Resources for Nedarim 32
The משנה says that if you areמדיר your friend from getting הנאה from you then he cant have דריסת רגל into your property. The גמרא says this goes like רבי אליעזר who holds ויתור is אסור. The ר"ן explains that ויתור is like a bakers dozen where you aren’t מקפּיד if a customer takes an extra one even if he only paid for a dozen. רבי אליעזר holds that is still considered giving הנאה and the רבנן disagree and hold that if you aren’t מקפּיד on something then it isn’t considered הנאה. Our משנה is brought in מסכת מגילה and the טורי אבן on דף ח׳ asks an important question: we know from the גמרא in ע"ז that one is not allowed to sit in the shade of ע"ז, nor להבדיל is one allowed to sit in the shade of the בית המקדש. Certainly no one is מקפּיד on that yet we call it הנאה, so could רבי אליעזר say it’s not considered הנאה? He answers that the מחלוקת about ויתור is not whether its considered הנאה—it is certainly considered הנאה. Rather, the מחלוקת is whether in our case the person who made the נדר intended to אסור that type of הנאה on his friend since no one is מקפּיד on it. The מנחת שלמה likes this approach because it is the only way to explain why when a person pays the seller too much or too little as explained in the previous blatt we don’t consider it a benefit to the buyer. Isn’t the fact that you were able to purchase the item a benefit of some kind? It must be that when people make a נדר against someone they don’t intend to אסור every imaginable הנאה.
The קובץ שיעורים in ב"ב אות רנ"ו brings רבי עקיבא איגר who says that no one says ויתור is allowed if you made the actual נכסים forbidden to the person. The discussion about ויתור is only when someone just said you cant get benefit from me. According to that one could say that the ר"ן is right that the מחלוקת about ויתור is whether its considered הנאה when a person says you cant get הנאה from me, but by a חפצא that is forbidden it is certainly אסור.
The רשב"ם in בבא בתרא דף נ"ז ע"ב says that the reason the רבנן hold ויתור is מותר is because the person was מפקיר this הנאה to his customers or friends so the הנאה isn’t coming from the מדיר. The טורי אבן mentioned above points out that this would seem to be a massive חידוש in how הפקר works. Normally we assume there is no such thing as being מפקיר something to only specific people. There is an אבני מילואים in סימן כ"ח that says that if you aren’t מקפּיד on specific people taking something but you do mind if other people take it then it definitely cannot be considered הפקר. However, it is considered a מתנה to the person who you don’t mind if they take it. The קובץ שיעורים asks on this that if that is true then it would certainly be called getting הנאה and ויתור should certainly be אסור! The אבני מילואים himself brings a נודע ביהודה in אה"ע מהדו"ק סימן נ"ט (who he disagrees with) who says that if someone isn’t מקפּיד on specific people then it is considered הפקר for them in the sense that they have a right to acquire it. That would go well with the רשב"ם.
The שולחן ערוך in סימן רכ"א brings the case of our משנה of ויתור as a case where someone makes his נכסים אסור on his friend. The מנחת שלמה suggests that there may be a difference between making a specific item אסור בהנאה vs a general statement of “my נכסים should be אסור on you.”
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya