Nedarim 85

Sugya Map

• Issue: Is Tovat Hana'ah (the "benefit of discretion" in designating a recipient for tithes) considered mamon (monetary value) for the purpose of restitution?
• Primary Sources: Nedarim 85b, Ketubot 58b.
• Nafka Mina: Whether a thief who steals untithed produce (tevel) must compensate the owner for the value of the priestly gifts contained therein.

Text Snapshot

The Gemara initially proposes: "רבי סבר טובת הנאה ממון הוא" (Nedarim 85b), suggesting the owner’s power to choose a Cohen gives the terumah fiscal weight. However, the Gemara pivots: "לא, דכ"ע טובת הנאה לאו ממון הוא" (Ibid.), re-centering the machloket on whether unseparated tithes are legally "as if separated" (kemi she-hurmu damyan).

Readings

• Ran (ad loc. s.v. במתנות שלא הורמו): Argues the dispute hinges on a fiction of status. If unseparated tithes are not deemed separated, the thief effectively stole the owner’s total, untithed mass.
• Tosafot (ad loc. s.v. לא דכ"ע): Cites the Yerushalmi to explain that the machloket requires specific circumstances (e.g., tevel inherited from a Cohen) to determine if the designation power functions as a proprietary interest or merely a procedural privilege.

Friction

Kushya: If Tovat Hana'ah is universally not money, why does the Gemara struggle so mightily to explain why the thief pays for the terumah? Terutz: The Gemara ultimately resolves this by invoking a knas (penalty). The Sages impose a penalty on the thief to deter theft, regardless of the intrinsic monetary status of the terumah. This shifts the discourse from property law to enforcement policy.

Intertext

• Ketubot 58b: The conflict regarding whether one can "consecrate" future earnings (davar she-lo ba le-olam).
• Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 331: The practical application of Tovat Hana'ah in the context of designating a Cohen, confirming that while it lacks cash value, it maintains a status of chashivut (significance) in religious law.

Psak/Practice

The meta-halachic heuristic here is crucial: legal fictions regarding "ownership" of terumah are often overridden by the pragmatic need to penalize the thief. In practice, Tovat Hana'ah is treated as "valuable" in contexts of kibbud (honor) and mitzvah performance, even if it fails the strict definition of mamon for civil restitution.

Takeaway

Tovat Hana'ah is not currency, but it is a "lever" of authority. When the law cannot find a property right to protect, it often creates a penal fiction to ensure the victim is made whole.