NEDARIM 84 (1 Elul) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya Rayzel (Friedman) bas Gershon Eliezer (Yahrzeit: 30 Av, Yom Kevurah: 1 Elul) by her daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel. Esther Friedman was a woman of valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly, inspiring all those around her.

84b----------------------------------------84b

1) DOES "TOVAS HANA'AH" HAVE MONETARY VALUE

QUESTION: The Mishnah differentiates between a case of one who makes a Neder to prohibit all Kohanim from benefiting from him (in which case the Kohanim still may take Terumah from him without his consent) and a case of one who makes a Neder to prohibit only specific Kohanim from benefiting from him (in which case those Kohanim may not take his Terumah). The Gemara asks that the Mishnah's rulings in the two cases seem contradictory. The Mishnah's ruling in the former case proves that "Tovas Hana'ah" (the right of the owner to give his Terumah to the Kohen of his choice) is not considered to have monetary value ("Tovas Hana'ah Einah Mamon"). The Kohanim may take the Terumah from the Madir because they are not receiving any monetary benefit from him. However, the Mishnah's ruling in the latter case (in which the specific Kohanim are prohibited from taking the Terumah) proves the opposite, that Tovas Hana'ah does have monetary value, and thus the Kohanim may not take the Terumah because doing so is considered a form of receiving monetary benefit from the Madir.

Rebbi Hoshiyah answers that the question of whether or not Tovas Hana'ah has monetary value is the subject of a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana of the Reisha maintains that Tovas Hana'ah has no monetary value, and in both cases the Kohanim may take the Terumah. The Tana of the Seifa maintains that Tovas Hana'ah has monetary value, and in both cases the Kohanim may not take the Terumah. (The Acharonim differ with regard to the stance of the Tana of the Reisha (see TOSFOS YOM TOV to Bava Kama 9:10). Some maintain that since the Tana maintains that Tovas Hana'ah has no monetary value, the Madir may actually give the Terumah directly to the Kohen, since the Kohen's benefit is non-monetary. Others maintain that this Tana agrees that the Madir may not give the Terumah directly to the Kohen, but he may allow the Kohanim to come and take it themselves.)

Rava answers that although the Mishnah maintains that Tovas Hana'ah does have monetary value, when a person's Neder includes all Kohanim his Tovas Hana'ah is rendered worthless. Hence, the Kohanim may take it from him.

The RAN explains that Rava means that since person's Neder prevents him from giving his Terumah to any Kohen, he effectively has made the Tovas Hana'ah into Hefker. That is why anyone (who is a Kohen) may now come and take it.

Similarly, the ROSH and TOSFOS write that his Tovas Hana'ah has become worthless because no one is left to whom he may give the Terumah. Since the Tovas Hana'ah is worthless, the Kohanim may come and take the Terumah.

Most Rishonim write that Rava's answer, that the Tovas Hana'ah is rendered worthless since the Madir prohibited all Kohanim from benefiting from him, is valid only according to the opinion that Tovas Hana'ah normally has monetary value. According to the opinion that Tovas Hana'ah has no monetary value, Rava agrees that the Kohanim may take the Terumah regardless of the scope of the Neder (that is, whether it applies to all Kohanim or to just a few Kohanim).

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Nedarim 7:11) rules like Rava, that when the Neder was made against individual Kohanim, they may not take the Terumah. This implies that the Rambam maintains that Tovas Hana'ah does have monetary value. However, the Rambam himself rules in a number of places (see Hilchos Terumos 12:15) that Tovas Hana'ah has no monetary value. How are these apparently contradictory rulings to be reconciled?

ANSWER: The KESEF MISHNEH (in the name of RABEINU MEIR HA'ME'ILI) writes that although the Rambam maintains that Tovas Hana'ah has no monetary value, he rules that the Kohanim are prohibited from taking the Terumah because of the non-monetary benefits they receive from the Madir (such as Vitur; see 32b). This view seems to be supported by the fact that Rava himself (Bava Metzia 11b) is of the opinion that "Tovas Hana'ah Einah Mamon."

The KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN (275:1) reconciles this apparent inconsistency in the view of Rava (according to the Rishonim who explain that Rava maintains that Tovas Hana'ah has monetary value). Although Rava considers the value of Tovas Hana'ah significant enough to be prohibited to the Mudar Hana'ah, he does not consider it significant enough to be transferable. The Gemara in Bava Metzia discusses the transfer of ownership of Terumah via a Kinyan, which Rava maintains is effective for Tovas Hana'ah. This does not mean that Tovas Hana'ah is worthless, but merely that its value is not significant enough to be transferred.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF