Nedarim 95

ואסורים בדבר של אותה העיר ואיזהו דבר של עולי בבל כגון הר הבית והעזרות והבור שבאמצע הדרך ואיזהו דבר של אותה העיר כגון הרחבה והמרחץ ובית הכנסת והתיבה והספרים והכותב חלקו לנשיא

NOW, WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT BELONG TO THEM THAT CAME UP FROM BABYLON? E.G., THE TEMPLE MOUNT, THE COURTS OF THE TEMPLE AND THE WELL ON THE MIDROAD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between Babylon and Palestine, for the supply of water to the pilgrims, v. 'Erub. 104b. These things were declared the property of all Israel. ');">¹</span> WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT BELONG TO THAT TOWN, E.G., THE PUBLIC SQUARE, THE BATH-HOUSE, THE SYNAGOGUE, THE ARK [IN WHICH THE SACRED SCROLLS WERE KEPT] AND THE BOOKS [OF THE LAW],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (Rashi. Asheri: Books purchased by the congregation for the reading of the general public.] ');">²</span>

ר' יהודה אומר אחד כותב לנשיא ואחד כותב להדיוט מה בין כותב לנשיא לכותב להדיוט שהכותב לנשיא אין צריך לזכות להדיוט צריך לזכות וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה צריכין לזכות לא דברו בנשיא אלא בהוה רבי יהודה אומר אין אנשי גליל צריכין לכתוב שכבר כתבו אבותיהן על ידיהן:

AND [THE ESTATE OF] HIM WHO ASSIGNS HIS PORTION TO THE NASI.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The head of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and subsequent places. According to this reading, this portion too would be forbidden. But the Gemara amends the text of the Mishnah. ');">³</span> R. JUDAH SAID: IT IS THE SAME WHETHER HE ASSIGNS IT TO THE NASI OR TO A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, BUT WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? IF HE ASSIGNS IT TO THE NASI, HE NEED NOT [FORMALLY] CONFER TITLE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by the mere documentary assignation it becomes the Nasi's property. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמאי מיתסר אמר רב ששת הכי קתני ומה תקנתן יכתבו חלקן לנשיא

WHILST IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL IT IS NECESSARY TO CONFER TITLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., one of the recognised methods of acquisition. ');">⁵</span> BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: FORMAL GRANT OF TITLE IS NECESSARY IN BOTH CASES; THEY MENTIONED THE NASI IN PARTICULAR AS THIS IS USUAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For one would fear to assign his portion in communal property to an individual, lest he then forbid it to him. V. also Halevy, Doroth, I, 3, p. 61 and general discussion a.l. ');">⁶</span>

רבי יהודה אומר אחד כותב לנשיא ואחד כותב להדיוט ומה בין כותב לנשיא לכותב להדיוט הכותב לנשיא אין צריך לזכות והכות' להדיוט צריך לזכות וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה צריכים לזכות לא דברו בנשיא אלא בהוה:

R. JUDAH SAID: THE GALILEANS NEED NOT ASSIGN [THEIR PORTION], BECAUSE THEIR ANCESTORS HAVE ALREADY DONE SO FOR THEM. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Why is it forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question is based on the assumption that if the maddir assigns his portion to the nasi, the muddar is still forbidden. ');">⁷</span>

ר' יהודה אומר אין אנשי גליל צריכין לזכות שכבר כתבו אבותיהן על ידיהן: תניא ר' יהודה אומר אנשי גליל קנטרנין היו והיו נודרין הנאה זה מזה עמדו אבותיהם וכתבו חלקיהן לנשיא:

— Said R. Shesheth, The Mishnah teaches thus: How can they repair their position?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the use of communal property as defined in the Mishnah is essential to them. ');">⁸</span> Let them assign their portion to the nasi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd. a portion of the Mishnah is here reproduced in brackets, viz., 'R. Judah said, It is the same&nbsp;… this is usual'. But the quotation is pointless, and should be deleted. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המודר הנאה מחבירו ואין לו מה יאכל נותנו לאחר לשום מתנה והלה מותר בה מעשה באחד בבית חורון שהיה אביו נודר הימנו הנאה והיה משיא את בנו ואמר לחברו חצר וסעודה נתונים הינן לפניך אלא כדי שיבא אבא ויאכל עמנו בסעודה

