Nedarim 34b — the Talmud in English

Rava said: There was before him a loaf of ownerless property ,

and he said: This loaf is consecrated!

the loaf became consecrated .

And if afterward

he took it

in order

to eat it—

he committed sacrilege according to its entire value.

That is, this is considered as though he committed sacrilege with the entire loaf, since he removed it from the possession of consecrated property [and sacrilege means a change of possession, where he intends to remove it from the possession of the Most High to the possession of an ordinary person, provided that it is done inadvertently. Rosh].

But if he took it in order

to bequeath it to his sons—

he committed sacrilege

only

according to the benefit it contains.

Since he did not intend to remove it now, but only when his sons reach the status of heirs, it does not now go out into ordinary use. Nevertheless, since through this his sons will hold a benefit for him, because he seeks to bequeath it to them, he committed sacrilege according to that benefit [and his sons will commit sacrilege when they take the loaf out].

And the reason the Gemara brings this matter here is that this matter resembles the problem below. Just as here he consecrated the loaf and afterward took it to eat it, so too in the problem below he prohibited the loaf and afterward gave it to him as a gift.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin asked Rava:

If a person said to his fellow:

“My loaf is upon you!” And

afterward

he gave it to him

the one who imposed the vow

as a gift, what is the law?

Is

“my loaf”

specifically what

he said to him,

meaning that he intended to prohibit specifically his own loaf to him, and if so, it is specifically

when it is in his possession [

when it is in the possession of the one who imposed the vow]

that it is prohibited, but

once he gave it to him as a gift, it is permitted.

Or perhaps he said to him, “upon you”; he made it prohibited to him

like

consecrated property.

That is, he intended to say: “This loaf, which is now mine, shall be prohibited to you forever!” And therefore it is prohibited even once he gave it to him?

He said to him

Rava:

It is obvious that even though he gave it to him [

that the one who imposed the vow gave it to the one forbidden by the vow]

as a gift—

it is prohibited

to him.

For if this were not so,

but

what did he mean when he said to him

“My loaf is upon you”—

what does this exclude?

What did the one who imposed the vow come to prohibit to him through this?

While the loaf is in the possession of the one who imposed the vow, it is certainly prohibited to his fellow, since it is not his.

And if the law is that when he gives it to him as a gift, it is permitted to him, then he did not come to exclude even this—that when he gives it to him as a gift, it should be prohibited to him—for it is permitted to him!

If so, does he come

to exclude the case where, if he stole it from him, it would be stolen,

meaning that if the one forbidden by the vow stole it from him, it should be prohibited to him ? Surely the one who imposed the vow certainly did not entertain such a matter !

He said to him

Rav Hiyya bar Avin:

No.

By saying “My loaf is upon you,” he intended

to exclude the case where he invited him to it [

that if the one who imposed the vow invited him to dine on this loaf]—it shall be prohibited to him, even though he permits him to eat from it, since at that time it is still his loaf, and he prohibited it to him .