Nedarim 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

Or perhaps,

the reason for the prohibition in our Mishna is

because exchanges are considered like growths,

and they were prohibited by rabbinic decree to the person who made the exchange himself. If so,

it makes no difference

whether he prohibited them to himself and made the exchange

himself, or whether

he prohibited them to his fellow and his fellow made the exchange—

the fellow—

they should become prohibited?

Rav Aḥa bar Minyomi said: Come and hear: If one says to his wife, “Let my benefit from you be a konam,” she borrows

money for her needs,

and creditors come and collect

from the husband.

Although her husband’s property is prohibited to her, his assets nevertheless remain encumbered for her needs; therefore, the creditors return and collect from the husband.

And if the halakha is that exchanges are considered like growths,

why do the creditors collect?

After all, it is self-evident that the lender intended to lend to the woman on the understanding that she herself would repay him, and he did not give her the money on the understanding that he would collect it from the husband. For what he lends to the woman is an exchange for the husband’s property; and if he lends to her on the understanding that he will collect from the husband, he would thereby cause a prohibition to occur, since she would benefit from an exchange for the husband’s property!

Rather, he certainly gave it to her on the understanding that he would collect from her herself. Why, then, can he return and collect from the husband?

Rather,

is it not—

because exchanges are not considered like growths,

and therefore it is in fact permitted to lend to her on the understanding that the creditors will collect from the husband, since, ultimately, she does not benefit from the husband’s property itself, but from its exchange!

The Gemara rejects the proof:

Rava said: Perhaps it is only initially that it is not permitted,

meaning, when one initially comes to exchange a prohibited item for a permitted one, it is prohibited, and the exchange becomes prohibited.

But if he did so—

he did so [

and if the exchange was made after the fact, it is permitted].

Therefore, here, at the time she borrowed, when the money was not yet an actual exchange for a prohibited item, she was permitted to borrow and eat. And although afterward the creditors collected from the husband, that occurred after the fact, at which point the money became an exchange for what she had eaten.

Rather, come and hear

from the Mishna in tractate Kiddushin:

One who betroths

a woman

with

fruits

of orla—

she is not betrothed.

The reason is that it is prohibited to benefit from fruits of orla.

But if he

sold them and betrothed

a woman

with their proceeds—

she is betrothed.

And if the halakha is that exchanges are like growths, why, when he betrothed her with the exchange, is she betrothed? After all, the exchange, too, should be prohibited for benefit!

We reject this:

Here, too, it is only initially that it is not permitted.

That is, initially it is indeed prohibited to benefit even from the exchange.

But if he did so [

and if he transgressed and benefited from them]—

he did so [

his act takes effect], because in fact the exchange is permitted.

Mishna:

If a person says to his fellow:

“I am a herem for you,”

meaning, let it be prohibited for you to benefit from me, just as it is prohibited to benefit from property declared herem by a person for the purpose of repairing the Temple —the law is that the

one prohibited by a vow from benefiting [

his fellow] is

prohibited

from benefiting from him.

And if a person says to his fellow:

“You are a herem to me,”

meaning, let it be prohibited for me to benefit from you, just as it is prohibited to benefit from a herem—then

the one who made the vow [

the one who said this] is

prohibited

from benefiting from his fellow.

And if he says to him:

“I am a herem for you

herem,

and you are mine [

that is, you, too, are a herem to me]”—then the law is that

both are prohibited.

That is, each one is prohibited from the property of the other.

And both are permitted to use something belonging to “those who ascended from Babylonia,”

as the Mishna will explain below: because those who ascended from Babylonia declared it ownerless for all of Israel.