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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 9, 2015 | 讻状讘 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 47

Study Guide Nedarim 47


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讻讜壮 讘注讬 讗讘讬诪讬 拽讜谞诐 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讗转讛 谞讻谞住 诪转 讗讜 砖诪讻专讜 诇讗讞专 诪讛讜 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讗讜 诇讗

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 诇讘谞讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬 讗转讛 谞讛谞讛 诇讬 讜诪转 讬讬专砖谞讜 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讘诪讜转讜 讜诪转 诇讗 讬讬专砖谞讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rava said: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Bava Kamma 108b鈥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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛讗诇讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 注诇 驻讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讗住讜专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉

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.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛讗诇讜 注诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛讜 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讘讬 讚讬诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 讗讜住专 驻讬专讜转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪讜 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 注诇 注爪诪讜 讙讘讬 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 驻讬专讜转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 注诇 讞讘讬专讜

Rami bar 岣ma 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 another鈥檚 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 another鈥檚 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 produce鈥檚 replacements would therefore be permitted to him.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬诇讜驻讬谉 讻讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讚诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讞讘专讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讬讱 诇讜讜讛 讜讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讬谉 讘讗讬谉 讜谞驻专注讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬诇讜驻讬谉 诇讗讜 讻讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讚诪讬

Rav A岣 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 creditors鈥 money, are not like that which grows from the original item?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讜讗讬 注讘讚 注讘讚

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.

讗诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注专诇讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讻专谉 讜拽讬讚砖 讘讚诪讬讛谉 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讜讗讬 注讘讚 注讘讚

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 tree鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讞专诐 讛诪讜讚专 讗住讜专 讛专讬 讗转 注诇讬 讞专诐 讛谞讜讚专 讗住讜专 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讜讗转 注诇讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇

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 learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 47

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讻讜壮 讘注讬 讗讘讬诪讬 拽讜谞诐 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讗转讛 谞讻谞住 诪转 讗讜 砖诪讻专讜 诇讗讞专 诪讛讜 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讗讜 诇讗

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 诇讘谞讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬 讗转讛 谞讛谞讛 诇讬 讜诪转 讬讬专砖谞讜 讘讞讬讬讜 讜讘诪讜转讜 讜诪转 诇讗 讬讬专砖谞讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rava said: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Bava Kamma 108b鈥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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛讗诇讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 注诇 驻讬 拽讜谞诐 讛谉 诇驻讬 讗住讜专 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讜讘讙讬讚讜诇讬讛谉

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.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛讗诇讜 注诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛讜 讘讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讘讬 讚讬诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 讗讜住专 驻讬专讜转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪讜 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 注诇 注爪诪讜 讙讘讬 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 驻讬专讜转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 注诇 讞讘讬专讜

Rami bar 岣ma 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 another鈥檚 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 another鈥檚 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 produce鈥檚 replacements would therefore be permitted to him.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬诇讜驻讬谉 讻讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讚诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讞讘专讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讬讱 诇讜讜讛 讜讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讬谉 讘讗讬谉 讜谞驻专注讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬诇讜驻讬谉 诇讗讜 讻讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讚诪讬

Rav A岣 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 creditors鈥 money, are not like that which grows from the original item?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讜讗讬 注讘讚 注讘讚

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.

讗诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛诪拽讚砖 讘注专诇讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讻专谉 讜拽讬讚砖 讘讚诪讬讛谉 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讜讗讬 注讘讚 注讘讚

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 tree鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讞专诐 讛诪讜讚专 讗住讜专 讛专讬 讗转 注诇讬 讞专诐 讛谞讜讚专 讗住讜专 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讜讗转 注诇讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇

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