Nedarim 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

And

if it were

non-kosher

its life and its body would belong to Heaven, since it is prohibited to eat it.

They said to him: Even in the case of the non-kosher animal, its life belongs to Heaven—

but its body belongs to him, for if he wishes, he may sell it to gentiles or feed it to dogs,

and it turns out that he benefits from its being fattened!

Gemara:

Rav Yitzḥak bar Ḥananya said that Rav Huna said: One who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting from his fellow—

is permitted to arrange a marriage for him with his daughter.

Rabbi Zeira examined this: What are we dealing with?

If we say that the property of the bride’s father is prohibited to the groom,

then how is the one who imposed the prohibition permitted to arrange a marriage between the one prohibited by the vow and his daughter?

After all, he is handing him a maidservant to serve him—

and thereby benefiting him!

And

rather, we are dealing with a case in which the groom’s property is prohibited to the bride’s father,

and it teaches us that he is permitted to marry his daughter to him, even though by doing so the groom becomes obligated to provide her sustenance, and it turns out that he benefits her father,

for

they stated an even greater leniency

in our

Mishna:

He may provide sustenance for his wife and his sons, even though he is obligated to provide their sustenance; and you say: He is permitted to arrange a marriage for him with his daughter!?

After she marries, her father is no longer obligated to provide her sustenance, and if so, he is not paying off a debt on his behalf; it is obvious that this is permitted!

And we say:

Actually, we are dealing with a case in which the property of the bride’s father is prohibited to the groom, and

we are speaking of

his adult daughter,

who arranges her own marriage, as her father no longer has authority over her.

And

since she arranges her own marriage

of her own volition ,

it is therefore permitted.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: One who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting from his fellow—

it is prohibited

for the one who imposed the prohibition

to arrange a marriage for him

with

his daughter.

But he may arrange a marriage for him with his adult daughter—

and of her own volition.

Rabbi Yaakov said: If one imposes a vow upon his son,

having vowed that he would not benefit from his son,

for

the purpose of

Torah study,

that is, so that his son would not neglect his studies ,

the son is nevertheless permitted

to

fill for him

his father

a jug of water

[from his father’s property],

and light the lamp for him.

And the reason is that, presumably, with regard to such minor tasks, which do not cause him to neglect his studies, he did not impose the vow .

Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

the son is also permitted

to roast a small fish for him.

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting from his fellow is permitted to give him a cup of peace.

Although he thereby benefits him, they permitted it for the sake of the ways of peace ,

since this was their practice. This is permitted specifically when the cup belongs to the one prohibited by the vow. But if it belongs to the one who imposed the prohibition, he is directly benefiting him—and it is prohibited . What is it?

What is

a cup of peace?

Here, in the West, they interpreted it: A cup in a mourner’s house,

where it is customary to drink wine.

In the West they said: A cup

of hot water

in the bathhouse.

For one who bathes but does not drink hot water is comparable to an oven that was heated on the outside but not on the inside [as stated in tractate Shabbat 41a].

We learned in our Mishna:

And he may not provide sustenance for his animal, etc.

It was taught in a beraita: Yehoshua Ish Uza says: He may provide sustenance for

the one who imposed the prohibition’s

Canaanite male and female slaves

of the one prohibited by the vow, with extra sustenance.

And he may not provide sustenance for his animal, whether it is impure—

or whether it is pure,

even with extra sustenance, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in our Mishna.

What is the reason?

His Canaanite male and female slaves—

they are made for slaughtering .

That is, they are not intended to be eaten, but merely to be slaughtered . Therefore, it is permitted to provide them with extra sustenance, since he does not benefit from doing so.

But

an animal—

is made to be fattened,

and he benefits from its being fattened, since he can sell it to a gentile for a higher price.

Mishna:

One who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting from his fellow and enters to visit him

during his illness,

stands, but may not sit.

And he may heal him with healing of the soul, but not with healing of property.

The Gemara will explain what is meant by healing of the soul and what is meant by healing of property.

Gemara: