Si l'un des vœux profite à son voisin et qu'il (le premier) n'a rien à manger, il (le voisin) peut le donner à un autre en cadeau, et celui-ci (le premier) est autorisé à (le manger). Il est arrivé avec un à Beth Choron que son père avait juré de bénéficier de lui. [La gemara explique que quelque chose manque à notre Michna et que c'est ce que cela signifie: "Et si la fin 'éclaire' le début, c'est interdit. Et il est également arrivé à Beth Choron que" la fin éclaire son commencement, etc. "] Il (le fils) épousait son fils et il dit à son voisin:" La cour et la fête vous sont données en cadeau, et elles ne vous sont données que pour que mon père puisse venez prendre part à la fête avec nous. "[Il est clair dans ce cas qu'il les a donnés uniquement pour que son père vienne manger, et cela est interdit. Mais s'il dit:" Les voici, et, si vous que le Père vienne manger "cela est permis. Et si le repas lui-même" éclaire ", c'est-à-dire s'il a préparé beaucoup plus que ce qui était nécessaire (pour l'autre), il est clair qu'il l'a fait, de sorte que son père vient manger, c'est interdit.] Il (l'autre) lui dit: "S'ils sont à moi, ils sont voués au ciel." Le fils: "Je ne t'ai pas donné ce qui est à moi pour que tu puisses dedi cate-le au Ciel! "L'autre:" Tu m'as donné ce qui était à toi seulement pour que toi et ton père puissiez manger et boire et être réconciliés l'un avec l'autre, et le péché (des vœux) sera sur ma tête! "Et quand les sages en ont été informés, ils ont dit: Tout cadeau «qui n'est pas», qui s'il (le receveur) le consacre, n'est pas dédié, n'est pas un cadeau.
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
ומעשה בבית חורון וכו' – In the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 48a), it explains that the Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: if its end proves/serves as evidence about its beginning, it is prohibited. And there is the episode in Bet Horon also with one whose last action demonstrated his first [as a mere evasion], etc.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
This mishnah discusses a subject already dealt with in 4:8, how a person who cannot benefit from another person may nevertheless derive benefit from him by there being a third party intermediary. Our mishnah teaches that when Reuven gives the property to Levi so that Shimon who cannot receive benefit from Reuven, may use the property, the gift needs to be complete. In reality, Levi need not do with the property as Reuven requested. A poignant story shall illustrate this.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
ואינן לפניך אלא כדי שיבא אבא ויאכל – so we see that he didn’t give them [the courtyard and the food as a gift] other than in order that his father could come and eat, and that is prohibited. But if he had said: “Lo, these are before you, and if it is your desire that [my father] father comes and eats,” it is permitted. But if his meal shows/proves that it he increased the meal more than what he should have and these things are recognized that it was for his father that he did this in order that he would come and eat it is prohibited.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If one is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor and has nothing to eat, he may give it [the food] to a third party, and he is permitted to use it. This halakhah was basically taught above in mishnah 4:8. It is brought here as an introduction to the story.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
It happened to one in Beth Horon that his father was forbidden to benefit from him. Now he [the son] was giving his son in marriage and he said to his neighbor, “The courtyard and the banquet are give to you as a gift, but they are yours only that my father may come and feast with us at the banquet.” He said to him, “If they are mine, let them be dedicated to heaven!” [The son] responded, “But I did not give you my property to dedicate it to heaven.” [The other] responded, “You gave me yours so that you and your father might eat and drink together and become reconciled to one another, while the sin [of a broken vow] should devolve upon his (i.e. head.” When the matter came before the Sages, they ruled: every gift which is not [so given] that if he [the recipient] dedicates it, it is dedicated, is no gift [at all]. The father could not enter his son’s courtyard or eat of his food, because he was forbidden by oath to benefit from his son. It is unclear how this situation arose, whether the father or the son initiated the vow. In any case, there was clearly strife in their past. Now that his own son is marrying, the son wants his father to be able to attend the wedding and join in the feast. To solve the problem he gives the courtyard and the food to a third party. However, the third party declares that it is all dedicated to the Temple, which would make it impossible to use for a feast. The Sages rule that since the son does not want the dedication to be valid, he did not really give it to the third party. Therefore it is still his, and his father may not come to the wedding. This is truly a sad situation, and it is clearly meant to demonstrate what disastrous results may arise from rashly-made vows taken against loved ones. Indeed, it may still ring as a warning in our ears, not to let our disagreements with family members cross the line of no return. It is a message that unfortunately too many families need.
