Nedarim 57a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1. One who forbade “produce” upon himself without qualification—for example, he said: “Produce is konam to me,” or: “Figs are konam to me”—and did not limit his prohibition by saying: “These produce or these figs are konam to me,” or: “The figs of so-and-so are konam to me,” or: “The figs of such-and-such a place are konam to me,” is prohibited only with that which he forbade upon himself.

But he is not prohibited from deriving benefit from their exchanges—for example, he sold figs and received grapes in their value—or from their growths, for his intention with his vow was only to prohibit deriving benefit from the figs themselves.

2. But if he said:

“Produce”

“these”

“upon me,”

for he specified and limited his prohibition to only these produce items standing before him, and did not forbid the entire species upon himself—

or he said:

“They are konam”—

the produce items standing before him—

“upon my mouth,”—

or he said:

“They are konam according to me,”—

in all these cases he is

prohibited with their exchanges

of the prohibited produce.

But not with the exchanges of their exchanges.

And

he is prohibited

with their growths,

that which grew from them when he planted them in the ground and they grew.

But with the growths of their growths, he is permitted.

And the reason for the matter is that when he forbade in this manner, his intention was that even the exchanges and the growths should be prohibited to him. 3. However, if he said: “Produce”

“that I eat,”

or: “Produce”

“that I taste,” —

this is

permitted with their exchanges and their growths.

And the permission of the growths of the growths in the first clause, and the permission of the growths themselves in the conclusion, is only

with something whose seed is consumed,

where the seed that was prohibited for benefit rots, and something new grows from it.

But with something whose seed is not consumed,

where the prohibited seed itself develops and grows and becomes produce, it is found that part of the prohibition itself is mixed into the produce; therefore,

even the growths of the growths are prohibited.

For the small mixture of the prohibited matter [which was not consumed] that is now found in the produce is not nullified by the majority of the permitted matter that grew and developed from the prohibited seed.

Since a prohibited matter subject to a vow-prohibition that became mixed with a majority of permitted matter is considered “a matter that has a permitted means,” through the possibility of asking a Sage about the vow and having it permitted,

and we hold that every prohibited matter that has a permitted means—even if it became mixed with a thousand permitted matters—is not nullified by the majority; rather, the entire mixture is prohibited.

And likewise,

one who says to his wife: “The work of your hands is konam to me,”

or

“They are konam upon my mouth,”

or

“They are konam according to me,”

this is

prohibited with their exchanges and their growths.

Since he did not forbid the entire species, but specified those things that she made.

But if he said: “The work of your hands”

“that I eat,”

or: “The work of your hands”

“that I taste,”

this is

permitted with their exchanges and their growths.

Even though he specified the matter that he forbids upon himself, and did not forbid the entire species upon himself.

And there is permission for the growths or for the growths of the growths only

with something whose seed is consumed.

But with something whose seed is not consumed, even the growths of the growths are prohibited.

One who says to his wife: “What

you make, I shall not eat until Passover,”

or says to her: “What

you make, I shall not cover myself with until Passover”:

We do not interpret: “What you make until Passover—I shall never eat or cover myself with.”

Rather: “What you make—I shall not eat or cover myself with until Passover.”

Therefore, if

she made it before Passover,

this is

permitted to eat and to cover himself with after Passover.

Since he forbade himself from them only until Passover.

One who says to his wife: “What

you make until Passover I shall not eat”

and

what

you make until Passover I shall not cover myself with”:

If

she made it before Passover, it is prohibited to eat and to cover himself with it

even

after Passover,

for the meaning of his wording is: “What you will make until Passover shall be prohibited to me for eating or for covering myself with.”

One who says to his wife before the Passover festival:

“That you benefit from me” [A0091]]

если ты

“until Passover, if you go to your father’s house until the festival”

that follows it.

If

she went before Passover

and violated his condition—for he stipulated that she not go from the time of his vow until the festival—she is

prohibited from benefiting from him until Passover.

And the Gemara precisely infers from our Mishna: only if

she went before Passover

and violated her condition is she indeed prohibited from benefiting from him until Passover; but if she still

had not gone—

rather, only if she goes will she be prohibited retroactively—

she is not

prohibited from benefiting from him.

It follows that she need not be concerned lest she violate the condition and become prohibited retroactively, and this is difficult for Rav Yehuda!?

Rabbi Abba said

to reconcile the position of Rav Yehuda: In fact, she is immediately prohibited from benefit, even if she did not go, because perhaps she will go; and what we learned: “She went” before Passover, she is prohibited from benefiting from him, this is what it is saying:

If she went before Passover, she is prohibited

from benefiting from him

and

also

she receives lashes

the woman who violated “He shall not profane his word”; but if

she did not go, she is prohibited merely

by rabbinic law, but she does not receive lashes.