Nedarim 84

אם מת לא יירשנו שאני הכא דקא א"ל בחייו ובמותו

if he dies he does not succeed him! — Here it is different, because he [explicitly] stated during his lifetime and after his death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But otherwise it may well be that the validity of a vow ceases when its subject is no longer under the control of the maddir. ');">¹</span>

מכל מקום קשיא אלא בנכסים אלו כ"ע לא פליגי כי פליגי בנכסי

Yet at all events there is a difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the first. ');">²</span>

רב ושמואל סברי ל"ש נכסים אלו ל"ש נכסי אדם אוסר ור' יוחנן ור"ל סברי נכסים אדם אוסר נכסי אין אדם אוסר

— But [explain the dispute thus:] There is no dispute at all in respect of 'this property etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vow remains valid even in the seventh year. ');">³</span>

ומי איכא למ"ד ל"ש נכסים אלו ול"ש נכסי והא תנן האומר לחבירו קונם לתוך ביתך שאני נכנס שדך שאני לוקח מת או שמכרו לאחר מותר לבית זה שאני נכנס שדה זו שאני לוקח מת או שמכרו לאחר אסור

They differ [only] in respect of 'My property etc.' Rab and Samuel maintain: There is no difference between 'This property' or 'my property': one can prohibit [for all time]. But R. Johanan and Resh Lakish maintain: [By saying,] 'This property,' he can prohibit; my property,' he cannot prohibit. But does anyone maintain that there is no difference between 'this property' and 'my property'? But we learnt: If one says to his neighbour, 'Konam, if I enter your house,' or 'if I purchase your field,' and then the owner dies or sells it, he is permitted [to enter or buy it]. [But if he says, 'Konam], if I enter this house', or 'if I purchase this field,' and the owner dies or sells it, he is forbidden! — But [explain thus:] R. Johanan and Resh Lakish refer to 'my property'; Rab and Samuel to 'this property': and they do not differ.

אלא כי אמרי ר' יוחנן וריש לקיש בנכסי ורב ושמואל בנכסים אלו ולא פליגי:

BUT [IF THE VOW WAS IMPOSED] IN THE SEVENTH YEAR, HE MAY NOT ENTER HIS FIELD etc. Why may he eat of the overhanging [fruits] — because they are [now] ownerless? But the land too is ownerless.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that every person has the right to enter and take of its crops. ');">⁴</span>

ובשביעית אין יורד לתוך שדהו כו': מאי שנא דאוכל מן הנוטות דפירי דהפקירא אינון ארעא נמי אפקרה

— Said 'Ulla: This refers to trees standing on the border.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, since it is unnecessary to enter the field, it is not ownerless. ');">⁵</span>

אמר עולא בעומדין אילנות על הגבולים ר' שמעון בן אליקים אמר גזירה שמא ישהא בעמידה:

R. Simeon b. Eliakim said: It is forbidden lest he stand and linger there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The land is ownerless only in respect of entering and taking its crops: this done, it reverts to its real owner. But we fear that the muddar, having eaten his fill, may tarry there, which is forbidden to him. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המודר הנאה מחבירו לא ישאילנו ולא ישאל ממנו לא ילונו ולא ילוה ממנו ולא ימכור לו ולא יקח ממנו:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO IS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR MAY NEITHER LEND TO HIM NOR BORROW FROM HIM NOR ADVANCE HIM OR RECEIVE FROM HIM A LOAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yalwenu (lawah) and yash'ilenu (sha'al) refer to money and utensils respectively. ');">⁷</span> HE MAY NEITHER SELL TO NOR PURCHASE FROM HIM.