Nedarim 35a — the Talmud in English

He raised an objection to him

Rav Hiyya bar Avin to Rava from this, as it is taught in a beraita:

He said to him

one person to his fellow:

Lend me your cow

this one lying before us, which is acquired by you!

And his fellow wished to excuse himself, that he was unable to lend it to him, and said to him:

A konam

upon you

is the cow

this one,

which I am acquired to you [if I acquired another cow besides this one]!

Or he said to him:

My property

is forbidden

to you, if I have

a cow except this one!

And likewise if he said to him:

Lend me your axe!

And

he said to him: A konam is the axe that I have, which I am acquired!

That is, he forbids himself the benefit of this axe if he acquired an additional axe. And he does this in order to prove to his fellow that he is not lending him the axe except because he needs his only axe for his own use.

Or he said to him:

My property is upon you, if I have an axe except this one!

And

in the end

it was found that he has

another cow, or that he has another axe,

then this is the law:

During the lifetime

of the owner of the cow and the axe,

it is forbidden

to his fellow to [use] them.

But if

he died,

their owner,

or he gave it to him as a gift—

it is permitted.

And it is established that through the one who imposed the prohibition giving the object to the one prohibited to him as a gift, the matter becomes permitted, since it is no longer considered to belong to the one who imposed the prohibition!

And this is difficult for Rava, who forbids a gift of a konam, since he transfers it from one domain to another, and this matter is forbidden with a konam, as with consecrated property, which is forbidden to transfer from one domain to another even when he did not derive benefit from the matter.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, said:

There is no proof from here regarding our matter, because it is possible to say that here it is speaking of a case

in which it was given to him by another.

That is, the one who imposed the prohibition gave it to another person, and that person gave it to the one prohibited. And in such a case it is certainly permitted, for the one prohibited did not derive benefit from the one who imposed the prohibition, but from another person.

Rav Ashi said:

The language of the beraita

is also precise

in accordance with the words of Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika.

For it teaches

the expression

“that he gave it to him” [the first nun is marked with a hiriq. For this was the received reading among them, although in writing there is no difference],

the first nun is pronounced with a hirik vowel. This was the received reading, although there is no difference in the written form],

and it does not teach, “that he gave it to him” [with a sheva beneath the nun]. This indicates that it was given to him by another.

with a sheva vowel beneath the nun]. This indicates that it was given to him by someone else.

Rava asked Rav Nahman:

Does

there exist

the law of

misappropriation with konamot ,

or not?

That is, through the konam, did he make it for him like an offering, and if he derived benefit, is he liable for a guilt-offering for misappropriation, like one who derives benefit from consecrated property , or not?

He said to him, you have learned it

in our Mishna:

A place where they take for it

for returning the lost object]

payment—

the benefit shall fall to consecrated property.

And from the fact that the tannai stated that the benefit shall fall to consecrated property, and did not say in the usual manner in which it teaches in cases such as these, that it is forbidden to derive benefit: “He shall take the benefit to the Dead Sea,” it indicates

to say—

like consecrated property.

That is, a konam resembles consecrated property.

Just as consecrated property—

there is misappropriation with it, so too konamot—

there is misappropriation with them.

And we say that this question, whether there is misappropriation with konamot or not,

is

a dispute

of the tannaim

.

For thus we learned in a beraita: If a person said

“This loaf is a konam,

so that the loaf shall be forbidden to everyone like

consecrated property,” and he ate it

afterward,

whether

he ate it

himself, or whether

he ate it

his fellow—

he committed misappropriation,

because there is misappropriation with konamot, and he forbade the loaf with a konam to everyone.

And

therefore,

since this loaf has the law of misappropriation,

it has

also the law of

redemption.

And if he redeemed the konam with money, the money too is seized by the prohibition. [See the notes in the introduction to the sugya].

But if he said:

“This loaf is consecrated property to me,” and

afterward

he ate it,

then if

he

himself

ate it,

for he forbade it to himself with a konam.

But if

his fellow ate it—

he did not commit misappropriation,

for he did not forbid it to him at all.

And since the loaf is not forbidden to everyone, the “sanctity of the konam” is not so strong, and

therefore it does not have

the law of “the sanctity of the konam” of

redemption .

The words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: In either case,

whether with a general konam, which he forbade to everyone, or with a private konam, which he forbade only to himself—

he did not commit misappropriation, because there is no

law of

misappropriation with konamot

at all.

And it is demonstrated that the tannaim disputed this matter, whether there is misappropriation with konamot or not.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi:

According to Rabbi Meir, who holds that there is a law of misappropriation with offerings, if he said to his fellow

“My loaf is upon you,” and he gave it to him

to his fellow

as a gift,

so that through this misappropriation was effected, as with consecrated property, where one who took a stone or a beam of consecrated property to take it for himself committed misappropriation through acquiring it, even though he had not yet used it. Here too, since it left the domain of the one who forbade it and entered the domain of the recipient, misappropriation was effected.

Who committed misappropriation

through this giving?

Should the giver commit misappropriation?!

It is impossible to say so, for

it was not forbidden to him,

and why should it be considered misappropriation for him?

Should the recipient commit misappropriation?

For he

can

indeed

say: Permission—

I wanted,

I wanted to receive a permitted matter, but

a forbidden matter—

I did not want!

And had I known that the loaf was forbidden, I would not have accepted it. If so, this is an acquisition in error, which is not considered an acquisition!

He said to him

Rav Ashi: Indeed, for these reasons that you stated, neither of them commits misappropriation at this point.

But

the recipient commits misappropriation—

when he takes it out

[that is, when he uses the loaf].

Because

everyone who takes consecrated money out into the profane domain,

even if

when

he took it out he was

under the impression

that the money was

ordinary money—

nevertheless

he commits misappropriation,

therefore

this one too,

the one prohibited, when he uses the loaf, even though he did not intend to use a forbidden matter—he

commits misappropriation.