האומר לחבירו וכו׳ בעי אבימי קונם לבית זה שאתה נכנס מת או שמכרו לאחר מהו אדם אוסר דבר שברשותו לכשיצא מרשותו או לא

§ 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?

אמר רבא תא שמע האומר לבנו קונם שאי אתה נהנה לי ומת יירשנו בחייו ובמותו ומת לא יירשנו שמע מינה אדם אוסר דבר שברשותו לכשיצא מרשותו שמע מינה

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

תנן התם קונם פירות האלו עלי קונם הן על פי קונם הן לפי אסור בחילופיהן ובגידוליהן

§ 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.

בעי רמי בר חמא אמר קונם פירות האלו על פלוני מהו בחילופיהן מי אמרינן גבי דיליה הואיל ואדם אוסר פירות חבירו על עצמו אדם אוסר דבר שלא בא לעולם על עצמו גבי חבירו הואיל ואין אדם אוסר פירות חבירו על חבירו אין אדם אוסר דבר שלא בא לעולם על חבירו

Rami bar Ḥama 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 him self, since a person can render another’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 him self? 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’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 produce’s replacements would therefore be permitted to him.