Si un gendre avait juré de bénéficier de lui, et qu'il (le beau-père) voulait donner de l'argent à sa fille, il lui dit: "Prends cet argent comme cadeau, à condition que ton mari ait pas de droit, mais seulement dans ce que vous achetez et mettez dans votre bouche. " [Et sa condition demeure, et le mari ne l'acquiert pas. Et même si, au moyen de ce don, il le "sauve" de l'effort; car sa femme est nourrie par cet argent, et la nourrir était son obligation— "économiser de l'effort" n'est pas considéré comme "bénéfique".]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
ובלבד שלא יהא לבעליך רשות בהם – and his condition is fulfilled, and the husband did not acquire it (i.e., the money). But even though this that this present saves im from the the troubler, for behold, his wife is supported/fed from these monies, but her sustenance was upon him, hs being saved from the trouble is not considered benefit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
This mishnah discusses a situation in which a man is under a vow not to provide any benefit to his son-in-law. The mishnah teaches how the father may give money to his daughter without allowing his son-in-law to receive benefit.
We should note that this mishnah probably more properly belongs in chapter four where the mishnah discussed circumventing vows such as these. Assumedly, the mishnah is brought in this chapter because it mentions fathers and daughters.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If a man is under a vow that his son-in-law shall not benefit from him, and he wants to give money to his daughter, he must say to her, “This money is given to you as a gift, providing that your husband has no rights with it, [and it is only given to you] so that may put to your personal use.” If the father wants to give his daughter money he may make a stipulation that the son-in-law should have no rights to the money and that the only use for the money is for the personal use of the daughter. In this way, the father can circumvent the vow prohibiting his son-in-law from deriving benefit from him. Were the father not to make such a stipulation, the present would be a transgression of the vow because anything that the wife owns the husband has rights over as well.
