Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 36b

This Torah class is brought to you by tora anytime.com. Okay, shalom dear friends. Good evening. We are continuing in dashim vomar is going on the Mishna. The Mishna said chumis that if somebody is also to give hana to his friend then you are allowed to take off chuma for your friend. So now we have a very interesting shila. They had a question in the yeshiva. If you take off truma from your own produce onto your friend's produce, do you need his dust or not? Basically like this, you have two guys. Ruvane has let's say a pile of grain and Shimine has a pile of grain and let's say Ruvane wants to help out Shemine. So Ruvane is going to be mafish from his grain in order to make Shimon's grain permitted. So the question is does Ruvane need the das of Shim? In other words, does Ruven have to ask Shimon, can I do you this favor? Think about it. Ruvane is doing Shimon a very big favor over here. Shimon has grain. Normally he would have to give about 150th to the cayenne in order to eat his produce. Ruven is giving 150th of that amount on behalf of Shim. So what's the Shila? Is this considered normally I can do things for you if they're good for you, right? We know there's a rule. If I'm walking down the street and I see a million dollars, I could pick it up for you and you own it. Now the learns out that you cannot take off trauma for someone. That's talking about if I go into your field and take off Truma from your produce onto your produce where I'm not using my produce. I'm not saving you a lot of money by being mafish chuma from my stuff for your stuff. I'm going onto your field and taking off your own produce for you. So that you for sure can't do. We learned that that out from the Pik of Gamm that just like the owner can only do it with Das, so too someone for the owner can only do it with Das. The Shilin argamara is I'm not doing it on my I'm not doing it from your stuff for you. I'm doing it on my stuff for you. What's the do we say since it's a benefit for the person you don't need his um you don't need his do we say mitzvah delay he it's his mitzvah maybe he doesn't want you taking his mitzvah on the one hand you're saving him money on the other hand you're doing his mitzvah he would like to do it himself that is the shila let's see the d the says says do we say why should I be fun of you could be for a person not in his presence and we could presume he would have wanted you to be okay so the garra says we're going to bring a proof from the Mishna Tashma come and hear the Mishna says of you could take off and with his das. So now we have to figure out who's taking off the chuma meaning which produce is being used and whose das is needed. So what are we talking about? If it means that from the owner of the pile on the owner of the pile meaning if the chuma is being taken off from the grain of the owner in order to fix his produce. Okay. So with whose das if it means with um his own das what does it mean with his own das meaning the guy who's taking it off I will let's say I walk into your field and I take off truma from your field on your field let's say you have a pile of 50 uh kernels I take off one from your produce to be able to rectify your produce if lato means I do it on my own. That obviously doesn't work. Who pointed him? You could only do it with the person's. So it can't be I did it on my own. It must be I did it with your D. But then it should not be effective because I'm not to give you. The case in the Mishna is that I made I'm not going to give you Han. So how could I do it with your D? I'm giving you because I'm doing your so it can't be I'm taking it off from your produce on your produce on my own with according to my das I who made me ach I'm doing it uh I'm doing it with your das I can't be mahanu alak must be the guys taking off. I'm taking off from my produce to rectify your produce with who? If it's I'm doing it with your consent and you ask me to do it. I'm giving you and the case is I made another I'm not going to give you must be I'm doing it with my own I'm taking off from my produce to rectify your pile. That's a that I could take of chuma for you without your must be with his own and from his own produce he could take of chuma for his friend ve now now that means I could do it so meaning I'm doing it on my own I'm I'm I'm doing it on my So, I'm taking off on my friend. Now, if you're going to say, if you're going to say, "No, I'm doing it on my own, but I I still need your permission, but then if I need your permission, how could I do it for you? I'm giving you must be I don't need your says the um if I'm doing it with your cuz this guy is taking off who appointed him just like the person themsself has to do with the has to do Anyone who does you're giving it must be you're doing it on your own and it's not considered giving you it's not considered I'm doing it with Uh, I'm doing it. It's not considered giving you I'm doing it on my own. I'm not giving you anything. So, this is a to the Shiloh we had that I could take off Truma from my possession onto yours cuz I'm being mak to you even though it's your mitzvah says no. The case is I'm taking off chuma from your stuff on your stuff. I if you didn't give me permission then I'm not able to do it for you. And if you gave me permission then how can I do it for you? I'm not to give you so says a very rare case. I'm doing it from your stuff for your stuff. Like Rabba said elsewhere, you used an ambiguous form of you said anyone who wants to come take off from my stuff on my stuff could do so. So just like said elsewhere too where you said so in other words it's not a violation of the conclusion of the that you can't take off chuma from my stuff on my stuff without my permission because you got my permission I made this vague announcement anyone who wants to take off chuma could do so but it's not so then the question is so if I appointed you then and you're giving me han that you did my No, it's only a han that you did my shik if I explicitly appoint you. But in this case, I didn't explicitly appoint you. I just revealed my mindset that I wouldn't mind if you did it for me. Look in the ran like midway through the page says it nearby in the in such a case. It helps regarding chum by being that you're pleased. It's enough. In such a situation it helps because alone that it's enough regarding it's not considered giving since he didn't make him outright. So this quasi that reveals that someone could act for you allows him to do it and it's not considered not with your permission but it's not considered that he is giving you because you didn't appoint him explicitly. If you take off chuma from your own possession onto your friend who gets the benefit of the pleasure meaning like this I'm taking off truma to rectify your produce. So now it goes to the cyen. Who gets to choose which cyen it goes to? on the one hand I'm the one use I'm the one spending the money on the other hand but it's for it's for him in other words it's like this I see a guy he has a pile of grain I want him to be able to eat it so I'm mafish chuma for my stuff to fix his grain who gets to choose which ken it goes to you say what do you what what does anyone get about choosing which ken it goes to who does the ken owe gratitude for it actually has some value even though kazal prohibit the Coyen from paying a Israel, from giving him Truma. But let's say the Coyain's grandfather, his maternal grandfather is allowed to pay off another Israel, that that should give his grandson the Truma. So who gets that benefit? Let's say he's willing to pay 10 bucks. The grandfather, the Israel grandfather, you could have a person who's Israel and he has grandchildren who are khanim. So the grand so technically you could make money giving chuma by accepting money not from the coin himself but by somebody who has his interest in mind. Who gets the benefit of choosing which it goes to? What's the shah we say well if not for this guy's fruits the one who's being micha would the other guy's pile be rectified? In other words, it's all about the guy separating the chuma. If he wouldn't have separated the chuma, the other grain would not have been rectified or maybe if not for the pile of grain that needs someone to the person who's giving the chuma would not have what to be mafish for. In other words, who do we view with the primary ownership of the chuma? Well, on the one hand, well, the guy giving it, if he doesn't give it, then it's not Truma, then nothing is rectified. Or do we say, well, the is the pile that needs to be rectified says Garza said no question. The says all the grain of your planting and you should give. So the puk all the way at the end of the para of giving is connected back to the the grain that needs chuma to be taken off for. And therefore we say the rights of giving are of the owner of the grain that you're being mafish truma for. Even though that's not the literal meaning of the Puk because it's actually talking about when your m when you're p Nevertheless this is a that it says sh And then a few seconds later it says vinosata. So that the the rights of giving belong to the owner of the grain that's being given for look in the who is in the giving of the one who gives the chum or the owner of the grain that the benefit of the belongs to him. The Israel gives him that could give the Israel could give a small amount that you should give that to his grandson, the son of his daughter. Another is prohibited to give Israel anything that he should receive. Because we know that a is not even allowed to assist in the base hagrano to be for in other words a cannot assist the isel in the silo that the isra oh thank you so much here's my chuma so we're very we're very cautious that a cyen doesn't provide any even minor service to the isra in order to get chuma but still you still maintain certain benefits by giving chuma to a particular ken namely if the grandfather is is he could pay you to give it to his grandson. We actually call a who assists in the Bagano you corrupted the covenant of the ley. So do we say the is the is the one who's spending the money on the chum because if not for his fruit says of the one taking off the chuma and the gar says no it hinges