daf bit: Nedarim 48

[cellio]

The mishna discusses using an intermediary to get around a vow. Suppose a father has vowed not to benefit from his son. His son wants to host a banquet for his own son's wedding, and the mishna proposes that he give the banquet (that is, the resources to pay for it) to a neighbor on the condition that his father be invited. The gemara debates whether this is valid, and concludes that if he says "so that my father can come" it is legal but if he says "on condition that my father can come", it is not a legitimate gift. The decision must be left to the recipient, but the giver is allowed to make a request. (48b)

Comments

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

*sighs* Yes, that does sound very familiar.

I will caution: there may be a misunderstanding here. Ask him directly if that is what he meant. He may not have meant it that way.

I went and found a translation of the text here: http://www.come-and-hear.com/nedarim/nedarim_48.html which may differ from the version that cellio is using.

Clearly, I am biased. :) But my reading of this is that they are talking about just this issue: the difference between a gift, and a contract. A gift is something I give to you without any obligation attending to it: it is yours to do with as you will. If there are conditions attached, it is no gift : you are negotiating a contract, and thus the item comes under the laws that govern vows and contracts.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

That translation is pretty close (haven't done a close comparison, but nothing jumped out). I'm using the Soncino, which you recently posted PDF links to. (I don't have the PDFs; I have a CD copy that includes other texts, Hebrew, and search. But it's the same material as what you found.)

Sometime last year I remember being cautioned about the web site you found. I don't remember the details -- just that the caution came from someone who's more fluent than I am, so I filed it away as "don't rely on them". I got curious after you posted the link, so I checked out their overview page. They seem to be protesting something; they alude to talmud being "censored", which it is not so far as I know. Their copyright page seems to go out of its way to say "you can't stop us" and demonstates clear misunderstandings of US copyright law, which causes me to raise an eyebrow. I'm not sure what's up with them and I don't know if it would color any of their posted translations, but if it's really important you might want to double-check anything you learn there. Soncino is reputable; so is Steinsaltz or Shottenstein. Again, I haven't personally seen anything bogus in their text, so it might all be just fine -- just passing along what I've heard augmented by what little poking around I did.

(Hmm -- just noticed this: "the talmud is becoming the template for public law in the United States". What?)

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

A gift need not be unconditional. First the civil law example: A proposes to B with a ring. The engagement ends & A wants the ring back, as it was conditional on marriage. Courts have decided on multiple occassions in favor of A.

The halakhic example: On the first day of sukkot (when it isn't Shabbat), the lulav & Etrog you take must belong to you. They cannot be borrowed. However, people want to loan them out anyway to those who don't have their own. So they are given as gifts, with the implicit or explicit (and I'm dealing more with the explicit) condition that it is given to you as a gift only on the condition that you give it to me as a gift when you are done shaking it. A gift can always be given with conditions halakhically.