Nedarim 46a — the Talmud in English

And both are forbidden to set up

in the courtyard

millstones and an oven, and to raise chickens.

For although partners are not particular with one another if one sets up something in the portion of his fellow, nevertheless, if they are particular, they are permitted to forbid one another.

And likewise, if

one of them is forbidden by an oath to receive benefit from his fellow, he may not enter the courtyard.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He can say

to him

to his partner:

I am entering into what is mine, and I am not entering into what is yours.

And this part of the Mishna is not a novelty, whether according to the Rabbis or according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, for what difference is there if both forbade themselves by oath to receive benefit from one another, or if only one forbade [benefit] upon his fellow?! Rather, the tanna stated this law because of the following latter clause:

And

in such a case

we compel the one who made the vow to sell his portion.

For since one is forbidden and the other is permitted, we are concerned that the one forbidden by oath will become jealous of his fellow and will also come to use the courtyard. Therefore, so that he should not stumble, we compel the one who imposed the prohibition to sell his portion, and then the one forbidden by oath will be permitted throughout the entire courtyard.

If one of the people of the marketplace is forbidden by an oath to receive benefit from one of them [

from one of the partners]

that person may not enter

that person

the courtyard.

For if he can prevent his fellow, all the more so he can prevent one of the people of the marketplace!

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

also in such a case,

that person can

that person

say to him

to the one who imposed the prohibition:

into

his portion

of your fellow I am entering, and I am not entering into yours.

One who is forbidden by an oath to receive benefit from his fellow, and the one who imposed the prohibition has

the one who imposed the prohibition

a bathhouse and an oil press rented out in the city [

for the bathhouse and the oil press are rented to another person],

if he has

the one who imposed the prohibition

a holding of possession in them —

it is forbidden

for the one forbidden by oath to use them.

But if

he has no holding of possession in them —

it is permitted .

And in the Gemara it will be explained what “holding of possession” is.

One who says to his fellow: “Konam, your house—I am entering,” [

that is to say, your house shall be forbidden to me by konam if I take it],

and

likewise one who says to his fellow: “Konam

your field—I am taking,” [

that is to say, your field shall be forbidden to me by konam if I take it],

if

the owner of

the house or the field

or sold it

to

a person

another —

it is permitted

for the one forbidden by oath to use them.

And the reason is that he used the expression “your house” and “your field,” which means specifically when they are his; but if he sold them or bequeathed them, they are no longer his, and therefore it is permitted for him to use them.

But if he said:

“Konam, this house—I am entering,”

or he said: “Konam

this field—I am taking,”

even if

he died or sold it to another —

it is forbidden.

For since he said “this house,” he forbade the house itself upon himself, without connection to its owner, and therefore it is forbidden to him even when the house belongs to another.

Gemara:

They raised a question before them:

in our Mishna —

when they vowed

to receive benefit from one another

do they dispute [

as in the wording of the Mishna: “Partners who vowed to receive benefit from one another”].

But if

they forbade one another by oath —

what [is the law]?

Do we say

that in truth everyone holds that there is retroactive designation, and according to the law, even according to the Rabbis, the partners should have been permitted to enter the courtyard. Rather, they hold that since they forbade themselves by oath, we penalize them so that they should not enter the courtyard.

And if so, it is possible to say that specifically

when they vowed do they dispute. But when they forbade one another by oath —

the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

that this one enters into what is his, and this one enters into what is his,

for

indeed

like [

like]

they are considered coerced,

and it is not applicable to penalize them!

Or perhaps,

in truth, the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree on this matter itself, whether there is retroactive designation or not, as was explained in the Mishna, and if so,

even when they forbade one another by oath, the Rabbis dispute,

for if we hold that there is no retroactive designation, he is entering into his fellow’s portion?!

Come and hear

from the words of our Mishna, in which we learned:

“If one of them is forbidden by an oath to receive benefit from his fellow,”

and “forbidden by oath” means that his fellow forbade him by oath,

and

nevertheless

the Rabbis dispute!

And we reject [this]:

Read

in our Mishna: “If one of them was

one who vowed to abstain from receiving benefit from his fellow.

For he forbade himself by oath from his fellow [that is, the meaning of “forbidden by oath” in our Mishna is that he forbade himself by oath from his fellow, because “forbidden by oath” implies both that he forbade himself and that his fellow forbade him. Ran].

And we say:

This too is reasonable,

that it is speaking of one who forbade himself by oath from his fellow, and not of one whose fellow forbade him by oath.

For it teaches

in the

latter clause

of our Mishna:

“And we compel the one who made the vow to sell his portion.”

If you say, it is well, that he vowed

to abstain from receiving benefit from his fellow,

this is why it teaches

that

we compel

him to sell his portion, for he caused it to himself by forbidding himself by oath from his fellow.

But if you say that his fellow forbade him by oath

from his portion,

why do we compel him? He is coerced by force [

for he is coerced, since his fellow forbade him by oath]!

Necessarily, it is speaking of one who vowed to abstain from receiving benefit from his fellow.

Rabba said in the name of Zeiri: