## Nedarim Daf 35a

###### Nedarim 35a:1
[Nedarim 35a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/35a:1)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ, אָמַר לוֹ: ״הַשְׁאִילֵנִי פָּרָתְךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ: ״קֻוֽנָּם פָּרָה שֶׁאֲנִי קָנוּי לָךְ״, ״נְכָסַי עָלֶיךָ אִם יֵשׁ לִי פָּרָה אֶלָּא זוֹ״. ״הַשְׁאִילֵנִי קַרְדּוּמְּךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ: ״קֻוֽנָּם קַרְדּוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שֶׁאֲנִי קָנוּי״, ״נְכָסַי עָלַי אִם יֵשׁ לִי קַרְדּוֹם אֶלָּא זֶה״, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ — בְּחַיָּיו אָסוּר, מֵת אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְּנָה לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raised an objection to** Rava. If another person **said to him: Lend me your cow,** and the owner answered and **said to him:** Every **cow that I purchased** other than this one, which I need, **is *konam* for you;** or if he said: **My property** is forbidden **to you if I have a cow other than this one,** and in fact, he owns other cows; or if another said to him: **Lend me your spade,** and the owner of the spade **said to him:** Every **spade that I have that I purchased is *konam* for you;** or if he said: **My property** is forbidden **to me if I have a spade other than this one, and it is discovered that he has** another spade and the *konam* takes effect, then **during the life** of the one who vowed, the cow or the spade is **forbidden** to the subject of the vow. If the one who vowed **died or** if the cow or the spade **was given to** the subject of the vow **as a gift, it is permitted.** Apparently, the *konam* is in effect only as long as the property is in his possession.


###### Nedarim 35a:2
[Nedarim 35a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/35a:2)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:** It is referring to a case where it **was given to** the subject of the vow **by another** person. The one who vowed did not give him the gift directly. He sold or transferred the item to a third party, who gave it to the subject of the vow as a present. Since the property left the possession of its owner before it was given to the subject of the vow, the prohibition does not take effect upon it.


###### Nedarim 35a:3
[Nedarim 35a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/35a:3)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי ״שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לוֹ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states that **Rav Ashi said:** The language **is also precise, as it teaches: That was given to him, and it is not taught: That he gave it to him.** This indicates that this *halakha* applies specifically to a gift that was given to him by a third party, but not by the one who vowed.


###### Nedarim 35a:4
[Nedarim 35a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/35a:4)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: יֵשׁ מְעִילָה בְּקוּנָּמוֹת, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: Is there** liability for **misuse of consecrated property in** cases of ***konamot* or not?** Since the legal status of an item that was rendered a *konam* is like that of consecrated property in that it is forbidden to the one who one vowed, is it like consecrated property in every sense, including liability for misuse of consecrated property?


###### Nedarim 35a:5
[Nedarim 35a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/35a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: מְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר — תִּיפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. לְמֵימְרָא כִּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, מָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה — אַף קוּנָּמוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to** him: **You learned** this *halakha* from a mishna (33a): In **a place where one takes payment** for returning a lost item, that **benefit** that he receives for returning the item **should fall into** the category of **consecrated** Temple property. That is **to say,** an item forbidden by a *konam* is like **consecrated property. Just as** with regard to **consecrated property there is** liability for **misuse, so too** with regard to ***konamot* there is** liability for **misuse.**


###### Nedarim 35a:6
[Nedarim 35a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/35a:6)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״קֻוֽנָּם כִּכָּר זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ וַאֲכָלָהּ, בֵּין הוּא וּבֵין חֲבֵירוֹ — מָעַל, לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. ״כִּכָּר זוֹ עָלַי לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ״ וַאֲכָלָהּ, הוּא — מָעַל, חֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא מָעַל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments on this. This dilemma is **like** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** If one said: **This loaf is *konam*** to all like **consecrated property, and he ate it,** then, **whether he** ate it **or whether another** ate it, the one who ate it **misused consecrated property. Therefore,** since its status is that of consecrated property, **it has** the possibility of desanctification through **redemption.** If one said: **This loaf is *konam* for me** like **consecrated property and he eats it, he misused consecrated property.** If **another** eats it, **he did not misuse consecrated property,** as he said: To me. **Therefore, it does not have** the possibility of desanctification through **redemption,** since its status is not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Nedarim 35a:7
[Nedarim 35a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/35a:7)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא מָעַל, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְעִילָה בְּקוּנָּמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** In the case of **both** vows taken in **this manner and** vows taken **in that manner, no** one **misused consecrated property because there is no** liability for **misuse** of consecrated objects **in** cases of ***konamot*.** Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in *konamot*.


###### Nedarim 35a:8
[Nedarim 35a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/35a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: ״כִּכָּרִי עָלֶיךָ״ וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, מִי מָעַל? לִמְעוֹל נוֹתֵן — הָא לָא אֲסִירָא עֲלֵיהּ! לִמְעוֹל מְקַבֵּל — יָכוֹל דְּאָמַר: הֶיתֵּירָא בְּעֵיתִי, אִיסּוּרָא לָא בְּעֵיתִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְקַבֵּל מָעַל לִכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיא, שֶׁכׇּל הַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְחוּלִּין, כְּסָבוּר שֶׁל חוּלִּין הוּא — מוֹעֵל. אַף זֶה — מוֹעֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi:** If one said to another: **My loaf is** *konam* **for you, and he** then **gave it to him as a gift, which** of them **misused consecrated property?** If you say: **Let the one who gives** the loaf be liable for **misuse,** why would he be liable; the loaf **is not forbidden to him?** If you say: **Let the one who receives** the loaf be liable for **misuse, he can say: I wanted** to receive **a permitted** item; **I did not want** to receive **a forbidden** item. Since the loaf is forbidden, if I accepted it from you, it was not my intention to do so. Rav Ashi **said to him: The one who receives** the loaf is liable for **misuse when he utilizes** the loaf, as the principle with regard to misuse is **that anyone who utilizes consecrated money for non-sacred** purposes, **when he is under the impression that it is non-sacred, misuses consecrated property. This** person who received the loaf **also misuses consecrated property.**