Study Nedarim folio 43B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
However, if his declaration that the food is ownerless predates his vow, it is permitted for the other person to eat the food. And if you say that the reason for the opinion of R' Yosei is because the food remains in the possession of the owner until it comes into the possession of the one who acqu
The Talmud answers: R' Abba raised the objection and he answered that objection. The difference between the cases does not relate to the halakhot of ownerless property; rather, it relates to the nature of vows. The intent of anyone who vows is that the vow not apply to an item that he rendered owner
Rava raised an objection: With regard to a person on his deathbed who ordered his executor to distribute all his property, if he recovers, he may retract the gift. However, if he ordered him to distribute only a portion of his property and kept the rest, he cannot retract the gift. If he ordered hi
And the second person did not acquire the property that was given him, as it was a gift of all his remaining property, which can be retracted. Although the first person did not yet acquire the property, as the person on his deathbed did not die, the property is no longer considered to be in the poss
Rather, Rava said that this is the reason for the opinion of R' Yosei: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree for the one for whom benefit is forbidden to take food that was declared ownerless, due to the gift of Beit Ḥoron. An incident occurred in Beit Ḥoron involving a person who employed artifice