Mishnah: They are forbidden matters of that city.

Explanation: The city in which they live, because people of another city have no share in them. The seven elders of the city can sell them in the presence of the city residents. They are like partners in them, who forbid to each other.

Mishnah: The Teivah.

Explanation: On which they put the Sefer Torah to read it, and Seforim in which they read. (Rashash asks that this is always called the Bimah; the Teivah is [an Aron] in which Seforim are put.)

Mishnah: And one who writes his share to the Nasi.

Explanation: The Gemara explains, what is their solution? They write their shares to the Nasi

Via this it is permitted, like the Mishnah (later on this Amud) says, he gives a gift to another, and [the Mudar] is permitted.

Mishnah: For one who writes his share to the Nasi, he need not acquire.

Explanation: Once he wrote a gift document, he acquired, even though no person acquired for him, because the Nasi has extra rights.

Explanation: A person does not resolve to be Makneh to someone else, for he fears lest he forbid it to him. Therefore, the custom was to write to the Nasi, for he is not wont to forbid Hana'ah from himself to people.

Question: According to Rabanan, who say that both of them require Zechiyah (someone to acquire for him), what is the Chidush of the Mishnah? This was taught twice (in Mishnayos! The coming Mishnah says,) one gives to another for a gift, and the other one (who was Mudar from the original owner) is permitted in it!

Granted, R. Yehudah teaches that he does not need Zechiyah. However, according to Rabanan, what is the Chidush? (I do not understand his question. The extra Mishnah was taught due to R. Yehudah; Rabanan needed to teach that they argue with R. Yehudah! - PF)

Answer: It seems to me that the Chidush is, even though the other does not withdraw from what he gave, for he still uses the Beis ha'Keneses like initially, it is permitted;

We do not say that it is a mere ruse, and he is forbidden. Our Mishnah, which teaches that they are forbidden a matter of that city, is Rabanan, and not R. Eliezer ben Yakov, like he said above (46b) that the Beis ha'Keneses is like a Chatzer without Din Chalukah;

Consequence: Therefore, since above we ruled like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, the Halachah does not follow our Mishnah.

Question: Why did the Rambam rule in Hilchos Nedarim (7:4-6) like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, and he rules also like Mishnah? The Ramban in his Halachos already challenged him, how he awards the document to two parties (rules like contradictory opinions).

Mishnah: If one was Mudar Hana'ah from his friend.

Implied question: This Mishnah was taught above in our Perek (43a. Why was it repeated here?)

Answer: It was repeated here only for a Chidush - if the end reveals about the beginning, it is a ruse, and he is forbidden.

Mishnah: He was marrying off his son.

Explanation: The Madir was marrying off his son.

Implied question: A gift on condition to return it is considered a gift, even though if he was Makdish it, it is not Kodesh!

We say in Bava Basra (137b) [that if one said] "on condition that you return it to me", if he was Makdish it, it is not Kadosh, for [the giver] intended for something proper for him.

Answer: There is different, for in any case at the time it was a gift;

However, this gift of Beis Choron, even at the time it was not [a gift]. He did not intend be Makneh to him at all, only that it should be called on the name [of the recipient] so that his (the giver's) father would be permitted.

Support: This is why the Mishnah says "any gift that is not, that if he was Makdish it, it is not Kadosh...", and it did not say "any gift that if he was Makdish it, it is not Kadosh...";

The Tana means that any gift that is not anything, like this, which is a ruse, that if he was Makdish it, it is not Kadosh, is not a gift.

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi): R. Yirmeyah asked, can a person not give a gift on condition that [the recipient] not be Makdish it?!

Citation (cont.): We must explain our Mishnah to mean that any gift that is a ruse, that it is not [a real gift], that if he was Makdish it, it is not Kadosh, is not a gift.

Gemara: What is their solution?

Explanation: So they will not be forbidden.

Gemara: The episode contradicts [the law that was taught]!

Explanation: It does not literally mean that it contradicts it, for here is different. He said, they are not in front of you...

