The Gemara attempts to answer this question from two different sources, but
the Gemara rejects those proofs and comes to no conclusion.
What is the Halachah with regard to prohibiting one's fruit on someone else?
Is the Chilufin also Asur, or only the fruit itself?
(a) The RAN (DH u'l'Inyan Halachah) reasons that we rule leniently, and the
Chilufin of the fruits that one prohibited to his friend are *Mutar*.
Likewise, the Chilufin of the fruits that one prohibited to *himself* (when
he did not say, "*These* fruits are Asur on me," but only, "Fruits are Asur
on me") are Mutar. This is based on his way of understanding Rami bar
Chama's question. Since the only reason to say that the Chilufin are
prohibited is because of an Isur d'Rabanan, when we are unsure whether or
not there is an Isur d'Rabanan, we invoke the principle of "Safek d'Rabanan
l'Kula" and rule leniently. This is also the ruling of the RASHBA.
This ruling is problematic, though, based of the ruling of the Gemara in
Beitzah. In the Gemara in Beitzah (4b; see Insights there) Rav Ashi states,
with regard to an Isur d'Rabanan, that an Isur that is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo
Matirin" (there is a way for it to become Mutar) cannot become Batel (if it
becomes unidentifiable in a mixture of permitted items), and the same
applies to a *Safek* Isur (see Rashi there). If so, since a Neder is a
"Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" since one can have a Neder annulled (59a), the
Chilufin should be *Asur* to his friend, even though it is a Safek
d'Rabanan! (MITZPEH EISAN, PORAS YOSEF)
This question does not apply to the Ran's ruling regarding the Chilufin of
fruits that one person prohibited to *another* person, since, in such a
case, the Neder is *not* a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin." In such a case the
Mudar himself cannot have the Neder annulled since he is not the one who
made the Neder. Hence it makes sense that we rule leniently in that case.
But in the case where one prohibited the fruits on himself, the Neder *is* a
"Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" and we should be Machmir!
REBBI AKIVA EIGER (Teshuvos #65 and end of Yoreh Deah 15) and the MITZPEH
EISAN answer that this rule of Rav Ashi -- that a "Davar she'Yesh Lo
Matirin" is Asur even when it is a Safek -- applies only in situations of
doubt concerning what actually happened (Safek b'Metzi'us), such as the case
in Beitzah where there is a doubt whether the egg was laid on Yom Tov and is
Asur or was laid on the weekday and is Mutar. However, in cases of doubt
regarding the Halachic ruling (Safek b'Din), such as when there is a
Machlokes and we do not know like whom to rule, or when the Gemara asks a
question and does not answer it, then we rule leniently in a case of a Safek
d'Rabanan, even though it is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin." The Mitzpeh
Eisan cites the PRI CHADASH (Hilchos Yom Tov, OC 497:3) and the SHA'AGAS
ARYEH (#90) who also express this difference. The PRI MEGADIM (introduction
to Hilchos Yom Tov 2:1:27) writes this as well, proving it from the words of
the RAN himself in Beitzah (6b and 26b).
What, though, is the reason to differentiate between the two different types
of Safek? (The Acharonim mentioned above do not explain the reason behind
the difference.) It seems that in a case where there is a doubt about what
happened (such as in the case of an egg that might have been laid on Yom
Tov), one must be Machmir since there is a possibility that the item is
Asur. That possibility that the egg was born on Yom Tov creates a reason for
doubt, and when in doubt one must be Machmir in order to avoid eating an
object that is Asur. If he eats the item, he will have eaten an item that
might very well have been Asur. In contrast, when there is a Machlokes
ha'Poskim regarding how to rule in a certain case (or an unanswered question
about how to rule, such as in our Gemara), there is no object involved that
is undeniably Asur. If "Safek d'Rabanan l'Kula" applies in such a case, the
Halachah is decided leniently and one may be assured that he is is *not*
eating an object of Isur at all (there is not even a doubt), since the
Halachah tells us to rule leniently! If he eats the item, he will have eaten
an item that was certainly permissible. (M. Kornfeld)
2. The PORAS YOSEF gives another answer. According to the way the Ran learns
the Gemara, Rami bar Chama's question applies not only to Nedarim, when one
person prohibited his fruits on someone else, but to all situations of
Isurei Hana'ah. Since his question is whether or not there is an Isur
d'Rabanan prohibiting the Chilufin of the fruits that are Asur, the question
applies to any case of an item from which it is prohibited to derive benefit
(such as Chametz on Pesach, or a Shor ha'Niskal). In all cases of Isurei
Hana'ah, the item received in exchange for the prohibited item might also be
Asur b'Hana'ah if there is an Isur d'Rabanan prohibiting Chilufin of an
object that is an Isur Hana'ah. Since most other Isurei Hana'ah are *not*
"Devarim she'Yesh Lo Matirin," the principle of "Safek d'Rabanan l'Kula"
certainly applies, and therefore the same ruling will apply to Nedarim.
