Nedarim 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

And both are prohibited from setting up

in the courtyard

millstones and an oven, or from raising chickens.

For although partners generally do not object to one another if one of them places an object in the other’s portion, nevertheless, if they do object, they are permitted to prohibit one another from doing so.

And likewise, if

one of them is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the other, he may not enter the courtyard.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He can say

to him

to his partner:

“I am entering my portion, and I am not entering yours.”

This part of the Mishna is not novel, whether according to the Rabbis or according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, for what difference is there whether both of them prohibited themselves from deriving benefit from one another, or only one prohibited the other? Rather, the tanna stated this law because of the following clause:

And

in such a case

the one who took the vow is compelled to sell his portion.

Since one of them is prohibited and the other is permitted, we are concerned that the one from whom benefit is prohibited will become jealous of his partner and will come to use the courtyard as well. Therefore, in order that he not stumble, the one who imposed the prohibition is compelled to sell his portion; once he does so, the person from whom benefit was prohibited will be permitted to use the entire courtyard.

If one of the townspeople was prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from one of them

[from one of the partners]

he may not enter

that person

the courtyard.

For if he can prevent his partner from entering, all the more so can he prevent one of the townspeople from entering!

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

Even in such a case,

he can

that person

say to him

to the one who imposed the prohibition:

“Into

your partner’s

portion I am entering, and I am not entering yours”.

One who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from his fellow, and the one who imposed the prohibition has

to the one who imposed the prohibition

a bathhouse and an olive press leased out in the city

[meaning that the bathhouse and the olive press are leased to another person],

if he has

the one who imposed the prohibition

a right of control over them—

it is prohibited

for the person from whom benefit is prohibited to use them.

But if

he has no right of control over them—

it is permitted.

The Gemara will explain what constitutes a right of control.

One who says to his fellow: “A vow makes your house prohibited to me if I enter it”

[meaning: Your house shall be prohibited to me by a vow if I take it],

and

likewise, one who says to his fellow: “A vow makes

your field prohibited to me if I take it”

[meaning: Your field shall be prohibited to me by a vow if I take it],

if

the owner of the house or field dies,

or

sells it

to

another

person—

the person from whom benefit was prohibited is permitted

to use them.

The reason is that he used the expressions “your house” and “your field,” meaning specifically when they belong to him. But if he sells them or bequeaths them, they no longer belong to him, and therefore the person from whom benefit was prohibited is permitted to use them.

But if he said:

“A vow makes this house prohibited to me if I enter it,”

or he said: “A vow makes

this field prohibited to me if I take it,”

even if

the owner dies or sells it to another person—

it remains prohibited.

Since he said “this house,” he prohibited the house itself to himself, regardless of its owner; therefore it remains prohibited even when the house belongs to someone else.

Gemara:

It was posed to them:

In our Mishna, do the partners

who took vows

prohibiting benefit from one another

disagree

[as the Mishna states: “Partners who took vows prohibiting benefit from one another”]?

But if

they prohibited one another by vows—

what is the law?

Do we say

that in fact everyone agrees that there is bereira, and according to the strict law even the Rabbis would have held that the partners are permitted to enter the courtyard? Rather, they hold that since they prohibited themselves by vows, they are penalized and prevented from entering the courtyard.

If so, one could say that specifically

in the case where they took the vows do they disagree. But when they prohibited one another by vows—

the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

that this one enters his portion and that one enters his portion,

as

they are

like

those

coerced,

and it is not appropriate to penalize them!

Or perhaps,

in fact, the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree on this very matter, whether there is bereira or not, as explained in the Mishna. If so,

even when they prohibited one another by vows, the Rabbis disagree,

since if we hold that there is no bereira, each one is entering his partner’s portion!?

Come and hear

from the words of our Mishna, as we learned in it:

“If one of them was prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from his fellow,”

and “prohibited” means that his fellow prohibited him by a vow,

and

nevertheless

the Rabbis disagree!

And we reject this:

Teach

in our Mishna: “If one of them was

under a vow prohibiting benefit from his fellow.”

Meaning, he prohibited himself from deriving benefit from his fellow [that is, the meaning of “prohibited” in our Mishna is that he prohibited himself from his fellow, since “prohibited” can mean either that he prohibited himself or that his fellow prohibited him. Ran].

And we say:

This too is reasonable,

that the case is one where he prohibited himself from deriving benefit from his fellow, and not one where his fellow prohibited him.

As it teaches

in the

final clause

of our Mishna:

“And the one who took the vow is compelled to sell his portion.”

Granted, if you say that he himself took the vow

prohibiting benefit from his fellow,

this is why it teaches

that

he is compelled

to sell his portion, since he brought this upon himself by prohibiting himself from his fellow.

But if you say that his fellow prohibited him

from his portion,

why is he compelled? He is entirely coerced

[for he is under duress, since his fellow prohibited him]!

It must therefore be the case that one of them took a vow prohibiting benefit from his fellow.

Rabba said in the name of Ze’eiri: