Nedarim 42b — the Talmud in English

Then even

if he dies, he will not inherit from him!

[And the intention is not that he will not inherit from him, for inheritance certainly takes effect, and the assets become his; rather, he is forbidden to derive benefit from them. And it used the expression “he will not inherit from him” incidentally to the opening clause, which used “he will inherit from him”].

And it is proven that a person can forbid an object that is in his possession even after it has left his possession, for the father’s assets are forbidden to the son even after he has died, and they have left his possession!

And we reject this:

Here it is different, for the father says to him

explicitly that he forbids it to him

during his lifetime and after his death,

for then he truly can forbid it even after it has left his possession; and this is not like one who forbids his fellow’s assets to his fellow.

But

nevertheless it is difficult

the first question that we asked: Why did Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish not disagree with regard to “these assets”?!

Rather, with regard to “these assets

upon you” —

everyone agrees

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

They disagree —

when he

says

“my assets

upon you.”

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

a person forbids them.

And the reason is either because even when he says “my assets,” his intention is to forbid them forever, even after they have left his possession; and when he says “my assets,” his intention is to say: these assets, which are now my assets, and he did not intend to exclude the time after they have left his possession.

Or because once the prohibition took effect upon them when they were in his possession, it no longer lapses.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish hold:

When he says

“assets

these,”

a person forbids them

even from the time they leave his possession.

But

when he says

“my assets

upon you,”

a person does not forbid them

after they have left his possession.

And according to this, even Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish establish our Mishna as dealing with one who says: “These assets are upon you.” And the opening clause teaches us that even though the Sabbatical year has arrived, he does not enter, and he does not eat, because a person forbids an object that is in his possession even when it leaves his possession.

And the novelty of the latter clause is that if he made the vow during the Sabbatical year, he does not enter his field, since even during the Sabbatical year the land belongs to the one who imposed the vow; and this we would not have learned from the opening clause, for we would have said that he can forbid the land only on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and its prohibition would remain during the Sabbatical year.

And the fact that Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish spoke of one who says “my assets are upon you” is not because they establish the Mishna in this manner; rather, they respond to Rav and Shmuel: If our Mishna were speaking of one who says “my assets are upon you,” then the tanna would not have taught it in this manner. Rather, this would be the law: Before the Sabbatical year, he does not enter and eat, but when the Sabbatical year arrives, he eats.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is there anyone who says

that

it makes no difference whether one says “these assets” or whether one says “my assets,”

so that in both cases his intention is to forbid them even after they have left his possession?

But we learned: One who says to his fellow: “An offering, I shall not enter your house,”

or he said to him: “An offering,

your field, which I shall take,”

when

the one who imposed the vow dies,

the one who imposed the vow,

or he sells it

the one who imposed the vow

to another —

it is permitted.

But if a person said: “An offering,

this house, which I shall enter,”

or he said: “An offering,

this field, which I shall take,”

then even if he

dies or sells it to another —

it is forbidden!

And it is proven that when a person forbids his fellow’s house or field to himself with the expression “your house” or “your field,” it implies that he forbids it specifically while the house or field is in his fellow’s possession; therefore, when they are no longer his fellow’s, they are permitted to him.

If so, all the more so when a person forbids his fellow with the expression “my assets are upon you,” it implies that he forbade them to him specifically while they were in his possession, but not after they have left his possession!

Rather, when Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish speak —

with regard to “these assets.

And this is so that you should not entertain the thought that what we learned in our Mishna—that even when the Sabbatical year arrived he does not enter and he does not eat—deals even with “my assets,” and the reason is that once the prohibition had already taken effect upon them, it no longer lapses;

that is not so. Rather, if he said “my assets,” the assets became forbidden only while they were in his possession. But when the Sabbatical year arrived, he eats from the hanging branches, because their prohibition lapsed. And our Mishna speaks only of one who said “these assets,” as Rav and Shmuel explain below.

And Rav and Shmuel

establish our Mishna as dealing with one who

says

“

these assets” [The version of the Ran: “these are my assets”]. Since he said “these,” his intention was to forbid them even after they left his possession; therefore, they remain forbidden even when the Sabbatical year arrives.

[The version of the Ran reads: “this property of mine.”] Since he said “this,” he intended to prohibit it even after it left his possession, and therefore it remains prohibited even when the Sabbatical year arrives.

And

indeed

they do not disagree.

We learned in our Mishna:

And during the Sabbatical year he does not enter his field, etc.

And we considered it:

What is different, that he eats from the hanging branches

—because

the fruits are ownerless,

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

the land too is declared ownerless

for the purpose of gathering the fruits?!

Ulla said:

Our Mishna

is referring to trees standing at the boundaries,

and since he can gather their fruits without entering his fellow’s field, he is therefore forbidden to enter it. But to gather from trees that are 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 from trees that are in the middle of the field,

as a decree lest he linger while standing

even not for the purpose of gathering; after all, he is forbidden to tread upon it!

Mishna:

One who is mudar hanaa from his fellow must not lend to him

[and the reason will be explained in the Gemara].

And he must not borrow from him,

for he derives benefit from him.

He must not lend money to him, and he must not borrow money from him.

And he must not sell to him, and he must not buy from him.