Mishnah: He may not enter his field.

Explanation: The Madir's field. The Mudar is forbidden even Drisas ha'Regel, like the Mishnah above (32b).

Mishnah: He may not eat from leaning [trees].

Explanation: From Peros that lean over the road, near the field.

Mishnah: In Shemitah, he may not enter his field.

Explanation: If he vowed in Shemitah, he may not enter... The Gemara will explain this.

Explanation: Rav and Shmuel hold that even though all Peros are Hefker, since at the time he forbade him through a vow, they were his, the Isur takes effect even in Shevi'is, after they left his Reshus.

Our Mishnah teaches two laws. The Reisha teaches that since he was Madir him before Shevi'is, his vow takes effect even when Shevi'is comes;

The Seifa teaches that if he vowed in Shevi'is, granted, his vow does not take effect regarding Peros, for they are Hefker, but regarding the land it takes effect, like the Gemara explains the reason below.

Gemara: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, both said... but he may eat from the trees that lean.

Explanation: He is not forbidden to them due to a vow before Shevi'is.

Explanation: It seems to me that our Sugya means as follows. Now we are thinking that Rav and Shmuel, and R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, all come to explain our Mishnah. Rav and Shmuel explain it like I explained;

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish explain that it teaches one case. It is all when he vowed before Shevi'is. [The Mishnah] says that this vow has two laws;

Before Shevi'is, his vow takes effect totally. He (the Mudar) may not enter his land or eat [his Peros];

However, when Shevi'is comes, it is partially permitted. Granted, he may not enter his land, because the land still belongs to him, like I explained the reason below. Even so, the Peros are permitted, for in Shevi'is they leave his Reshus.

Even though he was Madir him at a time when it was in his Reshus, i.e. before Shevi'is, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold that one cannot forbid something in his Reshus [to be forbidden even] after it leaves his Reshus.

Implied question: The Reisha does not teach anything. Obviously, before Shevi'is he may not enter [his land] or eat!

Answer: They hold that the Reisha was taught due to the Seifa, to teach that even though he vowed before Shevi'is, when the Peros were in his Reshus, the Isur does not take effect [on them] after they leave his Reshus, i.e. in Shevi'is;

This is why we thought that R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold that one cannot forbid something in his Reshus for after it leaves his Reshus, even when he said "this property", or even when he said explicitly that he forbids them after they will leave his Reshus.

Implied question: Why should we think so? R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish discuss only [when he said] "my property"!

Answer: It is because granted, if we say that R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish say so about "this property", we can say that the Tana taught the Reisha due to the Seifa, like I explained;

Even though R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish said "Nichasai (my property)", this is not precise. Rather, they refer to 'this property', which Rav and Shmuel discussed. 'This property' has the same law as 'my property', like we will explain.

Proof: If R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish said only about "my property", what does the Tana of our Mishnah teach? Surely we do not need the Reisha to teach that before Shevi'is, his vow takes effect totally!

Suggestion: Perhaps [the Reisha] was taught due to the Seifa, to teach that since initially he said "my property", when Shevi'is comes, part of this vow is permitted, i.e. regarding eating.

Rejection: Also this it need not teach. This is obvious, for "my property" connotes only when it is in his Reshus!

We learned a bigger Chidush below (46a), and it is brought below in our Sugya. One who said to his friend "Konam is your house that I will not enter", or "your field that I will not buy it", if [the owner] died or sold it to someone else, he is permitted.

Since even about a Noder (one who forbade himself), that there is no doubt that he can forbid to himself his friend's property, even after it leaves his friend's Reshus, we say that since he said "your house", this connotes only while it is still his...

All the more so, regarding a Madir (he forbade someone else), about it is not clear whether he can forbid [to another] after it leaves his Reshus, obviously the expression "my property" forbids only while it is still in his Reshus!

Surely when the Noder said "your house", or "your property", or if the Madir said "my house" or "my property", these expressions are the same;

Therefore, if R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish say that one does not forbid [his property after it leaves his Reshus] only when he said "my property", the Tana of our Mishnah does not teach anything, not in the Reisha and not in the Seifa!

Suggestion: Perhaps the entire Mishnah is to teach the law that [in] Shevi'is he may not enter his field, lest we say that the Torah made also the land Hefker. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so, for the reason that it says below.

Rejection: You cannot say so, for why was this taught in Nedarim? If [the Tana] wanted to teach this law according to Ula, who says below (42b, that the Mishnah discusses trees on the border; he may not enter his field, for he can eat the Peros without entering), he should have taught it amidst monetary laws, or in Maseches Shevi'is!

