Nedarim 42B

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 Talmud 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: ב״נכסים אלו״⁠ — כולי עלמא לא פליגי. כי פליגי ב״נכסי״.

The second question was answered, but in any case the first question remains difficult: Why didn’t R' 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 R' 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.