Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

5) A VOW OF CHEREM

(a) Matters of the returning exiles - such as the Temple mount, the courtyards, and wells in the middle of the road;
(b) Matters of the city - such as the street, the bathhouse, shul, the ark, and Sifrei Torah;
(c) And one who writes that his share in these things should belong to the Nasi (the leader);

1. R. Yehudah says, this is the same as giving his share to a commoner;
2. The only difference is, when one writes his share to the Nasi, there is no need for him to do an act of acquisition; if he writes to a commoner, an acquisition is needed.

(d) Chachamim say, either way, an acquisition is needed; the Nasi was only mentioned because it was common to give one's share to the Nasi.
(e) R. Yehudah says, inhabitants of Galil do not need to give their shares (to permit people that vowed not to benefit), for their ancestors already gave their shares (to the Nasi).
(f) (Gemara) Question: Why is one forbidden when someone writes that his share in these things should belong to the Nasi?
(g) Correction (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah means, the solution for people that vowed from each other is to write their shares to the Nasi.
(h) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah) Inhabitants of Galil do not need to give their shares, for their ancestors already gave their shares.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Inhabitants of Galil were quarrelsome, and often vowed not to benefit from each other; therefore, their ancestors already gave their shares tot he Nasi.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven vowed not to get benefit from Shimon, and Reuven has nothing to eat. Shimon may give a gift to Levi, and Reuven is permitted to have it.

1. There was a case in Beis Choron: Reuven vowed that his father may not benefit from him. Reuven was marrying off his son; he told a friend Levi, 'I give you the courtyard and the banquet, only in order that my father can eat with us.'
2. Levi: If they are mine, I hereby declare them Hekdesh!
3. Reuven: I did not give them to you to make them Hekdesh!
4. Levi: You gave them to me, so you and your father could eat together, and I should bear the sin!
5. Chachamim: Any gift that the recipient cannot make Hekdesh is not a gift.

(b) (Gemara) Question: The case brought contradicts the law taught!
(c) Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated; it should say: If it later becomes evident that the gift was insincere, it is forbidden;

1. Such a case occurred in Beis Choron.

(d) Version #1 (Rava): This only applies when he said 'I only give them to you in order that father should come';

1. But if he said 'I give them to you in order that father should come' - he means, if you want (and this is permitted).

(e) Version #2 (Rava): Do not think that this only applies when he said 'I only give them to you in order that father should come'; but if he said 'I give them to you in order that father should come', this is permitted;

1. Rather, even in the latter case, it is forbidden.

(f) Question: Why?
(g) Answer: The banquet proves what his intention is.

7) ACQUISITION FOR THE FUTURE

(a) Shimon's son used to steal flax; Shimon prohibited his property on his son.

1. Friends: What if your son will have a son that is a Chacham?
2. Shimon: My son should acquire the property on condition to give it to his son if his son will be a Chacham.

(b) Question: Does this work?
(c) Answer #1 (Chachamim of Pumbedisa): No - a person cannot acquire on condition to give to someone else.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): It works - in Chalipin (acquisition made through giving a garment) one takes the garment only in order to give something else!
(e) Objection #1 (Rav Ashi): Maybe in Chalipin, the one who takes the garment can keep it (and Rav Nachman has no proof)!
(f) Objection #2 (Rav Ashi): Also - in Chalipin, one takes the garment in order to give now to someone else;

1. In the above case, Shimon's son only acquires when his son will be a Chacham - by then the garment (used to make him acquire the property) has already been returned!

(g) Question (Rava against Rav Nachman): The case of the gift of Beis Choron was an acquisition on condition to give to someone else, and it did not work!
(h) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): There, the banquet proves that the gift was insincere.
(i) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): That Mishnah is as R. Eliezer, who forbids even Vitur (small benefits) by one that vowed not to benefit.
(j) (Mishnah - Chachamim): Any gift that the recipient cannot make Hekdesh is not a gift.
(k) Question: What case is included by the word 'Any'?

1. Suggestion: It includes this case, that the acquisition is invalid!

(l) Answer: No, it includes the other language, as in Version #2 of Rava (even if he said 'I give them to you in order that father should come', this is forbidden).