Nedarim 83

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המודר הנאה מחבירו לפני שביעית אינו יורד לתוך שדהו ואינו אוכל מן הנוטות ובשביעית אינו יורד לתוך שדהו אבל אוכל הוא מן הנטיעות הנוטות נדר הימנו מאכל לפני שביעית יורד לתוך שדהו ואינו אוכל מן הפירות ובשביעית יורד ואוכל:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO IS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, [IF THE VOW WAS IMPOSED] BEFORE THE SEVENTH YEAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 1-7. The seventh year was called the year of release. The land was not to be ploughed or sowed, and its crops, with certain reservations, were free to all. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו נכסים אלו עליך לפני שביעית אין יורד לתוך שדהו ואינו אוכל מן הנוטות אע"פ שהגיע שביעית ואם בשביעית נדר אין יורד לתוך שדהו אבל אוכל מן הנוטות

MAY NOT ENTER HIS FIELD [IN THE SEVENTH YEAR]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To gather of its crops, since he is forbidden 'the treading of the foot'. Cf. Mishnah on 32b. ');">²</span>

ור' יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו נכסי עליך לפני שביעית אין יורד לתוך שדהו ואין אוכל מן הנוטות הגיע שביעית אינו יורד לתוך שדהו אבל אוכל הוא את הנוטות

NOR TAKE OF THE OVERHANGING [FRUIT].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the maddir has a tree close to his boundary, and the fruit overhangs the muddar's field, so that it is possible for the muddar to take of the fruit without entering the maddir's land, he is still forbidden to do so. ');">³</span>

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דרב ושמואל סברי אדם אוסר דבר שברשותו אפילו לכשיצא מרשותו ורבי יוחנן ור"ל סברי אין אדם אוסר דבר שברשותו לכשיצא מרשותו

BUT IF [THE VOW WAS IMPOSED] IN THE SEVENTH YEAR, HE MAY NOT ENTER HIS FIELD, BUT MAY EAT OF THE OVERHANGING BRANCHES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Omitted in the printed Mishnayoth version]. ');">⁴</span>

ותיסברא מי איכא למ"ד אין אדם אוסר דבר שברשותו לכשיצא מרשותו א"כ ניפלגי בנכסים אלו וכ"ש בנכסי

IF HE WAS [MERELY] FORBIDDEN IN RESPECT OF FOOD [BUT NOT ALL BENEFIT], [AND THE VOW WAS IMPOSED] BEFORE THE SEVENTH YEAR, HE MAY ENTER HIS FIELD, BUT MAY NOT EAT OF ITS FRUITS; BUT [IF IT WAS IMPOSED] IN THE SEVENTH YEAR, HE MAY ENTER [HIS FIELD] AND EAT [OF ITS FRUITS].

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,