daf bit: Nedarim 46

[cellio]

Precision matters. If one makes a vow of abstinence to his neighbor, vowing not to enter "your house" or benefit from "your field", and then the neighbor dies or sells the house or field, then the vow no longer applies (it's no longer "your" property). If, on the other hand, one vows concerning "this house" or "this field", that's forever. So says the mishna, and the g'mara here does not conclude otherwise. (46a)

I don't see any discussion here about whether "your house" (etc) follows the owner -- if you make such a vow and then your neighbor moves, are you forbidden to enter his new home (since you are no longer barred from the old one)? Or does a vow only apply when the object of said vow was known at the time it was made?

Comments

[talvinm.livejournal.com]

Without the cultural context, my opinion is mostly worthless. But I'll offer it anyhow. :P

The answer seems to be implicit in what is already said: was the vow about the person or the place? In the spirit of what was said, I would assume that entering ANY house owned by "person" would go against the vow, not just that particular one.

Better precision would be "This house, so long as it is yours."

[eub.livejournal.com]

I don't see any discussion here about whether "your house" (etc) follows the owner -- if you make such a vow and then your neighbor moves, are you forbidden to enter his new home (since you are no longer barred from the old one)? Or does a vow only apply when the object of said vow was known at the time it was made?

You, sir, are a computer programmer and a specifier of language semantics.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

It seems like the consistent thing would be that you are, since "your house" continues to exist until the death of the person. It just does so in a different location.

...relatedly, shouldn't "this house" be prone to that as well? In the case that the house itself is moved?