Nedarim 42a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who is mudar hanaa from his fellow before the Sabbatical year,

may not enter his field

even in the Sabbatical year, when the produce is ownerless, since the land itself belongs to its owner even in the Sabbatical year, and one who is mudar hanaa from his fellow is forbidden even to tread upon it [as we learned in the Mishna above]].

And

even

he may not eat from the

produce the

that extend

toward the road adjacent to the field, even though he does not enter the field.

And during the Sabbatical year,

if he prohibited him during the Sabbatical year itself, when the produce is ownerless and does not belong to the owner of the land, indeed

he may not enter his field, but he may eat from the trees that extend [toward the road].

And if

he vowed concerning food from him before the Sabbatical year,

and did not prohibit benefit from him.

Then, even before the Sabbatical year arrived,

he may enter his field,

but he may not eat from the produce,

since, having prohibited it before the Sabbatical year, his prohibition remains during the Sabbatical year.

And if he prohibited him

during the Sabbatical year —

he may enter

his field,

and he may eat

from the produce.

Gemara:

Rav and Shmuel, who both say

that this is the meaning of our Mishna:

If a person said to his fellow:

These assets [of those before us are forbidden]

[that are before us are forbidden]

to you!

Then, if the vow was

before the Sabbatical year —

the

one who is mudar hanaa

may not enter his field

of the one who prohibited him,

and he may not eat from the

produce

that extends [toward the road] —

even though the Sabbatical year has arrived.

And the reason is that they hold that since the one who prohibited him prohibited the produce at the time when it was under his control, namely, before the Sabbatical year, the prohibition takes effect even during the Sabbatical year, despite the fact that then the produce has left his control [for during the Sabbatical year it is ownerless].

And if he vowed during the Sabbatical year —

the

one who is mudar hanaa

may not enter his field,

for it is his, and he can prohibit treading upon it.

But the

one who is mudar hanaa

may eat from the

produce

that extends [toward the road],

for the produce is ownerless.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish, who both say

in the explanation of our Mishna:

If a person said to his fellow before the Sabbatical year:

My assets [are forbidden]

[forbidden]

to you!

Then,

before the Sabbatical year, he may not enter his field, and he may not eat from the trees that extend [toward the road].

And when

the Sabbatical year arrived,

still

he may not enter his field, but he may eat the trees that extend [toward the road],

because the prohibition did not take effect upon them once the Sabbatical year arrived.

And we say:

Shall we say that this is what Rav and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish, disagree about:

Rav and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish:

that Rav and Shmuel hold: A person can prohibit something that is under his control —

even when it leaves his control.

Therefore, since at the time when he prohibited his fellow the produce was under his control, it is forbidden even during the Sabbatical year, despite the fact that it is no longer under his control.

And

if

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish hold: A person cannot prohibit something that is under his control once it leaves his control,

and therefore, once the Sabbatical year arrived, the produce is permitted.

And we challenge this:

Can this be understood?

And

is there anyone who says

that

a person cannot prohibit something that is under his control once it leaves his control?

If so, let Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disagree

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish

with regard to

one who says

“These assets

are forbidden to you,” that the produce is not forbidden once the Sabbatical year arrived,

and

we would know that

all the more so

they disagree

with regard to

one who says

“My assets

to you,” for then it is implied from his wording that he prohibited the produce specifically when it is his! [See the Ran]!

Furthermore, have we not learned

explicitly

that a person can prohibit something that is under his control once it leaves his control!

For we learned: One who says to his son, “Konam, that you benefit from me!”

If

the father dies

the father —

the son inherits him,

for he is not benefiting from the father, but from the inheritance that the Torah granted him.

But if the father prohibited his benefit to him

during his lifetime and after his death,