Nedarim 48a — the Talmud in English

And

both of them

are forbidden with regard to an object belonging to that city

in which they reside. For the inhabitants of another city have no share in these objects, and the inhabitants of the city can sell them; and if so, they are like partners who can forbid one another from benefiting.

And what is an object belonging to those who ascended from Babylonia?

For example, the Temple Mount, the Temple courtyards, and the pit in the middle of the road,

from which those making the pilgrimage drink.

And what is an object belonging to that city?

For example, the public square, the bathhouse, and the synagogue ,

And the platform

on which they place a Torah scroll for reading ,

And the books

[the Torah books from which they read] .

And one who writes his share to the ruler.

And the Gemara explains that the intention of the Mishna is as follows: What is their remedy, so that they will be permitted to use objects belonging to that city? Let those who imposed the prohibition write their share to the ruler, and then those prohibited by vow from receiving benefit will be permitted. As we learned, one who prohibits his fellow by vow can give the object to another as a gift, and then the one prohibited by vow from receiving benefit is permitted to benefit from it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One

who

writes

his share

to the ruler, and one

who

writes it to an ordinary person —

it is effective so that they will be permitted.

But

what

is the difference

between writing to the ruler —

and writing to an ordinary person?

For one who

writes his share

to the ruler,

as soon as he writes him a deed of gift, the ruler acquires it — and

there is no need

for another person

to acquire it

on his behalf.

But one who writes it

to an ordinary person —

needs

another person

to acquire it

on his behalf.

And the Sages say: This one,

the ruler,

and this one,

the ordinary person —

need to acquire it,

and writing it to the ruler is not effective without acquisition .

And why did the tan​nay mention specifically “one who writes his share to the ruler”?

They spoke of the ruler —

but only because that is the usual case.

For it is not customary to transfer ownership to another person, because the transferor fears that that person will prohibit him from benefiting from it. Therefore they write to the ruler, for it is not his practice to prohibit his benefit to people.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The inhabitants of the Galilee do not need to write

their share to the ruler, because

their fathers had already written it on their behalf

[for them].

Gemara:

And we wonder: One who writes his share to the ruler —

why is it forbidden?

Rav Sheshet said: This is what it teaches: And what is their remedy? Let them write their share to the ruler.

And as was explained in the Mishna.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The inhabitants of the Galilee do not need to acquire it, for their fathers had already written it on their behalf.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The inhabitants of the Galilee were contentious, and they

were accustomed to be

prohibited by vow from receiving benefit from one another.

Their fathers arose —

and wrote their shares to the ruler,

so that they would always be permitted.

Mishna:

One prohibited by vow from receiving benefit from his fellow, and he has no

for the one prohibited by vow

what

he may

eat, gives it

the one who imposed the prohibition

to another as a gift —

and the latter,

the one prohibited by vow,

is permitted to benefit from it.

An incident

occurred

with someone in Beit Horon

[a place],

whose father was prohibited by vow

[prohibited by vow from receiving benefit]

from him, and

the son

was marrying off his son,

and he wanted his father to come to the meal. But he could not invite him, since his father was prohibited by vow from receiving benefit from him.

And

the one who imposed the prohibition

said to his fellow: “The courtyard and the meal are given to you

[that is, they are given to you],

except that Father should come —

and eat with us at the meal.”

His fellow said:

“If they are mine” —

“then they are consecrated to Heaven!”

then they are consecrated to Heaven!”

He said to him:

“Did I give you what is mine so that you should

consecrate it to Heaven?

I gave it to you so that my father would be able to participate with me in the meal!”

His fellow said to him:

“Did you

give me what is yours except so that you and your father would eat and drink and become reconciled with one another, and the sin would be hanging upon his head

[he said this regarding himself]?

The Sages said: Any gift that is not

acquired by the recipient in such a manner

that if he consecrates it, it will be consecrated —

is not

considered a

gift .

Gemara:

And we wonder: Is it the way of the Mishna to bring

an incident that contradicts

its initial statements?

For at the beginning of the Mishna we learned that he can give it to another as a gift, and then the one prohibited by vow from receiving benefit will be permitted.

And how does the tan​nay teach in the latter part an incident in which, even though he gave it to another, the one prohibited by vow is forbidden?!

And we explain: Our Mishna

is incomplete, and this is what it teaches: But if the end of his words proved

[the end of his words]

what was in their beginning,

that he did not intend to give it to another as a complete gift, but it was only a subterfuge, as with the gift of Beit Horon, where he said at the end, “They are before you except that Father should come” —

it is forbidden.

But if he did not state it explicitly, even though the matter itself proves that he did not intend to give it except so that the one prohibited by vow from receiving benefit would enjoy it, nevertheless it is a gift — and it is permitted.

And there was likewise an incident in Beit Horon, with someone whose end proved what was in his beginning,

and the Sages said that in such a case it is forbidden.

Rava said: They taught this only when he said to him

the son said to that person:

“They are before you except that Father should come.”

For this expression is an absolute condition: he gave it to him specifically on this condition, so that the father would come and eat.

But

if he

said to him: “They should be before you, so that Father may come,”

then this is not a condition at all, but

according to your decision,

if you wish, Father will come and eat

— that is what he said to him.

And in such a case it is a complete gift, and it is permitted .

Another version —

they say

Rava’s words as follows:

Rava said: Do not say

that

the reason

of the tan​nay of our Mishna is specifically because

he said to him: “They are before you” —

it is forbidden, but

if he

said to him, “They are before you, so that Father will come and eat” —

it is permitted.

Rather, even

if he

said to him, “They are before you; let Father come and eat,”

although generally such an expression is not an expression of a condition, nevertheless here

it is forbidden.

What is the reason?

Because

his meal

which he prepared for the wedding

proves it against him.

For surely a person does not prepare a meal for the marriage of his son and give it to another person! Necessarily, when he said, “Let Father come,” he intended an absolute condition .