Previous Folio / Nedarim Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 42a

MISHNAH. HE WHO IS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, [IF THE VOW WAS IMPOSED] BEFORE THE SEVENTH YEAR,1  MAY NOT ENTER HIS FIELD [IN THE SEVENTH YEAR]2  NOR TAKE OF THE OVERHANGING [FRUIT].3  BUT IF [THE VOW WAS IMPOSED] IN THE SEVENTH YEAR, HE MAY NOT ENTER HIS FIELD, BUT MAY EAT OF THE OVERHANGING BRANCHES.4  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].

GEMARA. 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;5  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!'6  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.7  [But if he explicitly stipulates] during his lifetime and after his death,

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. 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.
  2. To gather of its crops, since he is forbidden 'the treading of the foot'. Cf. Mishnah on 32b.
  3. 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.
  4. [Omitted in the printed Mishnayoth version].
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. For it is his by right.

Nedarim 42b

 if he dies he does not succeed him! — Here it is different, because he [explicitly] stated during his lifetime and after his death.1  Yet at all events there is a difficulty?2  — But [explain the dispute thus:] There is no dispute at all in respect of 'this property etc.'3  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.

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.4  — Said 'Ulla: This refers to trees standing on the border.5  R. Simeon b. Eliakim said: It is forbidden lest he stand and linger there.6

MISHNAH. 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.7  HE MAY NEITHER SELL TO NOR PURCHASE FROM HIM.

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. 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.
  2. Sc. the first.
  3. The vow remains valid even in the seventh year.
  4. In the sense that every person has the right to enter and take of its crops.
  5. Therefore, since it is unnecessary to enter the field, it is not ownerless.
  6. 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.
  7. Yalwenu (lawah) and yash'ilenu (sha'al) refer to money and utensils respectively.