Nedarim 69

איתיביה אמר לו השאילני פרתך אמר לו קונם פרה שאני קנוי לך נכסי עליך אם יש לי פרה אלא זו השאילני קרדומך אמר לו קונם קרדום שיש לי שאני קנוי נכסי עלי אם יש לי קרדום אלא זה ונמצא שיש לו בחייו אסור מת או שנִתְּנה לו במתנה הרי זה מותר

He objected: If A says to B, 'Lend me your cow,' and B replies, 'Konam be [this] cow if I possess [another] for you,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The actual wording is difficult, and the commentators attempt various explanations. The literal translation is given here. ');">¹</span> or, my property be forbidden you if I possess any cow but this': [or,] 'Lend me your spade,' and he replies, 'This spade be forbidden me if I possess [another];' or 'my property be forbidden me, if I possess any spade but this', and it is discovered that he possesses [another]. During his, [B's] lifetime it is forbidden [him]; but if he dies, or it is given to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">²</span>

אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא שניתנה לו על ידי אחר

it is permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts Raba. ');">³</span> — Said R. Aha son of R. Ika: That is if it was given to him through another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B gave it to C, who gave it to A. Since B voluntarily (in contradistinction to theft) let it out of his possession, his vow loses its validity. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב אשי דיקא נמי דקתני שניתנה לו ולא קתני שנתָנָהּ לו

R. Ashi said: This may be proved too, for it is stated, 'it is given to him,' not 'he gives it to him.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the Hebrew word is the same for both, by tradition it was to be read as a niphal, not as a kal. ');">⁵</span> Raba asked R. Nahman: Does the law of trespass apply to Konamoth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A term in us technicus for things interdicted by a vow, usually introduced with the formula konam. Since konam is a korban (a sacrifice) when one vows that a thing shall be konam, he declares it to be virtually consecrated, and hence if the vow is violated, it is as though trespass has been committed. Or it may be argued that in spite of its origin, konam is used without the suggestion of consecration, but merely to imply prohibition. ');">⁶</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן יש מעילה בקונמות או לא

— He replied, We have learnt this: WHERE PAYMENT IS TAKEN FOR THIS, THE BENEFIT MUST ACCRUE TO HEKDESH. This teaches that it is as hekdesh: just as the law of trespass applies to hekdesh, so it applies to Konamoth. This is dependent on Tannaim: If one Says, 'Konam, this loaf is hekdesh,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not specifying to whom, and therefore applying it to all, including himself. [Read with MS.M.: 'This loaf is hekdesh', omitting konam, v. also Shebu. 22a.] ');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה תניתוה מקום שנוטלין עליה שכר תיפול הנאה להקדש למימרא כי הקדש מה הקדש יש בו מעילה אף קונמות יש בהן מעילה

then whosoever eats it, whether he or his neighbour, commits trespass; therefore the law of redemption applies to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is so much regarded as consecrated that by eating it one commits trespass, it is also so in respect of redemption, whereby it reverts to hullin (non-consecrated), whilst the redemption money becomes consecrated. ');">⁸</span> [But if he says,] 'This loaf is hekdesh to me'; [by eating it] he commits trespass; but his neighbour does not commit a trespass; therefore the law of redemption does not apply:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not regarded as consecrated in respect of all. ');">⁹</span>

כתנאי קונם ככר זו הקדש ואכלה בין הוא ובין חבירו מעל לפיכך יש לה פדיון ככר זו עלי להקדש ואכלה הוא מעל חבירו לא מעל לפיכך אין לה פדיון דברי רבי מאיר

this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: In both cases no trespass is involved, because the law of trespass does not apply to Konamoth. R. Aha son of R. Avi asked R. Ashi: [If A says to B,] 'My loaf be forbidden to you,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Using the formula 'konam'. ');">¹⁰</span>

וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך לא מעל לפי שאין מעילה בקונמות

and then makes a gift of it to him, who is liable for trespass? Shall the giver incur it but it is not forbidden to him? Is the receiver to incur it — but he can say, 'I desired to accept what is permitted, not what is forbidden?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The receiver not knowing that this was the forbidden loaf. ');">¹¹</span> — He replied: The receiver incurs the liability when he uses it, for whoever converts money of hekdesh into hullin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב אוויא לרב אשי ככרי עליך ונתנה לו במתנה מי מעל למעול נותן הא לא אסירא עליה למעול מקבל יכול דאמר היתירא בעיתי איסורא לא בעיתי אמר ליה מקבל מעל לכשיוציא שכל המוציא מעות הקדש לחולין כסבור של חולין הוא מועל אף זה מועל

thinks that it is hullin, yet he is involved in trespass;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the law of trespass applies only to unwitting misuse of hekdesh. ');">¹³</span> so this one too is liable for trespass.