And even according to R. Shimon ben Elyakim, who says that it is a decree, lest he tarry [on the field longer than needed to take the fruit], it is hard to say that the entire Mishnah was taught for this law. [If so,] let it teach only about Shevi'is!

Conclusion: Rather, surely R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold that even [when he said] "this property", one does not forbid [his property after it leaves his Reshus].

Now our Mishnah is fine. The Tana taught the Reisha due to the Seifa, to teach that even when he was Madir him with the words "this property", his vow does not takes effect after it leaves his Reshus.

Suggestion: Just like it says (below, 47a) regarding a Noder, that when he said "this house that I will not enter", it is forbidden to him even after [the owner] died or sold it to another, for he forbids even after it will leave his Reshus...

Also here, when his friend was Madir him and said "this property"; the Isur takes effect after the property will leave the Madir's Reshus!

Rejection: This is wrong. Only a Noder himself can forbid his friend's property to himself, even after it leaves his [friend's] Reshus, for it is still another's property;

However, a Madir cannot. After the property leaves his Reshus, it is another's property, and one cannot forbid another's property to someone else.

Explanation: Our Mishnah is fine. We ask that if R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold that one does not forbid [his property after it leaves his Reshus], they should have argued explicitly, even when he said "this property"! Also, a Mishnah explicitly says that a person can forbid! (Due to these questions, the Gemara retracts from this explanation.)

Gemara: If he died, his son will inherit him.

Explanation: [His son] does not benefit from [his father], rather, from his inheritance, which the Torah awarded to him.

Explanation: This is not literally true. Surely, the property is his (the son's) like we will explain below (47a) with Hash-m's help!

Rather, because the Reisha teaches "he inherits him", to teach that he is like other heirs, even to benefit from the property, also the Seifa teaches "he does not inherit him", to teach that he may not benefit from his inheritance.

In any case, we learn from here that one can forbid his Peros to another after it leaves his Reshus. This is not like forbidding another's property to someone else.

Explanation: Now we descend one level from what we initially thought;

Until now, we thought that no expression helps to forbid after they leave his Reshus, for this is like forbidding another's property to someone else. Now, we admit that when he says so explicitly, he can forbid.

Observation: However, if this were the only question, we could have said that granted, when he says so explicitly, he can forbid. Even so, the expression "this property" connotes only while it is still in his Reshus.

Implied question: When the Madir said "this property", and when the Noder said "this house", these expressions are equal;

A Mishnah below (46a) regarding a Noder teaches that when he said "this house", this connotes even after it leaves his Reshus.

Also here, we should say that when the Madir says "this property" [he forbids even after it leaves his Reshus], since also a Madir, if he says explicitly, he can forbid even after it leaves his Reshus!

Answer: Even so, these are different. When a Noder says said "this house", this connotes that he forbids the house itself to himself, either because he does not like the house, or because it has a bad Mazal, or some other reason;

Therefore, his words properly imply that he does not attribute the Isur to belonging to its first (current) owner;

However, when a Madir forbade them to (the Mudar), granted, he said "this property." [However,] as long as he did not explicitly say that it is even after it leaves his Reshus, it implies only as long as it is in his Reshus. Why should he (the Madir) care if the other benefits from something that he (the Madir) has no stake in it at all?!

Therefore, as long as he did not explicitly specify, rather, he said "this property", it implies only while it is still in his Reshus.

Summation: Our Mishnah is fine. It comes to teach this law. It is a bigger Chidush. The Reisha was taught due to the Seifa.

Explanation: However, (the Gemara) is still not satisfied. In any case, the first question is difficult. If R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold like this, they should have explicitly argued about "this property"!

Gemara: We answer, rather, they do not argue about 'this property.'

Explanation: Surely, one can forbid [his property, even for after it leaves his Reshus].

Explanation: Rav and Shmuel hold that even [when he said] "Nechasai", one forbids [his property, even for after it leaves his Reshus]. When they (Rav and Shmuel) said [that he said also] "this", this is not precise. It is obvious to them that whenever he said "Nechasai", even if he said [also] "Elu" (this property of mine), the law is based only on Nechasai, and even so, a person forbids;

Explanation #1: This is because also "Nechasai" connotes forever, and 'this' means this property that is now his.

Explanation #2: It is because once Isur took effect on it, it is not uprooted [even after it leaves his Reshus].

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold that only [when he said] "Nechasim Elu (this property)", one forbids [even for after it leaves his Reshus. When he said] "Nechasai", he does not forbid.

