Nedarim 47a (מז.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna:

“One who says to his fellow...”

Rav Avimi raised a dilemma:

If a person said to his fellow:

“Konam, this house is forbidden to you to enter!”

If

the one who made the vow dies,

or

if he sells it to another, what is the halakha?

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

The basis of the dilemma is this: Is it the case that just as we learned in our Mishna, that one who says, “Konam, this house is forbidden to me,” remains forbidden even if its owner sells it to another, so too, when he forbids his property to another,

a person can forbid an item that is in his possession even after it leaves his possession?

Or not.

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

Rava said: Come and hear: One who says to his son, “Konam, you may not derive benefit from me,” [

that is, he forbade his son from deriving benefit from him,]

and the father dies,

the father —

the son may inherit him

the son.

But if the father forbade his property to his son

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

the father —

the son may not inherit him

the son.

Infer from this: A person can forbid an item that is in his possession —

even after it leaves his possession.

For if this were not so, how could the father forbid his property to his son after his death?!

And we conclude:

Infer from this.

We learned there [

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

“Konam, these fruits are forbidden to me,”

or he said:

“Konam, they are

these fruits

for my mouth,”

or he said:

“Konam, they are for me” —

If he said one of these formulations, he is

forbidden

even

with regard to their substitutes,

meaning that if he sold them, he is also forbidden to benefit from the money received for them,

and

he is likewise forbidden

with regard to what grows from them

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

Rami bar Hama raised a dilemma:

If

a person said

to another:

“Konam, these fruits are forbidden to so-and-so,”

and afterward that person exchanged them for something else,

what is the halakha with regard to their substitutes?

Are even their substitutes forbidden to him, or not?

Might we say

that the reason the substitutes are forbidden in our Mishna is that this was the intention of the one who made the vow? If so, specifically

with regard to himself

in the case of the person himself,

since a person can forbid his fellow’s fruits to himself, a person can forbid

even

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

and therefore he can forbid their substitutes to himself.

In contrast,

with regard to his fellow, since a person cannot forbid his fellow’s fruits to his fellow —

even

a person cannot forbid an item that has not yet come into the world to his fellow,

and although this was his intention, the prohibition does not take effect with regard to their substitutes.