1) It does not make a difference whether the Isur originated from the Madir or from the Choleh. If the Hana'ah is Memeila, it is permitted in the case of a Neder.

2) We see from Pesachim 26a that Hana'ah that is Memeila is permitted also for real Kodashim. We learn there that Kodashim are Asur mid'Oraisa only if there was Kavanah, intent, to receive Hana'ah. If there was no intent, that would be considered as Memeila snd is only Asur mid'Rabanan. (See Rashi to Pesachim 26a, DH v'Ha Hacha.)

3) The proof that when the Choleh originated the Isur the Mevaker may still visit is from the Beraisa that the Gemara 39a cites, "Chalah Hu Nichnas l'Vakro." The Mefaresh (ascribed to Rashi) there, DH Chalah, writes that it is the Madir who became sick and the Mudar may visit him. So we see that also if the Choleh initiated the Isur, Hana'ah of Memeila is permitted.

4) The Sugya in Pesachim 25b-26a teaches us that there is only a Torah prohibition on Hana'ah from Hekdesh if one had intention for this Hana'ah, not if it happened automatically. We see there that there is a prohibition mid'Rabanan even when there is no intention. The fact that there is no Torah prohibition when the Hana'ah is Memeila teaches us that whether the Isur originates from the Madir or from the Mudar, since Hana'ah of Memeila is permitted mid'Oraisa for Kodashim, so Kal v'Chomer it is permitted for Nedarim. From the Ran (39a, DH Iy) we learn that Hana'ah of Memeila is permitted l'Chatchilah for Nedarim so it seems that it is only for real Kodashim that Chazal put on an Isur d'Rabanan, not for Nedarim.

5) We find that the Ran writes that a Konam Prati is weak. The Ran (29a, DH v'Ki) writes in the name of Rabeinu Yonah that a Konam which applies only to one person is not like Hekdesh, while a general Konam which applies to everyone is like Hekdesh. However, as I have written above, benefit Memeila from Hekdesh is permitted mid'Oraisa.

6) The Hana'ah of Memeila is permitted only when there is a Mitzvah:

a) I was taking a fresh look at this Sugya and possibly came up with some fresh ideas. The root of the problem is: why does the Ran (beginning of 39a) write that if the Mudar Hana'ah receives Hana'ah Memeila, then this is permitted? If, generally speaking, one is not allowed to receive benefit, then why is it permitted if it is automatic?

b) Norman, you argued (as I understand it) that since the Ran (29a, DH v'Ki) writes that a "Konam Prati," an individual Konam which only applies on one person, is "Kalish Isurei," is a weak prohibition, then it follows that Hana'ah Memeila is also permitted for a Konam Prati. However, I am not sure about this, since the Ran on 29a uses the concept of Kalish Isurei to explain why it is "Paka bi'Chedi," the Neder goes away on its own, but we cannot prove from here that one is allowed to derive Hana'ah Memeila from a Konam Prati.

c) Instead, to understand the Ran (beginning of 39a) better, I suggest that we look at the Ran on 39b. The Ran (DH ul'Inyan, which begins on 39a) writes, "d'Davka Hana'ah d'Memeila Sharya b'Makom Mitzvah" -- the automatic Hana'ah is permitted only in order that a Mitzvah can be done (for example, visiting the sick). So we are saying that full-scale Hana'ah from a Neder is not permitted even for a Mitzvah, and Hana'ah Memeila is not sufficient on its own to override a Neder. But when the two things exist together -- both Hana'ah Memeila and a Mitzvah -- then we have a Heter.

7) One may not enjoy, even Memeila, the smell of Avodah Zarah:

a) The Gemara (Pesachim 25b) states that there is a dispute among the Amora'im concerning benefit from prohibited items which is forced upon a person. Abaye says it is permitted and Rava says it is forbidden.

b) The Ran on the Rif (Pesachim 6b, DH Itmar) explains that "forced" means that the person did not come here in order to smell it, but rather the scent of idol worship came to him "Memeila." Then, even if the person had intention to enjoy the scent, this would also be considered by the Gemara as "forced."

c) There seems to be a contradiction between this Ran and the Ran in Nedarim 39a that we started off with. The Ran on 39a writes that Memeila benefit is permitted, but the Ran in Pesachim writes that this is a question in the Gemara, and the Gemara there states that according to Rava (whom the Halacha always follows against Abaye, with the exception of six cases mentioned in Bava Metzia 22b, of which the case in Pesachim is not one), if he could have gone a different way it is forbidden even if he did not intend to enjoy the smell. But this is Memeila benefit that should be permitted according to the Ran on 39a!

d) I suggest, as a possibility, that this contradiction can be answered with the help of the third Ran that we cited above, the Ran in Nedarim 39b, who writes that Memeila benefit is permitted only if one is doing a Mitzvah. In the Gemara in Pesachim, he was not going to do a Mitzvah when the smell came to him.

(According to this, if he was on his way to shul, this would be permitted even if he had Hana'ah Memeila from the forbidden smell. This is only a suggestion, not to be relied upon in practice.)

8) Is Hana'ah that is Memeila permitted from real Kodashim?

The Gemara above (35b) asks if the Kohanim are our Shelichim or they are the agents of Shamayim? If they are our Shelichim, then if one has taken a Neder not to derive benefit from a Kohen, that Kohen may not offer up a Korban for you since he thereby gives you Hana'ah. The Ran (DH Ha) writes that if one says that the Kohanim are the agents of Shamayim, then he may offer the Korban for you. Even though one becomes permitted to eat Kodashim because of the Korban that the Kohen brought, this form of Hana'ah is only a Grama, an indirect Hana'ah that one is receiving because of the Kohen and thus it is permitted.

We learn that indirect Hana'ah from Kodashim is permitted. (See Ayeles ha'Shachar to Kidushin 14a, DH v'Od, first paragraph.)

Dovid Bloom