Nedarim 47a — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna:

“One who says to his fellow, etc.”

Avimi raised a problem:

If a person said to his fellow:

“Konam this house to you, that you may enter it!”

If

the one who made the vow dies,

or

if he sold it to another, what is the law?

Is it then permitted for the one prohibited by the vow to enter the house, or not?

And the reason for the uncertainty is: Is it just as we learned in our Mishna, that one who says, “Konam this house is upon me,” even if its owner sold it to another, it is forbidden to him; so too here, when he prohibited his property to another, that

a person can prohibit an object that is in his possession when it leaves his possession?

Or not.

Perhaps it is specifically when he prohibited the house to himself that the prohibition applies even when it leaves his possession, for a person can prohibit a house to himself, whether it is his or whether he will sell it to another. But to prohibit it to his fellow—perhaps he cannot, since a person cannot prohibit his fellow’s property to his fellow!

Rava said: Ta shma: “One who says to his son: ‘Konam that you may not benefit from me’” [

that is, that he prohibited his benefit to his son],

and the father dies—

the father—

the son shall inherit him.

the son.

But if the father prohibited his property to his son

during his lifetime and after his death, and he dies,

the father—

the son shall not inherit him

the son.

Learn from it: A person can prohibit an object that is in his possession—

when it leaves his possession.

For if not, how could the father prohibit his property to his son after his death?!

And we conclude:

Learn from it.

We learned there [

below, on page 57a]: If a person said:

“Konam, these fruits are upon me,”

or he said:

“Konam, they

these fruits

are upon my mouth,”

or he said:

“Konam, they are according to me”—

if he said one of these expressions—

it is forbidden

even

with their replacements,

that is, if he sold them, it is forbidden even with their monetary value,

and

it is likewise forbidden even

with their growths

of the fruits. That is, if he planted them in the ground, whatever grows from them is forbidden .

Rami bar Hama raised a problem:

If

a person said

a person:

“Konam, these fruits are upon so-and-so,”

and afterward that person exchanged them for another object,

what is the law regarding their replacements,

are even their replacements prohibited to him, or not?

Do we say

that the reason in our Mishna that the replacements are prohibited is that this is what the one who made the vow intended, and if so, specifically

with regard to himself

for the matter of the person himself],

since a person prohibits his fellow’s fruits to himself, a person prohibits

even

an object that has not yet come into the world to himself,

and therefore he can prohibit their replacements to himself.

But not so

with regard to his fellow: since a person does not prohibit his fellow’s fruits to his fellow—

even

a person does not prohibit an object that has not yet come into the world to his fellow,

and even though he intended this, the prohibition does not take effect upon their replacements.