Siman 222 — Providing for One’s Daughter When the Son-in-Law Is מודר הנאה
One seif, and thirteen commentary entries attach to it: density is not a matter of length. A father wishes to give to his daughter, and his son-in-law has been made מודר הנאה from him. But a husband eats the fruits of his wife’s property: to give to the daughter is in law to give to the son-in-law. The seif offers no detour but a formula — the gift, the clause “your husband has no right in them”, and the designation of a use. Then it examines the three ways that formula can fail, and there Rav and Shmuel, the Rambam and the Tur, the Shakh and the Sha’ar HaMelekh part ways. (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 222 — 1 seif)
המודר מחתנו והוא רוצה לתת לבתו מעות כדי שתהא נהנית בהם ומוציאה אותם בחפציה הרי זה נותן לה ואומר לה הרי המעות הללו נתונים לך במתנה ובלבד שלא יהא לבעליך רשות בהן אלא יהיו למה שאת נותנת לתוך פיך או למה שתלבשי וכיוצא בזה
One who is מודר from his son-in-law and wishes to give money to his daughter so that she may enjoy it and spend it on her needs — he gives her and says: behold, these coins are given to you as a gift, provided only that your husband have no right in them, but let them be for what you put into your mouth, or for what you will wear, or the like. The whole siman lies in that formula.
Choulhan Aroukh, Yoreh De'ah 222:1
The 4 study levels
LEVEL 01
רמת המתחיל
Base — Beginner & Intermediate
The single seif in Hebrew, with fluent English translation and a clause-by-clause breakdown: why it is money and not food, the two members of the formula, the designation that makes it hold, מה שתרצי עשי and the division between Shmuel and Rav, and the three ways the formula can fail. The thirteen commentary entries — Shakh, Taz, Ba’er Hetev, Pit’hei Teshuva, Nekudot HaKesef — cited one by one, with the mishna, the Gemara, the Rambam, the Tur and the Beit Yosef.
The pilpul: אכילת פירות and יד אשה כיד בעלה; Rav against Shmuel in נדרים פ״ח and the Taz’s identification — the Rambam for the one, the Tur and the Rosh for the other; the Shakh’s פשיטא against the Sha’ar HaMelekh’s four Rishonim; the Taz’s ק״ו against the Derisha; the question at ס״ק ג and the counter-vow that does not help; and the Nekudot HaKesef’s dissertation for the Raavad, from the sugya in Kiddushin and the Yerushalmi at the end of Nedarim.
Revision: the mechanism in three steps, the formula and its four states in a table, the seif clause by clause in the order of the book, the vocabulary — מודר הנאה, אכילת פירות, יד אשה כיד בעלה, מה שתרצי עשי, מי שמוחזק המע״ה — and four classic pitfalls.
Halakha lema‘asse: the complete three-part formula and why one does not depart from it, what requires nothing at all, the two points of open divergence and the conduct that sidesteps them, the device the Taz rejects — and the reason that holds beyond this siman: a vow one takes on oneself can be released. With the constant referral: actual conduct belongs to the Rav.
Why is a formula needed? My son-in-law will not touch this money.
That is exactly the Taz’s question at ס״ק ג — and his answer shifts the problem:
« וי״ל כיון שעכ״פ זכה במתנה בקבלת אשתו ה״ל כאילו הוא קיבל מחמיו וחוזר ונותן אח״כ לאשתו » (ט״ז יו״ד רכ״ב ס״ק ג)
The prohibition does not depend on what the son-in-law will do: it is complete the moment his wife receives, because the husband acquires with her. That is why the formula is necessary, and a Rav must validate it.And if I simply wish to feed my daughter?
Then there is no formula to say. The Shakh writes so in his very first ס״ק:
« אבל אם רוצה לתת לה מזונות אין צריך לומר לה כלום לפי שאין לבעלה זכייה בהם שהרי זן אשתו ובניו במודר הנאה כדלעיל סי׳ רכ״א ס״ב » (ש״ך יו״ד רכ״ב ס״ק א)
The reason is that the husband is himself the debtor of his wife’s maintenance: he therefore has no right there to acquire. Where exactly does the line run between feeding and endowing? The question goes to a Rav.May I say only “do with it what you wish”?
The seif writes that one may, and that is the Rambam’s position following Shmuel. But it at once reports the contrary view:
« ויש אומרים דאפי׳ באומר לה על מנת שאין לבעליך רשות בהם ומה שתרצי תעשי בהם קנה הבעל ואסור בהם » (שו״ע יו״ד רכ״ב:א)
That is the Tur’s position in the Rosh’s name, following Rav. The conduct that avoids the debate is to name the use — food, clothing — which all admit. Ask your Rav.My son-in-law is willing to vow himself off benefiting. Does that settle it?
No. That is what the Perisha proposed, and the Taz rejects it at ס״ק ג; the Ba’er Hetev takes it up and concludes explicitly against her:
« ולפ״ז נראה ברור דאף אם גם החתן הדיר עצמו מנכסי חמיו לא מהני שיחן חמיו מתנה לאשתו דמ״ש הדיר גם הוא מהדירו חמיו ותו דגרע טפי דנדרו יכול להתיר וירצה ליהנות ממנו ע״כ לא מהני כלל מה שהדיר ג״כ בעצמו ודלא כפרישה ע״ש » (באר היטב יו״ד רכ״ב ס״ק ב)
Two reasons: the object remains forbidden to him in any case, and above all his own vow can be released — after which he will want to benefit. Such an arrangement is not put together without a Rav.