Rather, he asks that initially, the Tana permits. Why does he bring an episode in which it is forbidden? The Tana normally brings an episode to support what the Reisha taught!

Gemara: If the end proves about the beginning.

Explanation: The end reveals about the beginning, that it is a ruse, e.g. the gift in Beis Choron, in which he concluded his words and said 'they are not in front of you...'

Distinction: However, whenever he did not say [so] explicitly, even though the matter itself proves that he gave only in order that the Mudar benefit, even so, it is a gift.

Gemara: We learned only when he said 'they are in front of you only...'

Explanation: This is an absolute stipulation.

Distinction: However, if he said 'and father will come', he means 'if you will consent.' It is not a stipulation. It is an absolute gift, just if he wants, he will do so (let his father come).

Support: This is like it says in Beitzah (20a). A man said, 'give 400 Zuz to Ploni, and he will marry my daughter.' Rava said, he receives 400 Zuz; if he wants, he marries [her]; if he wants, he does not marry [her].

Explanation: Granted, in general "and he will come" is not a Tanai (stipulation). Here is different, for we can testify that a man does not prepare a feast for his son's Nisu'in and give it to someone else;

Therefore, the feast proves that what he said "and father will come" is an absolute Tanai.

Opinion #1: However, the Rashba wrote that this is only when he said so at the time of the gift, but not [if he said] afterwards, since at the time of the gift he did not say anything.

Opinion #2: However, the Rambam wrote (in Hilchos Nedarim 7:15) that even [if he said so] afterwards it is forbidden, and it is not a gift.

Gemara: A man had a son who used to detach bundles of flax.

Explanation: He used to steal bundles of flax.

Explanation: [If your grandson will be a Chacham,] what will be with him? Why shouldn't he acquire [the property]?

Question: (What was their objection?) Even though he forbade the property to him (the son), the grandson acquires!

Source: We wrote above (47a DH v'Havi) that one who forbade his property to his son, even though [the son] may not benefit from it, in any case the property itself is his. This is why the Mishnah teaches that he gives to his sons or brothers!

Therefore, the grandson inherits if he is a Chacham or Am ha'Aretz. Also in his lifetime, if he wants to give to his son, he can, like the Mishnah says "he gives to his sons or brothers", like I explained above (47a)!

Answer: This episode was as follows. The man had two sons. One was proper, and the other stole bundles of flax.

People understood that he wanted to give [all] his property to the proper son, therefore they said to him "if your [evil] son's son will be a Chacham, why shouldn't he acquire the property?"

He answered "you said properly. Let [my evil son] acquire half, and if his son will be a Chacham, his son will acquire that half. If not, all will be to the proper son.

Explanation: Even though a gift on condition to return it is considered a gift, there is different, for in any case he merits it at the time and may use it;

However, here he was not Makneh to his son in order that his son would acquire at all, only in order that [the son's] son will acquire if he will be a Chacham, so he did not acquire;

The proper son acquired all of the property, for whenever the other did not acquire, he was Makneh to this one.

Gemara: And Rav Nachman said, 'acquire on condition to transfer ownership', he acquired.

Explanation: Even though he did not give to this [recipient] at all, only in order that he will transfer ownership to Ploni.

Gemara: Behold, Kinyan Sudar (Chalipin) is 'acquire on condition to transfer ownership'!

Explanation: When [the buyer] give to the scarf to the Makneh, he does not give to him rights in it for anything, only that he should acquire it in order to be Makneh his land. And even so, it is considered a Kinyan, for via this, the buyer acquires the field. This shows that such a Kinyan acquires!

Gemara: Rav Ashi told him, who will tell us that if he seized the scarf to keep it, he does not keep it?

Explanation: I.e. what is your source that if the Makneh wants to keep it absolutely, he cannot do so?

Explanation: I.e. if you will say that [Kinyan] Sudar is 'acquire on condition to transfer ownership', it does have an advantage;

It is 'acquire on condition to transfer ownership from now', before he returns the scarf, he is Makneh to the buyer, for a Stam Kinyan is from now.

