|
Please be sure to see the "save the date" for our next Zoom shiur, this one with Rabbi Shlomo Weissman of the Beth Din of America, at the bottom of this email.
Perek 4 is a very comprehensive, and in a certain way very moving exploration of what happens when a person is forbidden by virtue of a neder, to derive benefit from the possessions of another. This state of affairs can come about in one of two ways. (I'll use the names Sara and Dan for the purposes of illustration and simplicity.) Either Sara can take a neder that all of her possessions are forbidden to Dan, or Dan can take a neder that all of Sara's possessions are forbidden to him. The result is the same.
Mishna 1 lays out the difference between the simple cases I just enumerated above, and cases in which the neder that was pronounced doesn't encompass all of Sara's possessions, rather only Sara's food-related possessions. As you'll see "food-related" includes any implements that are connected to food preparation.
Mishnayot 2 and 3 teach through many illustrations that despite the existence of the neder prohibiting Dan from deriving benefit from Sara's possessions, Sara can still use her possessions in ways that ultimately bring benefit to Dan, just as long as she doesn't give her possessions (or money) directly to Dan. What's most fascinating here - and this is something that will now carry through the rest of the perek - the Mishna imagines numerous scenarios in which despite the neder between Sara and Dan, Sara still wishes to do nice things for Dan. You are free to imagine the circumstances of this for yourself, but it sure is interesting!
Mishna 4 discusses Sara doing personal chessed for Dan, something that is permissible just as long as the chessed she is doing isn't one that a person usually gets paid for doing. If it were a chessed that a person usually gets paid for doing, the fact that Dan is (we assume) not paying Sara, he is then, for all intents and purposes, benefitting financially from Sara (i.e. benefitting from her money.) The Mishna also examines cases in which Sara might be eating less of the food she is entitled to in order so that Dan could eat more, which in fact would violate the neder.
Mishna 5 distinguishes between whether the neder was pronounced before the onset of a shemittah year, or during that year. One of the differences is that in the former case the neder encompasses produce that grows on Sara's tree, while in the latter it would not.
Mishnayot 7 and 8 are the truly moving ones (to my mind) in which Sara comes to realize that Dan simply doesn't have sufficient food to eat, and she desires - despite the existence of the neder! - to assist him. The Mishnayot discuss the ways that she can do so without the neder being violated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SAVE THE DATE!!!!!!
How a Bet Din Can Work to Pre-empt Agunah Situations
A Zoom shiur with Rabbi Shlomo Weissman, Director of the Beth Din of America
March 17th, 5:45 – 6:30 PM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88446978315?pwd=V2hMamxSR3JHZCsvQXZtNnQvVVU1UT09
Meeting ID: 884 4697 8315 | Passcode: 342646
| 
