Nedarim 36 - November 30, 6 Kislev

Today's daf is dedicated to my daughter Shira in honor of her drafting into the Israeli army. Wishing you much success and a meaningful service! Two difficulties are raised against the Gemara's previous assumption that the kohen when dealing with the sacrifice of another is acting as their messenger. One question is from our Mishna and the other from a different source relating to the laws of pigul. Both difficulties are resolved. Rabbi Yochanan stated previously that all sacrifices must be performed with the intent of the one needing a sacrifice other than a particular category which can be performed by a parent for a child and therefore does not require knowledge, as a minor has no 'understanding' from a halakhic perspective. This shows that one can learn from a case where it is not possible (impossible for the child to know) to a case where it is possible (a regular person who needs to bring a sacrifice). This assumption that Rabbi Yochanan makes is challenged by two statements of Rabbi Elazar. However, both are resolved as well. If one takes trumot and ma'asrot from one's own produce to "fix" someone else's produce, can that be done without the friend's knowledge? Can this be derived from our Mishna that allows one who cannot benefit from another to have them take trumot and ma'asrot on their behalf with their knowledge? In order to ascertain this, the Gemara must figure out the details of the case in the Mishna - whose produce are the trumot and ma'asrot taken from and whose knowledge is needed? The conclusion is that the case in the Mishna is not the same case that the question is referring to. Another question is asked - if one takes trumot and ma'asrot from one's own produce to "fix" someone else's produce, who gets to choose which kohen to give the produce to, in order to be able to get "benefit" from the kohen knowing that you chose to give your truma to him? Rabbi Zeira tries to prove from our Mishna that is it the owner of the produce who chooses. However, again the Gemara proves that the Mishna is not referring to this type of case. Rabbi Yochanan holds the opposite - that it is the one whose produce it is. Why did the Mishna distinguish and say that one can teach midrash, halacha and agadda to one who can't benefit, but not Torah?