Commentary for Nedarim 96:8

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך השותפין</strong></big><br><br>

Moreover, the sudarium is a case of 'Acquire in order to give possession,' and 'Acquire [it] from now.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Ran reads: Acquire in order to give possession from now.] As soon as the vendor acquires the scarf, the purchaser is the legal owner of his purchase. ');">⁸</span> But as for this property, — when shall he acquire it? When his grandson is a scholar: [but] by then the sudarium [whereby the transference was made] has been returned to its owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [At the time when the title was granted the grandson was not yet in existence, and when he is ripe enough to receive the legacy the act of transference had long been a matter of the past, and no longer effective.] ');">⁹</span> Raba [also] questioned R. Nahman: But the gift of Beth Horon was a case of 'Acquire, in order to give possession,' yet it was invalid? Sometimes he answered, Because his banquet proves his intention;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it was not a genuine gift at all. ');">¹⁰</span> sometimes he answered, This is taught in accordance with R. Eliezer, who maintained that even the extra [given by the vendor to a customer] is forbidden to one who is interdicted by vow to benefit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of this he ruled that he may not even walk over his field (32b), though ordinarily walking over another person's field is not accounted an encroachment of rights. Thus R. Eliezer treats vows far more stringently than other matters. Consequently, here too he rules the gift invalid. But the Sages, who disagree with him, would regard the gift of Beth Horon valid. ');">¹¹</span> We learnt, THE SAGES RULED, EVERY GIFT WHICH IS NOT [SO GIVEN] THAT IF HE [THE BENEFICIARY] CONSECRATES IT, IT IS CONSECRATED, IS NOT A GIFT [AT ALL]. Now, what does EVERY include? Surely it includes such as this case of stealing flax?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such a gift is invalid, not merely because of the greater stringency of vows, but because 'Acquire in order to give possession' confers no title. [This is the reading of Ran. Rashi and Asheri: Where the condition was repeated or cast in two forms (v. supra p. 149 n. 3). Our text presents a conflation of the two readings.] ');">¹²</span> — No. It includes the case of the second version of Raba's ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra. ');">¹³</span>

Explore commentary for Nedarim 96:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.