Nedarim - Daf 47
- Can a person prohibit his property to another for even after it leaves his ownership?
Avimi asked: קונם לבית זה שאתה נכנס, מת או שמכרו לאחר מהו – If one said, “Konam this house for you to enter,” and he died, or sold it, what is the halachah? אדם אוסר דבר שברשותו לכשיצא מרשותו או לא – Can a person prohibit property in his domain for even after it leaves his domain or not? The Ran explains that it is clear (from our Mishnah) that one can forbid his property to himself for even after it is no longer his, because he can even forbid someone else’s property on himself. The Gemara here is asking specifically about prohibiting his property on someone else, which he can only do with his own property, if that neder continues after the property is no longer his. Rava brought a proof from a Mishnah: האומר לבנו קונם שאי אתה נהנה לי ומת יירשנו – One who says to his son, “Konam that you cannot benefit from me,” and he died, his son inherits him. Since he only forbade him from benefiting from him, the property is not forbidden after he dies. בחייו ובמותו ומת לא יירשנו – But if he forbade it explicitly in his lifetime and after his death, and he died, [his son] does not inherit him, meaning he may not benefit from the inherited property. We see that a person can prohibit his property to others for even after it is no longer his. The Gemara accepts this proof.
- קונם פירות האלו על פלוני, מהו בחילופיהן
The Mishnah on 57a states that if one makes a “Konam” declaration on particular fruits, and then they are exchanged for goods or money, those proceeds are forbidden to him. Rami bar Chama asked: אמר קונם פירות האלו על פלוני, מהו בחילופיהן – If he said, “Konam these fruits on Ploni,” what is the halachah regarding their exchanges (i.e., goods received in exchange for them)? He explained why it may be different than the Mishnah quoted: Perhaps we say that just as a person can prohibit someone else’s property on himself, so too he can prohibit goods that have not come into existence yet, meaning those goods that were only afterwards exchanged for the fruits. In contrast, a person prohibiting someone else, where he cannot prohibit property that is not in his domain, cannot prohibit goods that were later exchanged for the forbidden fruits. Or do we say, דחילופין כגידולין דמי - that exchanges are considered like their growths (i.e., things that grow from prohibited entities), which are forbidden regardless of how the neder was made? The Ran clarifies that the exchanged goods are surely permitted mid’Oraysa; the question is if the Rabbis penalized him for making the exchange, which is definitely prohibited.
- A wife borrowing for support which is collected from the husband
Rav Acha bar Manyumi suggested a proof from a Baraisa: האומר לאשתו קונם שאני נהנה ליך – If one says to his wife, “Konam my benefit to you,” לווה ובעלי חובין באין ונפרעין – she can borrow for her needs and the creditors come and collect from the husband, who is obligated to support her (but cannot do so directly because of his neder). The Gemara considers this arrangement of the wife borrowing, whereby the husband becomes obligated to pay the creditors, as if she “exchanged” his property for the loan money, yet it is permitted. Rava responded:דילמא לכתחילה הוא דלא ואי עבד עבד – Perhaps only where one comes to make an outright exchange, would the exchanged goods be prohibited, but if he did an indirect exchange, such as the wife’s borrowing that creates an exchange after the fact, the exchanged goods are permitted [Ran].
