Se um bezerro se beneficia de seu vizinho, e ele (o primeiro) não tem nada para comer, ele (o vizinho) pode dar a outro como um presente, e este (o primeiro) tem permissão para (comê-lo). Aconteceu com um em Beth Choron que seu pai havia se beneficiado dele. [A gemara explica que algo está faltando em nossa Mishnah e que é isso que significa: "E se o fim 'lança luz' no começo, é proibido. E também aconteceu em Beth Choron que" o fim de uma pessoa lança luz sobre seu começo, etc. "] Ele (o filho) estava se casando com seu filho e disse ao seu vizinho:" O pátio e a festa são dados como presente, e eles são dados apenas para que meu pai possa venha e participe do banquete conosco. "[É claro neste caso que ele os deu apenas para que seu pai viesse e coma, e isso é proibido. Mas se ele dissesse:" Aqui estão eles e, se você vontade, deixe o Pai vir e comer ", isso é permitido. E se a própria refeição" esclarecer ", isto é, se ele preparou muito mais do que o necessário (para o outro), fica claro que o fez, para que seu pai vem e come, é proibido.] Ele (o outro) disse-lhe: "Se são meus, são dedicados ao Céu." O filho: "Eu não lhe dei o que é meu para que você pudesse dedi cate-o ao céu! "O outro:" Você me deu o que era seu apenas para que você e seu pai pudessem comer, beber e se reconciliar, e o pecado (dos votos) estará na minha cabeça! "E quando os sábios foram avisados disso, eles disseram: Qualquer presente "que não seja", que se ele (o destinatário) dedica, não é dedicado, não é um presente.
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.
