Matters of the returning exiles include the Temple mount, the courtyards, and wells in the middle of the road;

Matters of the city include the street, the bathhouse, the Beis ha'Keneses, the Aron, and Sifrei Torah.

R. Yehudah says, if one wrote that his share in these things should belong to the Nasi (the leader), this is like giving his share to a commoner;

The only difference is, when one writes his share to the Nasi, no Kinyan (acquisition) is needed. If he writes to a commoner, a Kinyan is needed.

Chachamim say, in either case a Kinyan is needed. The Nasi was mentioned only because it was common to write one's share to the Nasi.

R. Yehudah says, inhabitants of Galil need not write their shares (to permit people who vowed not to benefit), for their ancestors already gave their shares (to the Nasi).

(Gemara) Question: Why is the Mudar forbidden when the Noder wrote his share in these things to the Nasi?

Correction (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah means, the solution for people who vowed from each other is to write their shares to the Nasi.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Inhabitants of Galil not need write their shares, for their ancestors already wrote their shares.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Inhabitants of Galil were quarrelsome, and often vowed not to benefit from each other. Therefore, their ancestors already gave their shares to the Nasi.

(Mishnah): If Reuven was Mudar Hana'ah from Shimon, and Reuven has nothing to eat, Shimon may give a gift to Levi, and Reuven may eat it.

A case occurred in Beis Choron in which Yakov was Mudar Hana'ah from his son Reuven. Reuven was marrying off his son. He told a friend David 'the courtyard and the banquet are yours, only in order that my father can eat with us.'

David: If they are mine, I say that they are Hekdesh!

Reuven: I did not give them to you to make them Hekdesh!

David: You gave them to me in order that you and your father will eat together, and I will bear the sin!

Chachamim: If the recipient of a gift cannot make it Hekdesh, it is not a gift.

(Gemara) Question: The case brought does not support the law taught!

Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means, if it later becomes evident that the gift was insincere, it is forbidden;

Such a case occurred in Beis Choron.

Version #1 (Rava): This applies only when he said 'they are yours only in order that father will come';

But if he said 'they are yours, so father will come', he means 'if you want' (and this is permitted, for the gift was unconditional).

Version #2 (Rava): Do not think that this is only when he said 'they are not yours (except for father to come)'; but if he said 'they are yours so father will come', this is permitted;

Rather, even in the latter case it is forbidden.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The banquet proves what his intention is. (It was not an unconditional gift.)

Shimon's son used to steal flax. Shimon forbade his property to his son.

Shimon's friends: What if a son of your son will be a Chacham?

Shimon: My son should acquire the property on condition to give it to his son if his son will be a Chacham. (If my son's son will not be a Chacham, my son should not acquire.)

Question: Does this work?

Answer #1 (Chachamim of Pumbedisa): No. One cannot acquire on condition to give to someone else.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): It works. One who does Chalipin (a Kinyan made through giving a garment) takes the garment only in order to give something else!

Objection #1 (Rav Ashi): Perhaps the one who takes the garment can keep it (and Rav Nachman has no proof)!

Objection #2 (Rav Ashi): One who does Chalipin takes the garment in order to give now to someone else;

In the above case, Shimon's son acquires only when his son will be a Chacham. By then the garment (used for Chalipin) has already been returned (I.e. the Kinyan lapsed.)!

Question (Rava, against Rav Nachman): The case of the gift of Beis Choron was a Kinyan on condition to give to someone else, and it did not work!

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): There, the banquet proves that the gift was insincere.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): Our Mishnah is like R. Eliezer, who forbids even Vitur (small benefits) to one who is Mudar Hana'ah. (Just like he is stringent about Mudar Hana'ah, he is stringent here.)

(Mishnah - Chachamim): Any gift that the recipient cannot make Hekdesh is not a gift.

Question: Which case is included by the word 'any'?

Suggestion: It includes this case (the gift for the sake of the grandson; the Kinyan is invalid)!

Answer: No, it includes the expression in Version #2 of Rava (48a. Even if he said 'they are yours in order that father will come', this is forbidden.)