Nedarim 34b (לד:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: If there was an ownerless loaf before him ,

and he said: “This loaf is consecrated!”

the loaf becomes consecrated property .

And if afterward

he took it

in order

to eat it—

he committed me'ila according to its entire value.

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

But if he took it in order

to bequeath it to his sons—

he committed me'ila

only

according to the benefit that it affords.

Since he did not intend to remove it into the ordinary domain immediately, but only when his sons reached the stage at which they could inherit, it does not yet become ordinary property. Nevertheless, since his sons will thereby be grateful to him, as he seeks to bequeath it to them, he committed me'ila according to the value of that benefit [and his sons will commit me'ila when they remove the loaf .

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

Rav Hiyya bar Avin asked Rava:

If a person said to another:

“My loaf is upon you!” And

afterward

he gave it to him

the one who imposed the prohibition

as a gift, what is the law?

Does the expression

“my loaf”

specifically

mean that he said to him

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

when it is in his possession [

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

but

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

Or perhaps it is “upon you” that he said to him, making it upon him

like

consecrated property.

That is, he intended to say: “This loaf, which is now mine, is prohibited to you forever!” And therefore it is prohibited even after he gives 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 prohibition gave it to the one who was prohibited]

as a gift—

it is prohibited

to him.

For if this were not so,

but

what is the meaning of what he said to him,

“My loaf is upon you”—

to exclude what?

What did the one who imposed the prohibition intend to prohibit to him by saying this?

While the loaf is in the possession of the one who imposed the prohibition, it is certainly prohibited to the other, since it does not belong to him.

And if the law is that when he gives it to him as a gift it becomes permitted to him, then this too cannot be what the statement came to exclude—that when he gives it to him as a gift, it should remain prohibited to him—for it is permitted to him!

If so, is he saying it

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

meaning that if the one who was prohibited stole it from him, it would be prohibited to him ? Surely the one who imposed the prohibition did not have such a matter in mind !

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 partake of it [

that if the one who imposed the prohibition invited him to dine on this loaf], it would be prohibited to him, even though he permitted him to eat from it, since at that time it was still his loaf, and he had prohibited it to him .