Jewish%20thought for Nedarim 83:6

ותו הא תנן דאדם אוסר דבר שברשותו לכשיצא מרשותו דתנן האומר לבנו קונם שאתה נהנה לי מת יירשנו בחייו ובמותו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab and Samuel both ruled: [If one says to his neighbour], 'This my property [be forbidden] to you', [if he vowed] before the seventh year, he may not enter his field or take of the overhanging [fruits] even when the seventh year arrives. But if he vowed in the seventh year, he may not enter his field, yet may enjoy the overhanging [fruits]. R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both maintained [If one says to his neighbour,] 'This my property [be forbidden] to you'; [if he vowed] before the seventh year he may neither enter his field nor eat of the overhanging [fruits]; when the seventh year arrives, he may not enter his field, yet may eat of the overhanging [fruits]. Shall we say that they differ in this: Rab and Samuel hold that a man can prohibit [unto others] that which is in his ownership, [for the prohibition to be effective] even after it passes out of his ownership;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, though in the seventh year the crops do not belong exclusively to their owner, being free to all, yet the vow made before retains its validity, forbidding the muddar to take even of the overhanging fruits. ');">⁵</span> whilst R. Johanan and Resh Lakish maintain: One cannot prohibit [unto others] that which is in his ownership [for the prohibition to continue even] after it leaves his ownership? Now can you reason so? Does anyone rule that a person cannot declare prohibited that which is his, even after it passes out of his ownership? If so, let them differ with reference to 'this property [be forbidden etc.],' and how much more so would it apply to 'this my property!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if one says, 'This property be forbidden to you', R. Johanan and Resh Lakish maintain that the vow is ineffective for the seventh year, when the crops are no longer his. The same will hold good with even greater force, if he vows 'this my property' etc., for in that case he appears to limit the incidence of the vow to the period in which it is his. ');">⁶</span> Moreover, we have learnt that a person can declare prohibited that which is in his ownership for even after it leaves his ownership. For we learnt: If one says to his son, 'Konam, if you benefit from me,' — if he dies, he inherits him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is his by right. ');">⁷</span> [But if he explicitly stipulates] during his lifetime and after his death,

Explore jewish%20thought for Nedarim 83:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.