About this episode
Study Guide Nedarim 34 Today's daf is sponsored by Elliot Hearst in loving memory of his father, Moshe ben Pincus v'Flora on his 32nd yahrzeit yesterday. "He always was and continues to be a shining light in his loved ones' lives." There are two versions of the debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi's understanding of our Mishna. In the first version, one holds the Mishna allows the item to be returned only in the case where the returner's property was forbidden to the one who lost their item and the other holds the Mishna is referring to both. In the second version, one holds that the case of the Mishna is only when the possessions of the one who lost an item are forbidden to the returner but not in the reverse case and the other holds the Mishna is referring to both. In each version, the Gemara raises a question from the Mishna's last line: "If it is in a place where people get paid for returning lost items, the money goes to the Temple." In the first version, the question is resolved. In the second version, it is not. Rava brings a law regarding the transgression of meila, misuse of consecrated property, in a case where one sanctified an ownerless item and then picked it up to either eat it or promised it as an inheritance to one's children. What is the difference between the cases? Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rava a question: If one says "My loaf is forbidden to you," and then gifted it to that person, did they mean to forbid it only as long as it was their own and not if they gave it as a gift? Or was the focus of the sentence, it will be forbidden to you, and will therefore be forbidden forever and the person was saying it so as not to have the other pestering them to gift the item to them? Rava answers that the latter is the case, by providing a logical proof, but Rav Chiya questions his logic.