R. JUDAH SAID: THE GALILEANS NEED NOT ASSIGN [THEIR PORTION]. BECAUSE THEIR ANCESTORS HAVE ALREADY DONE SO FOR THEM. It was taught: R. Judah said: the Galileans were quarrelsome and wont to make vows not to benefit from each other: so their fathers arose and assigned their portions to the nasi. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE IS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR AND HAS NOTHING TO EAT, THE LATTER CAN GIVE IT [FOOD] TO A THIRD PARTY, AND THE FORMER IS PERMITTED TO USE IT. IT HAPPENED TO ONE IN BETH HORON<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A border town between Benjamin and Ephraim. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר אם שלי הם הרי הם מוקדשין לשמים א"ל נתתי לך את שלי שתקדישם לשמים אמר לו נתת לי את שלך אלא שתהא אתה ואביך אוכלין ושותין ומתרצין זה לזה ויהא עון תלוי בראשו אמרו חכמים כל מתנה שאינה שאם הקדישה תהא מקודשת אינה מתנה:

THAT HIS FATHER WAS FORBIDDEN TO BENEFIT FROM HIM. NOW HE [THE SON] WAS GIVING HIS SON IN MARRIAGE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And desired his father's presence. ');">¹¹</span> SO HE SAID TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, 'THE COURTYARD AND THE BANQUET BE A GIFT TO YOU, BUT THEY ARE YOURS ONLY THAT MY FATHER MAY COME AND FEAST WITH US AT THE BANQUET. THEREUPON HE ANSWERED, 'IF THEY ARE MINE, LET THEM BE CONSECRATED TO HEAVEN!' 'BUT I DID NOT GIVE YOU MY PROPERTY TO CONSECRATE IT TO HEAVEN, HE PROTESTED. YOU GAVE ME YOURS SO THAT YOU AND YOUR FATHER MIGHT EAT AND DRINK TOGETHER AND BECOME RECONCILED TO ONE ANOTHER, WHILST THE SIN [OF A BROKEN VOW] SHOULD DEVOLVE UPON HIS HEAD,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Probably a euphemism for 'my head'. J. reads 'my head'.] ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מעשה לסתור חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני ואם הוכיח סופו על תחילתו אסור ומעשה נמי בבית חורון באחד דהוה סופו מוכיח על תחילתו

HE RETORTED. [WHEN THE MATTER CAME BEFORE] THE SAGES, THEY RULED: EVERY GIFT WHICH IS NOT [SO GIVEN] THAT IF HE [THE RECIPIENT] CONSECRATES IT, IT IS CONSECRATED, IS NO GIFT [AT ALL]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [Does the Mishnah adduce] a Story to contradict [its ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! For the Mishnah states that the maddir may make a gift for the muddar to benefit thereby, and then quotes a case where this was forbidden. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רבא לא שנו אלא דאמר ליה והינן לפניך אלא כדי שיבא אבא אבל א"ל שיהו לפניך שיבא אבא מדעתך הוא דא"ל

— The text is defective, and was thus taught: But if the end proves [his intention] at the beginning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it was a mere device. ');">¹⁴</span> it is forbidden, and so it happened in Beth Horon, in the case of one whose last action demonstrated his first [as a mere evasion].

לישנא אחרינא אמרין לה אמר רבא לא תימא טעמא דא"ל והינן לפניך הוא דאסור אבל א"ל הן לפניך שיבא אבא ויאכל מותר אלא אפילו אמר ליה הן לפניך יבא אבא ויאכל אסור מאי טעמא סעודתו מוכחת עליו

Raba said: They [the Sages] taught [that it is forbidden] only if he said, 'They are yours only in order that my father may come [etc.].' But if he said, 'They are yours so that my father may come, he meant, 'It depends on your will.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is permitted. ');">¹⁵</span> A different version is this: Raba said: Do not think that he is forbidden only if he said, 'And they are yours only in order that my father may come', but if he said, 'They are yours so that my father may come' it is permitted. [That is not so,] for even if he said, 'They are yours: let my father come,' it is forbidden. What is the reason? Because the banquet proves his intention.