Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 11, 2022 | ื™ืดื– ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

Nedarim 47

This weekโ€™s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in memory of Robertโ€™s father, my grandfather, Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, zโ€l.
Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Racheli Mendelson in loving memory of her mother, Shoshana bat Shraga Fivel and Rivkah.
Someone can forbid someone else’s item to themselves even after the item no longer belongs to the other (they die or sell it). But if someone forbids an item of their own to someone else, will it continue to be forbidden even after the one who forbade dies or sells the item to someone else? Rava proves from a braita that it will continue to be forbidden. If one uses the language of “konam these fruit to my mouth” or similar language, not only are the fruits forbidden but also items they are traded for or anything that grows from them. If someone says “konam these fruits to your mouth” (forbidding to someone else), are items they are traded for also forbidden? Do we say that since one can forbid another’s property to oneself, one can also forbid an item that is not yet in existence (the traded item) to oneself, but not to another? Or do we say that since items that grow from them would be forbidden, then also traded items would be forbidden as well? They try to answer the question from two different sources that show that one can benefit from a traded item. However, both answers are rejected as perhaps the ab initio law is that one cannot benefit but the sources reflect cases where it was already done.

ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ื‘ืขื™ ืื‘ื™ืžื™ ืงื•ื ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื–ื” ืฉืืชื” ื ื›ื ืก ืžืช ืื• ืฉืžื›ืจื• ืœืื—ืจ ืžื”ื• ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืœื›ืฉื™ืฆื ืžืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื• ืœื


ยง The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Entering your house is konam for me, and the owner dies or sells the house, the prohibition is lifted. But if he said: Entering this house is konam for me, he remains prohibited from entering the house even after the owner dies or sells the house. Avimi raises a dilemma: If the owner of a house said: Entering this house is konam for you, and then he died or sold it to another, what is the halakha? Do we say that a person can render an item in his possession forbidden even for a time after it will leave his possession, or not?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื‘ื ื• ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื ื”ื ื” ืœื™ ื•ืžืช ื™ื™ืจืฉื ื• ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื• ื•ื‘ืžื•ืชื• ื•ืžืช ืœื ื™ื™ืจืฉื ื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืœื›ืฉื™ืฆื ืžืจืฉื•ืชื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”:


Rava said: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Bava Kamma 108bโ€“109a): If one says to his son: Benefiting from me is konam for you, and dies, the son still inherits from him. If, however, the father explicitly states that benefit is forbidden both in his lifetime and after his death, and dies, the son does not inherit from him. Rava suggests: Conclude from the mishna that a person can render an item in his possession forbidden even for a time after it will leave his possession. The Gemara notes: Conclude from the mishna that this is so.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืงื•ื ื ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืืœื• ืขืœื™ ืงื•ื ื ื”ืŸ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืงื•ื ื ื”ืŸ ืœืคื™ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื‘ื’ื™ื“ื•ืœื™ื”ืŸ


ยง We learned in a mishna there (57a): If one says: This produce is konam upon me, or: It is konam upon my mouth, or: It is konam for my mouth, he is prohibited from eating even its replacements, should they be traded or exchanged, and anything that grows from it if it is replanted.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืืœื• ืขืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื”ื• ื‘ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ื”ืŸ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื’ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœ ืขืฆืžื• ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœื ื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืขืœ ืขืฆืžื• ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœื ื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืขืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•


Rami bar แธคama raises a dilemma: If one said: This produce is konam for so-and-so, what is the halakha with regard to their replacements? Do we say: With regard to himself, since a person can render anotherโ€™s produce forbidden for himself, though it is not presently in his possession, so too, a person can render an entity that has not yet come into the world forbidden to himself? Is this why the replacement produce and anything that grows from it is forbidden to him, even if it did not yet exist when he took the vow? If so, with regard to another, since a person cannot render anotherโ€™s produce forbidden to another, i.e., to that owner himself, similarly one cannot render an entity that has not yet come into the world forbidden to another. The produceโ€™s replacements would therefore be permitted to him.


ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ืŸ ื›ื’ื™ื“ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืฉื ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื—ื‘ืจื•


Or perhaps the prohibition on replacement produce in the mishna is due to the fact that replacements of the produce are viewed as being like that which grows from them? They are both forbidden because they derive from the forbidden produce. If this is the case, it is no different for him and it is no different for another. Neither may derive benefit from the replacements.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœื™ืš ืœื•ื•ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ืŸ ืœืื• ื›ื’ื™ื“ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™


Rav Aแธฅa bar Minyumi said: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to one who says to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you, she may nevertheless borrow money to sustain herself, and the creditors can come and collect her debts from her husband. What is the reason that the creditors can collect from the husband? Is it not because she benefits only indirectly, and it must be that replacements, i.e., the creditorsโ€™ money, are not like that which grows from the original item?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื•ืื™ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื“


Rava said: This is not proof: Perhaps it is the case that one should not benefit from replacements ab initio, but if one did it, it is done after the fact. Since the wife lacks any other means to support herself, the case is considered to be after the fact, and it is permitted for her to benefit indirectly. Still, replacements of an item are considered to be like that which grows from it ab initio.


ืืœื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืขืจืœื” ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืžื›ืจืŸ ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื‘ื“ืžื™ื”ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื•ืื™ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื“:


Rather, come and hear a proof from another mishna (Kiddushin 56b): With regard to one who betroths a woman with fruit of orla, i.e., fruit of the first three years of a treeโ€™s growth, from which it is forbidden to benefit, she is not betrothed because the fruits have no value. Betrothal can be performed only with an object worth at least one peruta. But if he sold them and betrothed her with the money he received, she is betrothed. Evidently, replacements of a forbidden item are permitted. The Gemara responds: Here also, one should not benefit from the replacement items given in exchange for the orla ab initio, but if one did it, it is done after the fact. Replacements of an item may still be considered to be like that which grows from it ab initio.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื—ืจื ื”ืžื•ื“ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืขืœื™ ื—ืจื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื™ ื‘ื‘ืœ


MISHNA: If someone says to another: I am hereby forbidden to you like an item dedicated to the Temple, then the one prohibited by the vow is prohibited from benefiting from the possessions of the one who took the vow. If someone says: You are hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, then the one who took the vow is prohibited from benefiting from the possessions of the other. If he says: I am hereby forbidden to you and you are hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, both are prohibited from benefiting from the possessions of the other. But it is permitted for both of them to benefit from the objects belonging to those who ascended from Babylonia, i.e., common property of the nation as a whole, which is not considered to be the property of any individual.

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 42-50 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will continue to learn about inclusions and exceptions to a vow prohibiting someone from benefiting from someone else. We...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 47: Prohibiting Something That Doesn’t Yet Exist

When the vow is on a specific property, how long would one be prohibited from benefit? For example, what if...

Nedarim 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 47

ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ื‘ืขื™ ืื‘ื™ืžื™ ืงื•ื ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื–ื” ืฉืืชื” ื ื›ื ืก ืžืช ืื• ืฉืžื›ืจื• ืœืื—ืจ ืžื”ื• ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืœื›ืฉื™ืฆื ืžืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื• ืœื


ยง The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Entering your house is konam for me, and the owner dies or sells the house, the prohibition is lifted. But if he said: Entering this house is konam for me, he remains prohibited from entering the house even after the owner dies or sells the house. Avimi raises a dilemma: If the owner of a house said: Entering this house is konam for you, and then he died or sold it to another, what is the halakha? Do we say that a person can render an item in his possession forbidden even for a time after it will leave his possession, or not?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื‘ื ื• ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื ื”ื ื” ืœื™ ื•ืžืช ื™ื™ืจืฉื ื• ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื• ื•ื‘ืžื•ืชื• ื•ืžืช ืœื ื™ื™ืจืฉื ื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืœื›ืฉื™ืฆื ืžืจืฉื•ืชื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”:


