Talmud - Nedarim 42b נדרים מ״ב ב׳

then if the father dies, his son does not inherit from him. Apparently, one can render his property forbidden and have it remain forbidden after it is no longer in his possession. The Gemara rejects that proof: It is different here, as he said to him explicitly: During his lifetime and upon his death. There is no proof that in a case where he did not explicitly extend the prohibition to the period after it leaves his possession, the prohibition would not remain in effect.

The second question was answered, but in any case the first question remains difficult: Why didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree in a case where he said: This property, as well? Rather, this is the explanation of their dispute: In the case of one who said: Benefit from this property is forbidden to you, everyone agrees that the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession. When they disagree, it is in the case of one who said: Benefit from my property is forbidden to you.

Rav and Shmuel hold: It is no different if he said: This property, and it is no different if he said: My property; in both cases, a person renders an item forbidden and the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession. And Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish hold: If one said: Property, a person renders an item forbidden and the prohibition remains in effect. However, if he said: My property, a person does not render an item forbidden for the period after it is no longer in his possession, as the phrase my property means property in my possession.

The Gemara asks: And is there anyone who says that it is no different if he said: This property, and it is no different if he said: My property, and that the prohibition remains in effect even after the item is no longer in his possession? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (46a): If one says to another: Entering into your house is konam for me, or: Buying your field is konam for me, then if the owner died or sold the property to another, it is permitted for the one who vowed to enter the house or buy the field, as the prohibition is in effect only as long as it belongs to that person. However, if he said: Entering this house is konam for me, or: Buying this field is konam for me, then if the owner died or sold the property to another, it remains forbidden. Apparently, there is a difference between a case where he simply renders an item forbidden and a case where he renders an item belonging to a particular individual forbidden.

Rather, this is the explanation of the statements of the amora’im: When Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish said that the prohibition is no longer in effect after the item is no longer in his possession, it was in a case where he said: My property. And when Rav and Shmuel said that the prohibition remains in effect after the item is no longer in his possession, it was in a case where he said: This property. And they do not disagree, as each pair of amora’im addressed a different situation.

We learned in the mishna: And during the Sabbatical Year he may not enter his field; however, he eats from the produce that leans out of the field. The Gemara asks: What is different about the Sabbatical Year that he is permitted to eat of the produce that leans out of the field? It is due to the fact that the produce is ownerless. With regard to land as well, the Torah rendered it ownerless, as during the Sabbatical Year, it is permitted for everyone to enter the field and eat the produce.

Ulla said: The mishna is referring to a case where the fruit trees are standing on the borders of the field. Since it is possible to eat the produce without entering the field, it is not permitted for him to enter it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said: Even in a case where the fruit trees are standing in the middle of the field, it is also prohibited for him to enter the field, due to a rabbinic decree lest he remain standing there longer than necessary for purposes of eating, which is prohibited even during the Sabbatical Year.

MISHNA: In the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, that other person may neither lend an item to him nor borrow an item from him. Similarly, he may neither lend money to him nor borrow money from him. And he may neither sell an item to him nor purchase an item from him.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Nedarim 42b examines whether a vow forbidding benefit from property remains binding after inheritance or sale, debating "my property" versus "this property".