Nedarim 96

ההוא גברא דהוה ליה ברא דהוה שמיט כיפי דכיתנא אסרינהו לנכסיה עליה אמרו ליה ואי הואי בר ברך צורבא מרבנן מאי אמר להון ליקני הדין ואי הואי בר ברי צורבא מרבנן לקנייה מאי

A certain man had a son who used to carry off bundles of flax. Thereupon his father forbade his property to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though, as stated above, (supra 47a) his son would still inherit it, this story may be explained on the supposition that he had two sons, and wished to give the whole of his estate to the second (Ran). ');">¹</span>

אמרי פומבדיתאי קני על מנת להקנות הוא וכל קני על מנת להקנות לא קני

'But,' said others to him, 'what if the son of your son is a scholar?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time he had no grandson yet. ');">²</span>

ורב נחמן אמר קני דהא סודרא קני על מנת להקנות הוא

He replied, 'Let him acquire it, and if my<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is Rashi's reading. Cur. edd.: and if&nbsp;… [Var. lec. 'let him not acquire, and if&nbsp;…' v. BaH.] ');">³</span>

אמר רב אשי ומאן לימא לן דסודרא אי תפיס ליה לא מיתפיס ועוד סודרא קני על מנת להקנות וקני מן השתא הלין ניכסין דהדין לאימתי קני לכי הוי בר בריה צורבא מרבנן לכי הוה הדר סודרא למריה

grandson be a scholar, it shall be his.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if not, it reverts to my other son. — Ran. ');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והא מתנת בית חורון דקני על מנת להקנות הוא ולא קא קני

Now, what is the law? — The Pumbedithans<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A great academy town in Babylonia, at the mouth of the Beditha (which is the meaning of the name), a canal of the Euphrates. ');">⁵</span>

זימנין אמר ליה משום דסעודתו מוכחת עליו וזימנין אמר ליה ר' אליעזר היא דאמר אפילו ויתור אסור במודר הנאה

ruled, This is a case of 'Acquire, in order to give possession,' and such does not give a legal title. R. Nahman said: He [the son] acquires [it], for [the giving of] a sudarium too is a case of 'Acquire, in order to give possession.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the methods of acquisition was by exchange (halifin), in which an object (a sudarium kerchief) was given by the purchaser or recipient to the vendor or donor as a symbolical substitute v. B.M. 47a. Now, actually. this was given merely in order that the latter might give legal possession to the former, and was generally returned, yet it was valid. ');">⁶</span>

תנן אמרו חכמים כל מתנה שאינה שאם הקדישה תהא מקודשת אינה מתנה כל לאיתויי מאי לאו לאתויי הא מילתא דשדיא בכיפי לא לאתויי לישנא בתראה דשמעתיה דרבא:

R. Ashi demurred: But in the case of a sudarium, who tells you that if he retains it, it is not his?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though in fact it was only a symbol, and usually returned, yet it may be retained; but here it was not intended that the son should have possession at all but merely to be the medium of transference, for if his grandson would not be a scholar, the estate was to revert to his second son. ');">⁷</span>

<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>