אם מת לא יירשנו שאני הכא דקא אמר ליה בחייו ובמותו

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.

מכל מקום קשיא אלא בנכסים אלו כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בנכסי

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.

רב ושמואל סברי לא שנא נכסים אלו לא שנא נכסי אדם אוסר ורבי יוחנן וריש לקיש סברי נכסים אדם אוסר נכסי אין אדם אוסר

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.

ומי איכא למאן דאמר לא שנא נכסים אלו ולא שנא נכסי והא תנן האומר לחבירו קונם לתוך ביתך שאני נכנס שדך שאני לוקח מת או שמכרו לאחר מותר לבית זה שאני נכנס שדה זו שאני לוקח מת או שמכרו לאחר אסור

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.

אלא כי אמרי רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש בנכסי ורב ושמואל בנכסים אלו ולא פליגי

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.

ובשביעית אין יורד לתוך שדהו כו׳ מאי שנא דאוכל מן הנוטות דפירי דהפקירא אינון ארעא נמי אפקרה

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.

אמר עולא בעומדין אילנות על הגבולים רבי שמעון בן אליקים אמר גזירה שמא ישהא בעמידה

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.

מתני׳ המודר הנאה מחבירו לא ישאילנו ולא ישאל ממנו לא ילונו ולא ילוה ממנו ולא ימכור לו ולא יקח ממנו

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.