effective in respect of anything she may do after he divorces her, though as yet she is neither divorced nor has she produced anything: hence, just as a vow is valid in respect of the non-existent, so is consecration too, and since Samuel accepts this ruling as the halachah, it must be his view too. ');">¹⁰</span> But the following contradicts it: If a man consecrates his wife's handiwork [which she will produce],