Nedarim 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who is forbidden by vow to derive benefit from another before the Sabbatical year,

may not enter his field

of the one who imposed the vow, even in the seventh year, when the produce is ownerless, since the land itself belongs to its owner even during the seventh year; and one who is forbidden by vow to derive benefit from another is prohibited even from walking on his property, as we learned in the previous Mishna].

And

also

may not eat from the

produce that

extends

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

And during the seventh year,

if he imposed the vow during the seventh year itself, when the produce is ownerless and does not belong to the landowner,

he may not enter his field, but he may eat from the overhanging plants.

And if

he vowed that food was forbidden to him from him before the seventh year,

and did not prohibit deriving benefit from him,

then even before the seventh year arrived,

he may enter his field,

but he may not eat from the produce,

since he prohibited it before the seventh year, his prohibition remains in force during the seventh year.

And if he imposed the vow

during the seventh year—

he may enter

his field,

and he may eat

from the produce.

Gemara:

Rav and Shmuel both say

that this is the meaning of our Mishna:

If a person said to another:

“These assets”

[that are before us are prohibited]

“to you!”

Then, if the vow was

before the seventh year—

the one

forbidden by the vow

may not enter his field

of the one who imposed the vow,

and he may not eat from

the produce

that extends—

even though the seventh year has arrived.

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

And if he vowed during the seventh year—

the one

forbidden by the vow

may not enter his field,

since it is his, and he can prohibit others from walking on it.

But he may eat

the one forbidden by the vow

from

the produce

that extends,

since the produce is ownerless.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish both say

in explaining our Mishna:

If a person said to another before the seventh year:

“My assets”

[are prohibited]

“to you!”

Then,

before the seventh year, he may not enter his field, and he may not eat from the overhanging branches.

And when

the seventh year arrives,

he

still may not enter his field, but he may eat the overhanging branches,

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

And we say:

Can it be said that this is the dispute

between Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish:

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

even after it leaves his control.

Therefore, since at the time he imposed the vow upon the other the produce was under his control, it remains prohibited during the seventh year, despite the fact that it is no longer under his control.

And

if

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

therefore, once the seventh year arrived, the produce is permitted.

And we challenge this:

Can it be understood that way?

And

is there anyone who says

that

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

If so, Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish should disagree

with Rav and Shmuel

with regard to

the statement:

“These assets”

to you, in which case the produce is not prohibited once the seventh year arrives,

and

we would know

all the more so

that they disagree

with regard to

the statement:

“My assets”

to you, since in that case his wording indicates that he prohibited the produce specifically when it is his! [See the Ran]!

Furthermore, we 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, “You are forbidden by konam to derive benefit from me!”

If the father

dies,

the father’s son

inherits him.

For he is not deriving benefit from his father, but from the inheritance that the Torah granted him.

But if the father prohibited him from deriving benefit from him

during his lifetime and after his death,