נדרים 34:2 — Soncino English Talmud

Raba said: If a hefker loaf lies before a man, and he declares, 'This loaf be hekdesh', and he takes it to eat it, he trespasses in respect of its entire value; if to leave it to his children, he trespasses in respect of its goodwill value only. R. Hiyya b. Abin asked Raba: [What if one says to his neighbour,] 'My loaf [be forbidden] to you,' and then gifts it to him: now, he said, 'my loaf,' meaning only so long as it IS In his own possession; or perhaps, having said '[be forbidden] to you,' he has rendered it to him hekdesh? — He replied: It is obvious that even if he gifted it to him, it is forbidden. For what was it [his vow] to exclude? Surely not the case where it would be stolen from him? — He replied, No: It excludes the case where he invites him for it. ^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ

^ᵃnote:V. Glos.
^ᵇnote:A Zar (i.e., not a priest) is forbidden to eat consecrated food; if he does, he is guilty of trespass. and bound to make restitution of its value plus a fifth (Lev. XXII, 14). Now as soon as he takes this consecrated loaf, with the intent of eating it, he withdraws it from the possession of hekdesh into his own. Hence he has trespassed in respect of the whole of it. But if he merely intends leaving it to his children, he merely benefits by its goodwill value (i.e., the benefit he enjoys through his children's knowing that he wishes to leave it to them) and hence liable for that only. [Had, however, the loaf been his own, he would not have been guilty of a trespass by taking it up with the intent of eating it. Since it was all the time in his possession, both before and after the consecration, he would be treated in regard to it as a Temple Treasurer, to whom the law of trespass does not apply, v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 103.]
^ᶜnote:Therefore now that he gave it to him, it is no longer his; hence permitted.
^ᵈnote:So that the prohibition always remains.
^ᵉnote:When A says to E, 'My loaf be forbidden to you', thus excluding B from its enjoyment, what is his purpose? Obviously, as long as it is in A's possession it is forbidden to B in any case, since it does not belong to him. Surely A did not intend his vow only in the unlikely event of the loaf being stolen? Hence he must have meant, 'Even if I give you this loaf which is now mine, it shall be forbidden to you.'
^ᶠnote:I.e., if A should invite B to dine with him off that loaf of bread, it should be forbidden to him; but not if he gives it to him. This interpretation follows Ran. Others explain the passage differently. According to all versions, [H] must be deleted from the text.