On daf TB 34 discusses which word in a vow expresses the person’s intent better. “Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rava. If one said to another: My loaf is konam (i.e. forbidden-gg) For you, and then he gave it to him as a gift, what is the halakha? Should one infer: My loaf is forbidden, i.e., he said to him that when the loaf is in his possession, that is when it is forbidden, but when he gives him a gift, it is no longer in his possession and it is no longer forbidden? Or, perhaps the inference is: Forbidden to you, i.e., he said to him that he rendered the loaf for him like a consecrated item that is forbidden even after the loaf is no longer in his possession.” (Sefaria.org translation) what is the keyword in the sentence “My loaf is konam (i.e. forbidden) for you”? Is it only when the loaf is mine it is forbidden to you or it always forbidden to you even if I give it to you as a gift?
“Rava said to him: It is obvious that although he gave it to the other person as a gift, it is forbidden. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin asked him: But if that is so, when he said: My loaf is forbidden to you, with emphasis on the word my, what does it come to exclude? Does it not come to exclude a case where he stole it from him, as in that case it is permitted? The same would be true if he gave it to him as a gift. Rava said to him: No, it comes to exclude a case where he invited him to eat from the loaf before he vowed. In that case, that part of the loaf that he invited him to eat is his, and the owner cannot render it forbidden. However, even if he invited the other person before he vowed, the entire loaf remains forbidden if he gave it to him as a gift.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The
Shulkhan Aruk poskins Rava’s
position as the correct one. That unfortunate loaf of bread is always forbidden
to that person. (Yoreh De’ah 216:8)
No comments:
Post a Comment