Study Nedarim folio 42B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 Talmud rejects that proof: It is different here, as he said to him explicitly: During his lifetime and upon his de
The second question was answered, but in any case the first question remains difficult: Why didn’t R' 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 forb
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 R' Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish hold: If
The Talmud 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 Mishnah (46a): If one says to anot
Rather, this is the explanation of the statements of the amora’im: When R' Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish said that the prohibition is no longer in effect after the item is no longer in his possession, it was in a case where he said: My property.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