Nedarim 42b (מב:) — the Talmud in English

Then even

if he dies, he shall not inherit him!

(This does not mean that he will not inherit him, for the inheritance certainly takes effect and the assets become his; rather, he is forbidden to derive benefit from them. It uses the expression “he shall not inherit him” following the wording of the first clause, which states “he shall inherit him.”)

This proves that a person can prohibit an item in his possession even after it has left his possession, for the father’s assets remain forbidden to the son even after the father dies and they have left his possession!

The Gemara rejects this:

Here it is different, as the father explicitly told him

that he was prohibiting them to him

during his lifetime and after his death,

in which case he truly can prohibit them even after they have left his possession. This is not comparable to one who prohibits his fellow’s assets to his fellow.

But

in any event, the difficulty remains

: Why did Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish not disagree with regard to “These assets”!?

Rather, with regard to “These assets

upon you”

everyone agrees

that a person certainly prohibits them even after they have left his possession.

They disagree

with regard to one who

says,

“My assets

upon you.”

Rav and Shmuel hold: It makes no difference whether he says “These assets” or “my assets”—

a person prohibits them.

The reason is either that even when he says “my assets,” his intention is to prohibit them forever, even after they leave his possession; and when he says “my assets,” he means to say: these assets, which are currently my assets—not that he intended to exclude the time after they leave his possession.

Or, because the prohibition took effect upon them while they were in his possession, it subsequently does not lapse.

But Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish hold:

when he says

“These assets

”

a person prohibits them

even after they leave his possession.

But

when he says

“My assets

upon you,”

a person does not prohibit them

after they leave his possession.

Accordingly, Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, too, establish our Mishna as referring to one who says: “These assets upon you.” The first clause teaches us that even when the seventh year arrives, he may not enter the field and may not eat, because a person prohibits an item in his possession even when it will later leave his possession.

And the innovation of the latter clause is that if he took the vow during the seventh year, he may not enter his field, since even during the seventh year the land belongs to the one who imposed the vow. This could not be learned from the first clause, because we might have said that he can prohibit the land only on the eve of the seventh year, and that its prohibition will remain in force during the seventh year.

And the fact that Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish discussed one who says “My assets upon you” does not mean that they establish the Mishna in this manner. Rather, they were responding to Rav and Shmuel: If our Mishna were speaking of one who says “My assets upon you,” the tanna would not have taught it in this way. Rather, the law would be that before the seventh year he may not enter and eat, whereas when the seventh year arrives, he may eat.

The Gemara asks:

Is there anyone who says

that

it makes no difference whether he says “These assets” or “my assets,”

and that in both cases his intention is to prohibit them even after they leave his possession?

But we learned: One who says to his fellow: “Konam: entering your house is forbidden to me,

or he said to him: “Konam:

your field is forbidden to me to take,

if the

one who imposed the vow dies

who imposed the vow,

or sells it

the one who imposed the vow

to another—

it is permitted.

But if a person says: “Konam:

this house is forbidden to me to enter,

or he said: “Konam:

this field is forbidden to me to take,

then even if he

dies or sells it to another—

it is forbidden!

This proves that when a person prohibits his fellow’s house or field to himself by saying “your house” or “your field,” this indicates that he prohibits it specifically while the house or field is in his fellow’s possession. Therefore, once it no longer belongs to his fellow, it is permitted to him.

If so, all the more so, when a person prohibits his assets to his fellow by saying “my assets upon you,” this indicates that he prohibited them to him specifically while they are in his possession, and not after they leave his possession!

Rather, when Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish spoke—

it was with regard to “these assets.

” That is, do not think that what we learned in our Mishna—that even when the seventh year arrives he may not enter and eat—refers even to the expression “my assets,” with the reason being that once the prohibition has taken effect upon them, it subsequently does not lapse.

That is not so. Rather, if he said “my assets,” the assets become prohibited only while they are in his possession. But once the seventh year arrives, he may eat from the overhanging branches, because their prohibition has lapsed. Our Mishna speaks only of one who says “These assets,” as Rav and Shmuel explain below.

And Rav and Shmuel

establish our Mishna as referring to one who

says

“

These assets

” [The version of the Ran is: “These of my assets.”] Since he said “these,” his intention was to prohibit them even after they left his possession, and therefore they remain prohibited even when the seventh year arrives.

And

indeed

they do not disagree.

We learned in our Mishna:

And during the seventh year he may not enter his field, and so on.

The Gemara considers this:

What is the difference, such that he may eat from the overhanging branches

—because

the produce is ownerless,

then why is he forbidden to enter his field? After all,

the land is also declared ownerless

for the purpose of gathering the produce!?

Ulla said:

Our Mishna

is speaking of trees standing along the boundaries.

Since he can gather their produce without entering his fellow’s field, he is therefore forbidden to enter it. But to gather produce from trees in the middle of the field, he is indeed permitted to enter.

Rav Shimon ben Elyakim said: He is forbidden to enter even in order to gather produce from trees in the middle of the field,

because

as a decree lest he linger standing

even when he has no need to gather produce, for he is forbidden to tread upon the ground!

Mishna:

One who is forbidden by vow to derive benefit from his fellow may not lend him

(the reason will be explained in the Gemara).

Nor may he borrow from him,

for he derives benefit from him.

He may not lend him money, nor may he borrow money from him.

Nor may he sell to him, nor may he purchase from him.