נדרים 46 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. The scholars propounded: They differ when they interdicted themselves by vow. But what if each imposed a vow upon the other? Do we say, they differ [only] in the former case, but that in the latter the Rabbis agree with R. Eliezer b. Jacob, since they are involuntarily prohibited; or perhaps the Rabbis dispute even in the latter case? Come and hear: IF [ONLY] ONE WAS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT FROM THE OTHER … and the Rabbis dispute it! — Learn, forbade himself from his neighbour. This is logical too, for the second clause states: NOW, HE WHO THUS VOWED IS FORCED TO SELL HIS SHARE OF THE COURT. Now, this is reasonable if the vow was self-imposed: hence he is compelled. But if you say that a vow was imposed against him, why is he compelled. Seeing that the position is not of his making? Rabbah said in Ze'iri's name:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ

^ᵃnote:For if they voluntarily interdict themselves of all benefit, it may be maintained that each thereby renounces also his share, which is inseparable from his partner's. But when each forbids the other, it may be argued that neither can prohibit that which the other enjoys in his own right.
^ᵇnote:For the prohibition arises because in their opinion it is impossible to distinguish between the portions belonging to each.
^ᶜnote:Muddar is the hofal, and implies that the vow was imposed upon him by another.
^ᵈnote:Nadur, passive Kal. implies self-imposed. No emendation is really made in the Mishnah, but the Talmud answers that muddar may be synonymous with nadur, self-imposed.
^ᵉnote:Lit., 'surely he is under constraint'. I.e., it is equitable to force him to sell, if as a result of his own vow he may come to transgression, but not otherwise.

²IF ONE IS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, AND THE LATTER POSSESSES A BATH-HOUSE etc. How much is meant by AN INTEREST THEREIN? — R. Nahman said: A half, third, or a quarter, but not less. Abaye said, Even for less, he is forbidden. Under what conditions is he permitted? If he [the lessee] rents it in return for [the payment of] the land-tax. ^ᶠ^ᵍ

^ᶠnote:Less than a quarter is regarded as negligible. And the muddar is not forbidden to use it on its account. [Var. lec., 'but for eggs it is permitted'. [H] for [H], the reference being to the egg-shaped forms of clay which are placed in the oven of the bath-house for drying. If his interest consists in the use he makes of the bath-house for that purpose, it is not regarded of any consequence.]
^ᵍnote:The tax must have been very high if the owner was prepared to forego any possible profit. — Taska was the Persian land tax. (v. Obermeyer. p. 221, n. 3), and the Mishnah, which was produced in Palestine, cannot actually refer to this tax. Abaye's interpretation must therefore be regarded merely as an illustration. [Aliter: If he (the lessee) obtained it on a rental; retaining all the profit to himself.]