## Nedarim Daf 43b

###### Nedarim 43b:1
[Nedarim 43b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/43b:1)

אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הֶפְקֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם לְנִדְרוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ עַד דְּאָתֵי לִרְשׁוּת זוֹכֶה, מָה לִי נִדְרוֹ קוֹדֵם לְהֶפְקֵירוֹ, מָה לִי הֶפְקֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם לְנִדְרוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Rabbi Yosei is because the food remains in the possession of the owner **until it comes into the possession of the one** who **acquires** it, **what is** different **for me** if **his vow predates his declaration** that the food is **ownerless,** and **what is** different **for me** if **his declaration** that the food is **ownerless predates his vow?** In any event, the item remains in the possession of its owner and the one for whom benefit is forbidden benefits from it.


###### Nedarim 43b:2
[Nedarim 43b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/43b:2)

הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְשַׁנֵּי לַהּ: כׇּל הַנּוֹדֵר אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ עַל מַה שֶּׁהִפְקִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi 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 ownerless.** Therefore, when he declares the food ownerless and then vows, he does not intend to include the ownerless food in his vow, and the prohibition does not take effect upon it.


###### Nedarim 43b:3
[Nedarim 43b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/43b:3)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: מִקְצָתָן לָרִאשׁוֹן וְכוּלָּן לַשֵּׁנִי — רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 him to distribute his property to two people and said: **A portion of** the property is given **to the first** person **and all of** the remaining property is given **to the second** person, then if he recovered, the **first** person **acquired** the property that was given him, as it was a partial gift.


###### Nedarim 43b:4
[Nedarim 43b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/43b:4)

שֵׁנִי לֹא קָנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 possession of the one who owned it. This is clear from the fact that if it were still in his possession, the gift to the second person would not be a gift of all his remaining property. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: Acquisition of a gift is not complete until the item comes from the possession of the one who gives the gift into the possession of the one who receives the gift.


###### Nedarim 43b:5
[Nedarim 43b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/43b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם מַתְּנַת בֵּית חוֹרוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that **this is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi 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 and gave a gift to another to circumvent a vow. The Sages ruled that artifice of that sort is forbidden. Here too, when he renounced ownership he merely employed artifice to circumvent the vow.


###### Nedarim 43b:6
[Nedarim 43b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/43b:6)

תַּנְיָא: הַמַּפְקִיר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ, כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים — יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who declares his field ownerless,** for the **entire three days** after that declaration **he is able to retract** it. **From this** point **forward, he is unable to retract** the declaration.