3. In the Gemara in Beitzah (4b), it is Rav Ashi alone who teaches that a
"Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" remains Asur even when it is an Isur d'Rabanan.
There are Poskim who do not rule like Rav Ashi (see BACH, beginning of Yoreh
Deah 102 in the name of "the RASH from Bonburg"). If the Ran holds like
these Poskim, then there is no question.
However, the Ran himself in Beitzah (4b) and the other Rishonim there rule
like Rav Ashi, that the stringency of "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" applies
even to an Isur d'Rabanan! Nonetheless, some hold that in the case of an
Isur d'Rabanan, when there is a *Chezkas Heter* we are not Machmir even when
the item in question is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" (MORDECHAI in Beitzah,
#685, and TZELACH in Pesachim 17b). According to that opinion, there is no
question on the ruling of the Ran.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Nedarim 5:16), however, rules stringently, writing
that "when one prohibits his fruits on his friend... the... Chilufin are a
Safek. Therefore, his friend is *prohibited* from the... Chilufin of these
It is clear from the Rambam's ruling that even b'Di'eved, if one exchanges
those fruits, the Chilufin is Asur. Why does the Rambam rule stringently
regarding the Chilufin if it is only a Safek d'Rabanan? It cannot be, the
LECHEM MISHNAH points out, that the Rambam is Machmir because the Isur Neder
is a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin," because the Rambam is clearly discussing a
case where one person made a Neder prohibiting his fruits from another
person and such a Neder is *not* a "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin" (as we
Apparently, the Rambam learns that Rami bar Chama's question of whether the
Chilufin is Asur to the other person is a question of an Isur d'Oraisa.
However, the Gemara itself states clearly that, b'Di'eved, if one exchanged
the item of Isur, he is permitted to use the Chilufin! Why, then, does the
Rambam rule that even b'Di'eved a person cannot use the Chilufin?
Moreover, since the Halachah of Chilufin applies to other Isurei Hana'ah as
well, the Rambam should rule with regard to other Isurei Hana'ah that the
Chilufin cannot be used b'Di'eved, and not only with regard to the Chilufin
of Nedarim. We find, however, that the Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros
8:16) rules that the Chilufin of other Isurei Hana'ah (such as the money
received for selling an Isur Hana'ah) are *Mutar*!
ANSWER: The SHA'AR HA'MELECH (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 1:2, DH v'Da) and the
VILNA GA'ON (OC 443:3; see also RAV SHACH, shlit'a, in AVI EZRI) explains
that the Rambam understands the Sugya like the RITVA (59a). The Ritva
explains that the Isur to exchange an Isur Hana'ah for money or another item
is an Isur d'Oraisa. If the Isur is mid'Oraisa, then why should the Chilufin
be Mutar to use b'Di'eved (LECHEM MISHNAH)?
The Ritva answers that Isurei Hana'ah have no inherent value, since they can
be used for nothing. Hence, if money is payed in exchange for them, that
money does not represent the value of the item, but is just a gift or a loan
being given by the recipient of the item. However, since it is prohibited to
receive Hana'ah from the item itself, one is prohibited mid'Oraisa to sell
the item, because the fact that he is receiving money for the item is a form
of deriving Hana'ah from the item. However, if he transgressed and sold the
item, then the money is certainly permitted, since the money was just a gift
and does not represent the value of the item that was Asur.
An item that is Asur because of a Neder, on the other hand, might be
different. When a person makes a Neder prohibiting his fruits on someone
else, the fruits are only Asur to the Mudar. When the fruits are sold,
perhaps the Isur of the Neder is transferred to the money, since the money
represents the value of the fruit, and is not just a gift. Therefore, the
money (the Chilufin) might remain Asur to the Mudar.
This is Rami bar Chama's question according to the Rambam. Perhaps the
Chilufin of a *Neder* are Asur mid'Oraisa, since the money or items received
in exchange for the prohibited fruits might indeed acquire the status of
Isur that the Neder created on the fruits. The Rambam rules stringently
because of "Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra."
In contrast, the Isur of other Isurei Hana'ah certainly is not transferred
to the money received in return for them (but it is Asur mid'Oraisa to sell
the item in the first place, because one gets Hana'ah from the item by
selling it), and that is why the Rambam rules that the Chilufin of other
Isurei Hana'ah are Mutar b'Di'eved!