Rava said: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Bava Kamma 108bโ€“109a): If one says to his son: Benefiting from me is konam for you, and dies, the son still inherits from him. If, however, the father explicitly states that benefit is forbidden both in his lifetime and after his death, and dies, the son does not inherit from him. Rava suggests: Conclude from the mishna that a person can render an item in his possession forbidden even for a time after it will leave his possession. The Gemara notes: Conclude from the mishna that this is so.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืงื•ื ื ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืืœื• ืขืœื™ ืงื•ื ื ื”ืŸ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืงื•ื ื ื”ืŸ ืœืคื™ ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื‘ื’ื™ื“ื•ืœื™ื”ืŸ


ยง We learned in a mishna there (57a): If one says: This produce is konam upon me, or: It is konam upon my mouth, or: It is konam for my mouth, he is prohibited from eating even its replacements, should they be traded or exchanged, and anything that grows from it if it is replanted.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืืœื• ืขืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื”ื• ื‘ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ื”ืŸ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื’ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœ ืขืฆืžื• ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœื ื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืขืœ ืขืฆืžื• ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœื ื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืขืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•


Rami bar แธคama raises a dilemma: If one said: This produce is konam for so-and-so, what is the halakha with regard to their replacements? Do we say: With regard to himself, since a person can render anotherโ€™s produce forbidden for himself, though it is not presently in his possession, so too, a person can render an entity that has not yet come into the world forbidden to himself? Is this why the replacement produce and anything that grows from it is forbidden to him, even if it did not yet exist when he took the vow? If so, with regard to another, since a person cannot render anotherโ€™s produce forbidden to another, i.e., to that owner himself, similarly one cannot render an entity that has not yet come into the world forbidden to another. The produceโ€™s replacements would therefore be permitted to him.


ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ืŸ ื›ื’ื™ื“ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืฉื ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื—ื‘ืจื•


Or perhaps the prohibition on replacement produce in the mishna is due to the fact that replacements of the produce are viewed as being like that which grows from them? They are both forbidden because they derive from the forbidden produce. If this is the case, it is no different for him and it is no different for another. Neither may derive benefit from the replacements.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœื™ืš ืœื•ื•ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ืŸ ืœืื• ื›ื’ื™ื“ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™


Rav Aแธฅa bar Minyumi said: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to one who says to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you, she may nevertheless borrow money to sustain herself, and the creditors can come and collect her debts from her husband. What is the reason that the creditors can collect from the husband? Is it not because she benefits only indirectly, and it must be that replacements, i.e., the creditorsโ€™ money, are not like that which grows from the original item?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื•ืื™ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื“


Rava said: This is not proof: Perhaps it is the case that one should not benefit from replacements ab initio, but if one did it, it is done after the fact. Since the wife lacks any other means to support herself, the case is considered to be after the fact, and it is permitted for her to benefit indirectly. Still, replacements of an item are considered to be like that which grows from it ab initio.


ืืœื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืขืจืœื” ืื™ื ื” ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืžื›ืจืŸ ื•ืงื™ื“ืฉ ื‘ื“ืžื™ื”ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื•ืื™ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื“:


Rather, come and hear a proof from another mishna (Kiddushin 56b): With regard to one who betroths a woman with fruit of orla, i.e., fruit of the first three years of a treeโ€™s growth, from which it is forbidden to benefit, she is not betrothed because the fruits have no value. Betrothal can be performed only with an object worth at least one peruta. But if he sold them and betrothed her with the money he received, she is betrothed. Evidently, replacements of a forbidden item are permitted. The Gemara responds: Here also, one should not benefit from the replacement items given in exchange for the orla ab initio, but if one did it, it is done after the fact. Replacements of an item may still be considered to be like that which grows from it ab initio.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื—ืจื ื”ืžื•ื“ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืขืœื™ ื—ืจื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื™ ื‘ื‘ืœ


MISHNA: If someone says to another: I am hereby forbidden to you like an item dedicated to the Temple, then the one prohibited by the vow is prohibited from benefiting from the possessions of the one who took the vow. If someone says: You are hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, then the one who took the vow is prohibited from benefiting from the possessions of the other. If he says: I am hereby forbidden to you and you are hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, both are prohibited from benefiting from the possessions of the other. But it is permitted for both of them to benefit from the objects belonging to those who ascended from Babylonia, i.e., common property of the nation as a whole, which is not considered to be the property of any individual.

Scroll To Top