Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim
IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR etc. Abimi1 propounded: What [if one says to his neighbour.] 'Konam, if you enter this house,' and then he sells it or dies: Can one prohibit that which he owns [for the prohibition] to be effective even when it leaves his ownership, or not? — Said Raba, Come and hear: If one says to his son, 'Konam that you benefit not from me,' and he dies, he is his heir. [But if he explicitly stipulates] during his lifetime and he dies, he does not succeed him. This proves that one can prohibit that which he owns [for the prohibition] to hold good when it leaves his ownership. The proof is conclusive.
We learnt elsewhere: [If one says.] 'Konam be these fruits to me,' or, 'Be they konam for my mouth,' or, 'Be they konam to my mouth': he is forbidden [to benefit] from what has been exchanged for them or grown from them.2 Rami b. Hama propounded. If he vows, 'Konam be these fruits to So-and-so', what of their exchange? Do we say, With respect to oneself, since he can forbid to himself [even] his neighbour's property, he can [likewise] forbid to himself what is not yet in existence;3 but as for his neighbour, since one cannot prohibit another's produce to his neighbour, he likewise cannot prohibit what is non-existent;
- Var. lec.: Abaye.
- Infra 57a.
- What may be given for the produce subsequent to the vow is regarded as non-existent when the vow is made.
Nedarim 47b
or perhaps since what is taken in exchange is the same as what grows from its seed, there is no difference between oneself and his neighbour?1 — Said R. Aha b. Manyumi, Come and hear: If a man says to his wife, 'Konam, if I benefit thee,' she may borrow [money], and the creditors come and exact it from him. Why can the creditors collect it [from him]: surely because what is taken in exchange is not the same as what grows from them?2 Said Raba, possibly it is forbidden [to make an exchange] in the first place only, but if it has been done, it is valid.3 But come and hear: If a man betroths [a woman] with 'orlah,4 she is not betrothed; but if he sells it and betroths her with the money thereof, she is betrothed!5 — [No.] Here too it may be forbidden in the first place only, but if done it is valid.MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR.] 'I AM HEREM TO YOU,' THE MUDDAR IS FORBIDDEN [TO DERIVE BENEFIT]. 'YOU ARE HEREM TO ME,' THE MADDIR IS FORBIDDEN. I AM [HEREM] TO YOU, AND YOU ARE [HEREM] TO ME, BOTH ARE PROHIBITED. BOTH ARE PERMITTED [TO ENJOY THE USE OF] THOSE THINGS WHICH BELONG TO THOSE WHO CAME UP FROM BABYLON [TO PALESTINE],6 BUT ARE FORBIDDEN [THE USE OF] THINGS THAT BELONG TO THAT TOWN.7
- For it is obvious that the fruit which grows is forbidden to his neighbour, and possibly what is given in exchange is the same.
- Thus, in this case, the money she receives is not the same that is repaid.
- I.e., it can be maintained that the problem regarding what is exchanged for them, is whether one may deliberately exchange these fruits for something else, so that it shall be permitted to the muddar. But if they were exchanged, they certainly are permitted. Hence, in this case, since the wife receives the money before the creditors exact it from her husband, it is regarded as a fail accompli, the legality of which is not in doubt. (The explanation follows Asheri. Ran gives a different interpretation).
- 'Fruit of uncircumcision. V. Lev. XIX, 23.
- This proves that the prohibition does not remain upon what has been exchanged for something forbidden.
- I.e., the band of immigrants who returned to Palestine under Zerubbabel, and later under Ezra and Nehemiah, who declared certain things inalienable property which can be deemed ownerless.
- In which each citizen has a share.