Distinction: However, this property - when does he acquire it? When he will have a son who is a Chacham;

Presumably, since he was Makneh to him only in order to be Makneh to his son, surely he did not want him to acquire until that time, for what should he do with the property in the meantime?

Explanation: That entire Kinyan ceased, whether he was Makneh via Kinyan [Sudar] or via Chazakah.

Implied question: Rav Nachman, who says that Kinyan on condition to be Makneh, it acquires, he agrees that one who is Makneh [for] after 30 days does not acquire;

He himself said in Kesuvos (82a) that one who says "do Meshichah on this cow, and acquire it only after 30 days", he does not acquire if [after 30 days] it is in the swamp! (Since it is not in his Reshus, the Meshichah lapsed.)

Answer: Here, Rav Nachman thought that since [the father] did not explicitly say that he should not acquire until he is a Chacham, and he said Stam, it is as if he said 'from now, and when he will be [a Chacham].'

Rav Ashi rejected this. Since he wanted to be Makneh only in order that his grandson acquire, presumably he intended that he not acquire until that time, and at that time, the Kinyan lapsed.

Opinion #1: We say so (one does not acquire after the Kinyan lapsed) only for Kinyan [Sudar], Meshichah and Chazakah, which do not last;

However, Kinyan via a document, since the document is intact when his grandson is a Chacham, it acquires.

Source: If one was Mekadesh a woman with a document, and said "you are Mekudeshes to me after 30 days", she is Mekudeshes [then] if the document was not lost or torn;

The same applies to a Get, like it says there. This is from the Rashba.

Opinion #2: I say that here, even a document does not help, for here the man commands [who will receive his property] due to [imminent] death. If he does not acquire at the time [of his command], also after death he does not acquire, for a document does not acquire after death.

Support: This is why Rav Ashi argued Stam. (He did not say that if he wrote a document, the Kinyan works.)

Gemara: Rava said to Rav Nachman, behold, the gift of Beis Choron was 'acquire on condition to be Makneh', and he did not acquire!

Explanation: If he acquired, the Mudar would be permitted, for someone else interrupted (owned the property) in the middle.

Explanation #1: A person is not wont to give to someone else a feast that he prepared for his son's Nisu'in. Therefore, it is merely a ruse, and it is forbidden. My Rebbeyim explained like this.

Question: Granted, [his feast] proves about him. Also here, he explicitly said that he does not give anything to his son, only in order to be Makneh to his grandson;

Even so we ask that if he acquires, also the gift of Beis Choron should have been permitted, even though he said "they are not in front of you...";

In any case, since he acquired, another person interrupted [between the Madir and the Mudar]. If so, what was the answer "his feast proves about him"? Does it prove more than what he explicitly said "they are not in front of you...]"?

Answer (and Explanation #2): "His feast proves about him" that the Madir wanted his father to benefit from the feast that he made for his son. This is the normal case;

For his father to benefit from another man's meal, what does [his son] care about this [whether or not he benefits]? Therefore, his meal proves about him, that his father benefits from him;

However, here, just the contrary, this man wants [the gift to his son to be valid, so] his sons' son will benefit from his father (the evil son), for this is the order of inheritance, and not that the inheritance should jump from him to his grandson!

Explanation: The law of Vitur does not apply here. Rather, he said so for a mere comparison. Just like R. Eliezer is more stringent about Nedarim than monetary laws...

Regarding monetary laws, Drisas ha'Regel is permitted, and it is not considered theft, but regarding one who is Mudar Hana'ah from his friend, he may not enter his Chatzer;

Also here, granted, "acquire on condition to be Makneh" acquires regarding monetary laws, but due to a stringency of Nedarim, we say that it does not acquire.

Gemara: Does this not include the case of [the gift for the son of the son who stole] bundles (i.e. the Kinyan is invalid)?

Explanation: Even for monetary laws, 'acquire on condition to be Makneh' does not acquire.

Gemara: No, it includes the expression in Version #2 of Rava's teaching (48a).

Explanation: Even if he said 'father will come and eat', it is forbidden, for his feast proves about him.