Nedarim - Daf 48
- מעשה בית חורון
The next Mishnah records an incident in which someone’s father was mudar hana’ah from him, and he wanted his father to be able to enjoy his son’s wedding. He therefore gifted the courtyard and banquet to another person, adding, “They are only yours so that my father can attend and join in the meal.” The recipient declared that if they are his, he is makdish them. When the giver objected that it was not given it to him for such a purpose, he responded,נתת לי את שלך אלא שתהא אתה ואביך אוכלין ושותין ומתרצין זה לזה, ויהא עון תלוי בראשו – “You gave to me only that you and your father should eat and drink together and appease each other, and the sin will hang on [my] head for facilitating it!” The Chochomim said that any gift that the recipient does not have the ability to be makdish, the gift is not valid and it is not truly his. The Gemara explains that the gift was ineffective here because הוכיח סופו על תחילתו – the end of his statement showed the true intent of the beginning (i.e., by explicitly stating that he was giving it only to allow his father to attend), that he never meant for it to become the recipient’s.
- קני על מנת להקנות
The Gemara records an incident in which someone made a neder prohibiting his property on his wayward son (the Ran adds that he had another son to whom he intended to gift his property before his death). When it was pointed out that his grandson may yet become a talmid chochom, he declared, ליקני הדין, ואי הואי בר ברי צורבא מרבנן לקנייה – “Let this [wayward] one acquire [half the property], and if my grandson becomes a talmid chochom, he will acquire it then.” The Pumbediseans said about this transaction: קני על מנת להקנות הוא – This is a case of “acquire in order to transfer” to another, in that the wayward son only acquired the property insofar as it would later become his own son’s. In their opinion, all such transactions are invalid. Rav Nachman disagreed and said even such acquisitions are valid.
- If קני על מנת להקנות can be proven from סודר
Rav Nachman sought to prove that קני על מנת להקנות is a valid kinyan from a kerchief used to effect חליפין. There, the recipient does not keep or use it; his receiving it is only to effect his transacting property to the other party, after which he returns the kerchief. Still, it is sufficient to enable the transaction, which shows that such a transaction is legitimate. Rav Ashi deflected this proof on two accounts. First, ומאן לימא לן דסודרא אי תפיס ליה לא מיתפיס – who is to tell us that if he seizes the kerchief, it is not seized, meaning that although the recipient generally returns the kerchief, it is possible that if he chooses to keep it, he may, and that is why receiving the kerchief is able to effect the חליפין. Second, the transaction created by the kerchief is effective immediately, while the kerchief is still in the possession of the recipient, but in the case of the wayward son, the act making the transaction is done long before the actual acquisition takes effect (since he only wants the grandson to take possession if and when he becomes a talmid chochom), and such a kinyan is ineffective.
