«قَافْلَهْ فَايْتَهْ وَلَا حْمَارْ مَرْبُوطْ»

Here wala means 'rather than', not 'and no': a large but one-off expense is easier to bear than a small one that never stops. Feeding a whole band of travelers who stop by and then leave costs less, in the end, than keeping one animal tethered at home that must be fed every day.

More broadly, it warns against underestimating recurring burdens. A modest commitment that lingers indefinitely can drain resources and patience far more than a single burst of generosity. The variant with a young donkey stresses that even a light, inexpensive dependent becomes costly when the obligation is permanent.

Use it when weighing a single generous outlay against an open-ended obligation: hosting many guests briefly versus supporting one lingering dependent, or paying a lump sum versus an ongoing fee. It carries a wry, practical tone suited to everyday talk about household costs.