Study Nedarim folio 33B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is the statement of Ḥanan in a dispute pertaining to one who pays the debt of another. Ḥanan holds that he cannot demand to be reimbursed for that payment, since he merely prevented potential damage.
Rava said: Even if you say that everyone agrees that this is the halakha, it was stated with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another who borrowed money, and the creditor stipulated that it was on the condition that if he so chooses he does not need to repay the loan. In th
The Talmud asks: What is the opinion of Ḥanan to which the Talmud referred? The Talmud answers that it is as we learned in a Mishnah: In the case of a husband who went to a country overseas, and one other man arose and supported his wife on his own initiative and then demanded to be reimbursed for t
The sons of High Priests disagreed with him and said: The one who took the initiative to support his wife will take an oath as to how much he spent and take repayment from the husband. R' Dosa ben Harkinas said in accordance with the statement of the sons of High Priests. R' Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said
The Talmud explains the dispute between Rava and Rav Hoshaya with regard to attribution of the Mishnah: Rava did not say that the Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥanan, as did Rav Hoshaya, and he preferred a different explanation, as he establishes the Mishnah in accordance with the st