the giving the owner of the of the crop the hobree fine so that's the shila who is the main Who gets the benefit of giving the truma? And the answer is the person separating it. We're going to question what said you're allowed to take offer with his knowledge. So what's the case? Presumably the I'm taking off Truma from my field with your consent. Now, so what did Reb Z say? Rezer said that um that the Oh. Zer said, "You know who gets the hana of chuma, the hana? The owner of the pile of grain." Meaning the one who the chuma is taken off for, not the one taking it off. So says, "Wait a second. It says I could take from my possessions with consent. If you are the one who's getting the benefit of who the chuma goes to, I am for you. But like said, you're the one who chooses who it goes to. So then I'm benefiting you. Meaning even if means I do it on my own but if you're the one getting the I'm benefiting you it must be the belongs to him meaning must be I get the otherwise I'm benefiting you. Sigar says no I'm that's not the case. I'm not taking chuma from my stuff onto your stuff. If I was doing that and I'm doing it with my own consent, so I'm not benefiting you, I would still be benefiting you. The you know what the cases I'm taking from your stuff on your stuff and I how am I allowed to do it? I'm doing it with your I if I'm doing your I'm no like we said earlier the case is I'm not mahana you because you didn't appoint me you just revealed in your mind that whoever wants to do it could go and do it look in the The one thing of the chum is being to give the to whoever he wants. He's taking comes out. You're actually being one who is Maktish an animal. Basically, the case is like this. You're to bring a carbon and I'm Mish the animal for you. Now let's say it needs to be redeemed. Normally when an animal that's caution needs to be redeemed, we say the owner has to add a fifth. Who's the owner here? The one who the carbon has to be brought for or the one who's sanctify the animal. In other words, I know you have to bring a carbon. So I was makish my sheep for you. And now we know that when you're when you redeem Kim, the owner has to add a fifth. So who's the owner? The one who sanctified the animal or the one who the animal is being sanctified for? The one who makish the animal adds a fifth. The makish adds a fifth. But the one who it's holy for, he's the one who can make a on the animal. Is if you exchange one animal for another animal that's already kim, the kudim is effective on the animal you exchange it for. But the den of turra is only the owner can make a tumor. So we need to determine who's the owner regarding we know the owner that redeems kachum as a fifth. The owner that makes a tim exchanges an animal of forum the takes on the kachim. These are two rules that apply to the owner. But who's the owner? If an animal for you so regarding the din of adding a fifth, I'm the owner. I was making the one who it's brought for makes the however separate truma from mine for you. I get the I was I was I took of the chuma from my stuff to you. So therefore I get the not like said I we said in the beginning there's a drash that it goes on the owner of the no we must be falling off of that look in the for the carbon and it became He wants to redeem it. The one who is it is called the owner. Regarding regarding adding a fifth alone add a fifth when you redeem the one who is atoned makes as if to say meaning to say regarding one who is in it for The of his carbon is called the owner. Regarding one who za in it in the carbon for his carbon he's called the owner and he has the ability to be mad the but the one who sanctified it does not have the ability to effectuate. cry. We learn from. So the says of the is called to it's going on to give if you give to give. Okay. So now we're up to a new suga. The Mishna said that if you're bahana, you could be mameade uh tora. You could be malamed tora. In other words, if you're the is you could be but so the question is why could you teach medish but not why can't you teach a mikra because you're in a place where normally people get paid for teaching mikra, but don't get paid for teaching med. So I can teach him mikra because I'm saving I'm teaching him and I'm not charging him and it's something that usually people pay for but people don't usually pay for medish so I could teach him medish. says my puska then it's it's not a fundamental difference. Why would the mission say oh you could you could teach a medish but you can't teach a mikra you can't teach anything if you get paid for it and if you if you don't get paid for it you could teach them both this is not a a real difference we happen to be talking about a case where they charge for one kind of learning and not the other. Okay we'll hold it over here. We're going to continue in this next week. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh just this night we had the regular because uh there's a wedding tomorrow night so that's why the was later. Okay should watch over everyone. Good night. [Applause] You've just experienced another Torah class brought to you by tora anytime.com.