A father forbids himself his son’s benefit — for his son, so that he not be torn from study by the thousand small services a son renders his father. And yet three services remain permitted: filling a jar, lighting the lamp, roasting a small fish. Why? Because we presume he did not aim at what costs almost no study time. Then the siman turns to property: the vow that outlives the dead, the estate suspended on a grandson becoming a man of learning, and what a forbidden heir may do with property he has no right to touch. (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 223 — 4 seifim)
המדיר עצמו מהנאת בנו כדי שלא יתבטל הבן מלימודו בשבילו מותר הבן למלאות לו חבית של מים ולהדליק לו את הנר ולצלות לו דג קטן
One who forbids himself the benefit of his son, so that the son not be diverted from his study on his account — the son is permitted to fill him a jar of water, to light his lamp and to roast him a small fish. The vow is here an instrument for protecting study; and the permission that follows says what such a vow cannot have meant to aim at.
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 223:1LEVEL 01
The four seifim in Hebrew, their translation, their clause-by-clause breakdown, the vocabulary (מילי זוטרי · ביטול תורה · אנן סהדי · קני על מנת להקנות · טובת הנאה · מראה להם מקום), the sources — נדרים ל״ח ע״ב, נדרים מ״ז ע״א, נדרים מ״ח ע״ב, בבא קמא ק״ח ע״ב, the Rambam, the Tur, the Beit Yosef, the parallel in חושן משפט — and the fourteen apparatus entries quoted one by one.
📖 StudyLEVEL 02
Pilpul: the grammatical ambiguity of המדיר בנו and the two Rishonim who resolve it in opposite senses; two distinct reasons for two permissions, and the limit the Yerushalmi sets to the second; קני על מנת להקנות, Rav Naḥman’s סודר and the three readings of the word “מותר”; then seif ד — the Ran’s מראה להם מקום, the Maharshal’s order, the Taz’s defence of the Tur and the Nekudot HaKesef’s pinprick.
📖 StudyLEVEL 03
A synthesis arranged by mechanism: presumption, duration, acquisition, exit. Then the clause-by-clause table in the order of the book, the four open disputes, the vocabulary, the golden rules and the five classic pitfalls.
📖 StudyLEVEL 04
The practical halakha: distinguishing the two vows that bear the same name, the measure of the permission, the seven words that cross death, and the four things to know before a forbidden heir touches anything. Note: the Admur HaZaken did not write a Shulḥan Arukh on Yoreh De’ah — a level of psak, not “Daat HaRav”.
📖 StudyNo, and that is the commonest misreading of this text. The Shulḥan Arukh writes « המדיר עצמו מהנאת בנו כדי שלא יתבטל הבן מלימודו בשבילו » (שו״ע יו״ד רכ״ג:א): it is the father who deprives himself, and he does it so that his son may study. The Rambam reads the case the other way, and the Tur reports it; but the Meḥaber chose the reading of the Ramban and the Rosh.
Because a vow is read according to what we presume the man meant. The Shakh gives the measure: « דמסתמא ממילי זוטרי כי האי דליכא בהו ביטול תורה כל כך לא אדריה » (ש״ך יו״ד רכ״ג ס״ק א). The criterion is therefore not the size of the service but what it costs in study time.
Then, according to the Shakh, the Taz and the Ba’ḥ, the reason for the permission falls away and even these small services are forbidden. This is a divergence from the Rambam, who permits them in that case too. Since the Meḥaber reported only the Ramban’s reading, the two commentators draw that consequence.
Only if he said so. “You are forbidden my benefit” lapses at his death, because the property is no longer “his”. If he added “in my lifetime and after my death”, the son does not inherit. The gemara derives a general principle from this: « אדם אוסר דבר שברשותו לכשיצא מרשותו » (נדרים מ״ז ע״א).
Three positions, and they must be known before acting. The Ran: he does not give, he shows the place and withdraws. The Beit Yosef at siman 216: an actual gift to the sons and brothers is permitted because he informs them. The Maharshal gives a complete order — and expressly excludes the heir’s own children. A real case goes to a Rav before any step is taken.
The Pitḥei Teshuva surveys later responsa; his absence means that modern questions have not fallen on this matter, where practice is rare. He is read at simanim 224 and 225, and abundantly at siman 228, on the dissolution of vows. No entry has been manufactured here to complete a table.