Previous daf

1)

(a) Someone who is Mudar Hana'ah before the Sh'mitah, may neither enter the field of the Madir, nor may he eat from the fruit that overhangs the street. If the Madir declared the Neder in the Sh'mitah -year - he remains forbidden to enter the field, but is permitted to eat the overhanging fruit.

(b) Should the Madir restrict the Neder to food ...

1. ... before the Sh'mitah - he may enter the field, but not eat the overhanging fruit.
2. ... during the Sh'mitah - both become permitted.

(a) Rav and Shmuel both maintain that the Reisha of our Mishnah (which forbids both entering the Madir's field and benefiting from the fruit that overhangs the street - when the Madir declared the Neder before the Sh'mitah) continues to apply even when the Sh'mitah year arrives. According to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - the prohibition regarding the fruit falls away the moment Sh'mitah arrives.

(b) Rav and Shmuel will explain ...

1. ... the prohibition (forbidding the overhanging fruit) in the Reisha of our Mishnah - to extend to after the Sh'mitah arrives.
2. ... the Seifa - specifically to when the Madir declared the Neder in the Sh'mitah-year (as we explained in the Mishnah).

(c) According to the suggestion that the basis of their Machlokes is whether the prohibition that a person makes on his property extends even to when the property is no longer in his domain - Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue with Rav and Shmuel inasmuch as according to them, the Reisha and the Seifa are one case: 'u'vi'Shevi'is' in the Seifa is not a new case (as Rav and Shmuel explain), but refers to the Reisha, where he declared the Neder before the Shevi'is. When the Shevi'is arrives, the Seifa is saying, the Neder falls away automatically.

(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish who learn that the Reisha and the Seifa are speaking in one and the same case - there is no Chidush in the Reisha; the Tana learns the Reisha because of the Seifa.

4)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish speak specifically when the Madir said 'Nechasai'. What makes us think that they refer even to a case of 'Nechasim Eilu' - is that otherwise, the Seifa would be superfluous. It is obvious that if he said 'Nechasai', the Neder will fall away as soon as the property is no longer his.

(b) Neither can the Chidush of the Mishnah be to teach us that the Mudar is forbidden to enter the Madir's land (to preclude the suggestion that the land too, leaves the owner's domain in the Sh'mitah) - because then it does not belong *here*, but with Dinei Mamonos or in Shevi'is depending on the explanation as to why he is forbidden to enter the property (later in the Sugya).

(c) The difference between when someone says ' ... le'Bayis Zeh she'Ani Nichnas', where the Noder is forbidden to benefit from the house even after the owner dies or sells it, and our case, where, when the Madir forbids his field with the Lashon 'Nechasim Eilu', where the Neder becomes annulled the moment Sh'mitah arrives, taking the fruit out of his domain is - that in the former case, where it is *the Mudar* who declares the Neder, the Neder remains in effect, because he is empowered to forbid someone's property on himself forever, even after it leaves the original owner's domain; whereas in our case, where it is *the Madir* who is forbidding his own property on the Mudar, his Neder is limited to as long as the property remains in his domain.

(d) We refute this interpretation of their Machlokes - because then, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish should have said 'Nechasim Eilu' (and not 'Nechasai').

5)

(a) We now think that they argue - in a case of 'Nechasai', where, according to Rav and Shmuel, the Neder continues to be effective even when the property is no longer in the Neder's domain, and according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, it does not.

(b) Rav and Shmuel said 'Nechasim Eilu' - because it is obvious that there is no difference between the two Leshonos, either because even 'Nechasai' implies forever, or because once the Neder takes effect, it cannot fall away irrespective of what the Noder said.

(c) By 'Nechasim Eilu' - even Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish will agree that the property remains forbidden even after it has left the Madir's domain.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish now establish the Reisha of the Mishnah - by 'Nechasim Eilu'. What they are saying to Rav and Shmuel is that if the Tana would be speaking in a case of 'Nechasai', then he would not have forbidden the Mudar to enter the Madir's field and eat the fruit even after the Sh'mitah arrived, like he does now.

(a) If a man dies after saying to his son ...

1. ... 'Konem she'Atah Neheneh Li' - his son inherits his father's property, and is permitted to use it.
2. ... 'Konem she'Atah Neheneh Li be'Chayai u've'Mosi' - he inherits the property, but is forbidden to use it.

(b) There no proof from here that when the Madir forbids his own property on the Mudar, his Neder is limited to as long as the property belongs to him - because the Tana specifically speaks when the father said 'be'Chayav u've'Moso', in which case, even Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish will concede that the Neder remains in force (because, contrary to what we originally thought, it is due to the *Lashon* that the Neder does not extend beyond his jurisdiction, *not* because of the Noder's *lack of power* to make it do so)

(a) The Tana of the Mishnah in 'ha'Shutfin' says that someone who says ...

1. ... 'Konem le'Toch *Beischa* she'Ani Nichnas, Sadcha she'Ani Lokei'ach; Meis, O she'Machro le'Acher - Mutar'.
2. ... '*le'Bayis Zeh* she'Ani Nichnas, Sadeh Zu she'Ani Lokei'ach, Meis, O she'Machro le'Acher - Asur'.

(b) This Mishnah proves - that there is a difference between 'Nechasim Eilu' and 'Nechasai' (like we just explaind according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish).

(c) So we finally reconcile Rav and Shmuel with Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - by establishing each one exactly according to the words he used, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish by 'Nechasai', and Rav and Shmuel by 'Nechasim Eilu', and there is no argument.

(d) Our Mishnah now speaks specifically in a case of 'Nechasim Eilu' - even according to Rav and Shmuel (but by 'Nechasai', the Mudar would be permitted to enter the Madir's property and to eat the fruit with the entry of the Sh'mitah.

9)

(a) The problem that we have with the Tana's prohibition of entering the field in the Shmitah is - that the Torah has declared the field Hefker (for the needs of anyone wishing to pick fruit from the trees), no less than the fruit itself, so why should it be prohibited to enter any more than to eat the fruit that overhangs the street.

(b) Ula answers that the Tana is speaking about trees that are situated at the edge of the field - which can be picked from outside the borders of the field, and there is no need (and therefore no Heter) to enter the field.

(c) Rav Shimon ben Elyakim forbids entry even to pick fruit from trees that are in the middle of the field - because we are afraid that maybe he will remain (standing) in the field longer than necessary.

(d) Shmuel (who holds in principle like Rav Shimon ben Elyakim), only decreed that the Madir might remain *sitting* with the sick Mudar, not *standing* - because there, it is normal to sit down in front of the sick person, and the fact that he remains standing will serve as a reminder for him to leave as soon as the Mitzvah has been performed.