Support: Now, our Mishnah is fine for R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, like it is for Rav and Shmuel. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish establish it to be when he said] "Nechasim Elu." The Reisha is a Chidush. Even though Shevi'is came, [the Mudar] may not enter [the field] or eat [the Peros], for one can forbid something in his Reshus for after it will leave his Reshus;

The Seifa is a Chidush. If he vowed in Shevi'is, [the Mudar] may not enter his field;

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish said [that he said] "Nechasai Alecha"... This is not because they establish the Mishnah when he said Nechasai. Rather, they respond to Rav and Shmuel, and say to them, if the Tana discusses when he said 'Nechasai', he would not have taught so;

Rather, the law would be that before Shevi'is, [the Mudar] may not enter or eat. When Shevi'is comes, he eats. If so, he does not teach anything!

Rather, surely our Mishnah discusses one who said "this property." Therefore, his vow takes effect even after Shevi'is came.

Explanation (cont.): We ask that it is impossible that Rav and Shmuel would say that even when he said "Nechasai", the property is forbidden even after it leaves his Reshus;

Even regarding a Noder, a Mishnah says that when he said "your house", it connotes only as long as it is his, but not after he sold it;

All the more so regarding a Madir, when he said "my property", it implies only as long as it is in his Reshus!

Explanation: I.e. Rav and Shmuel establish our Mishnah to discuss one who said "this property of mine," Since he said "this", even though he said Nechasai, it is as if he said "this property", and it is forbidden even after Shevi'is came. The Reisha teaches this Chidush;

Also R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish establish the Mishnah like this. They say "do not think that our Mishnah, which taught that even after Shevi'is came, he may not enter and he may not eat, is established even when he said "Nechasai", and the reason is because once Isur took effect, it is not uprooted. This is wrong;

Rather, whenever he said only Nechasai, they are forbidden only as long as they are in his Reshus. However, when Shevi'is comes, he may eat from trees that lean [outside his field], for their Isur is uprooted.

Therefore, surely our Mishnah is established only when he said "Nechasai Elu."

Implied question: We could have learned this law from the Mishnah of one who said to his friend "Konam your house, that I will not enter..."!

Answer: [Even so,] R. Yochanan said it regarding our Mishnah in order to explain and clarify it, lest we err about it, for Stam 'Mudar Hana'ah from his friend' implies [that he said] Nechasai, like the Mishnah below (43a) 'one who was Mudar Hana'ah from his friend... gives it to another for a gift, and he (the Mudar) is permitted';

If he said "this property", he would not be permitted! It seems to me that this is the Perush of our Sugya.

Question: I do not know why in the conclusion, the Gemara mentioned R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish before Rav and Shmuel;

It should have mentioned Rav and Shmuel first, like it taught their teaching initially before [that of] R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish!

Answer: It seems to me that it is because in the entire discussion, we assumed that R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish discuss the teaching of Rav and Shmuel, to argue with it. Therefore, when we retract to say that they do not argue, we put R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish before Rav and Shmuel, to show that they do not discuss their teaching at all.

Alternative text: Some texts say "and Rav and Shmuel [discuss one who said] "Nechasim Elu (this property)."

Assertion: Even according to this text, the same applies to "Nechasai Elu"; one forbids [even for after it leaves his Reshus]. We follow his last word "Elu".

Support: It says so in the Yerushalmi. [If one said] "Beischa Zeh (this house of yours)", how do we understand him - does he mean "your house", or "this [house]"? We conclude that he means "this."

Gemara: Also the land, the Torah made it Hefker!

Explanation: It is Hefker for gathering Peros. Why may he not enter it to gather its Peros?

Gemara: Ula said, the trees are on the border.

Explanation: Indeed, to gather [Peros of] trees in the middle of the field, he may enter it, but not to gather [Peros of] trees on the border;

The Torah made it Hefker only to gather its Peros. Since one may gather [Peros of] these trees [without entering], he may not enter.

Explanation: Therefore, even to gather [from] trees in the middle of the field, he may not enter it;

Granted, letter of the law it is permitted, for the Torah made the land Hefker. It is forbidden due to a decree.

Implied question: Here we decree lest he delay standing. Regarding a Choleh (39a), Shmuel decreed only lest he delay sitting. He does not decree about standing. If he did, he would forbid visiting even standing!

Answer: There, the reason is since normally, a visitor sits, and you obligate him to stand, there is a reminder, and he will not delay standing;

Here, what reminder is there?! Normally, one picks Peros only standing. It is appropriate to decree lest he delay.

Mishnah: He may not lend to him.

Explanation: The Mudar may not lend to the Madir. The Gemara will explain the reason.

Mishnah: And he may not lend to or borrow from him.

Explanation: The Mudar may not borrow from the Madir, for he benefits from him.

Clarification: 'She'elah' applies to something that it itself is returned, e.g. an animal or Kelim. 'Halva'ah' applies to something that it itself is not returned, e.g. a loan of coins.