Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
okay everyone
welcome this week we're gonna do tonight
and uh we'll see when we could get
to the we're starting from the mishna
on it's a short and we're starting
already a few lines in the
says there is a a vow within a
vow there's no oath within an oath
how is
this if somebody says behold
I'm if I eat this
bread this bread and he ate the bread so
he seemingly is triggering
to for each and
every which means presumably first I'm
going to tell you how some learn and the
ran rejects what I'm going to say and
learns differently the simple meaning is
if you say behold I'm an or if I eat
this behold amazer if I eat this I am
now triggering two obligatory nazos
which means there two causes making me a
nazer and therefore if I violate the
nazos I will get malus twice or if let's
say somebody says this orange is user to
me Ben and then he says this orange is
user to so then he's offered to eat the
orange for two reasons for two causes
and if he eats the orange he'll be twice
that's how learn the rejects that
approach there is no way to be to you
can't
be for one thing even though you
said you're
not but meaning you're not
for
however there is something unique about
n of all NAD usually NAD creates
an and there's no there's no time
amount that you're user on that thing
for you just say you're user to it nazus
is in periods of time 30 days so when
you say I'm a nozer if I eat this I'm a
nozer if I eat this what you're doing is
you're accepting upon yourself two
30-day slots now you already accepted
upon yourself a 30-day slot and you're
not saying that you're accepting a
30-day slot after the first 30 days so
the LDA says the obligation comes now
and you don't fulfill it until later
okay so you'll never be to uh you'll
never be to malus for doing one thing
it's just what you're doing is you're
accepting upon yourself two periods of
nazas you're accepting upon yourself two
periods of n why it's
called CU it's
now you just don't observe it until
later okay
however
but that I don't
eat only one you're only of
one
okay let's see the
the
explains if I
eat it's not
only I'm if
I the same thing would be if you
say each and every
one but since it taught
by that I didn't eat
but it's not really dependent on saying
if I eat it's even if you
said when we say for each
one to observe a period of for
each when you
say and you count 30 days carbon and you
bring a
carbon that what it means
is
you you have to observe two and you
count 30 days and you bring a
carbon then you count another 30
days and we learned this out in the in
other words what you're doing is you're
observing 30 days of naos you're
bringing a carbon and then you're
observing another 30 days of nazos and
you're bringing another
carbon learns this
out
from this is
called
why because the
second is within the time of the first
one it's just impossible to count
it oh
Until You observe the first one so it is
it's just you can't observe it until you
first observe the first
one because the is saying if it wasn't
when you made the original
NE
afterwards you're not making NE at that
time since it's not
now it's not afterwards
but
certainly
teaches so again the logic of is that
you don't observe it now it's now but
you wait until after You observe the
first 30 days to observe the second 30
days so
that's is not not not only is it not
that if you say I swear I'm not going to
eat this I swear I'm not going to eat
this if you eat it you're only once
because is not there's also no concept
of observing one time period and then
observing a second time period after
because that concept doesn't exist by an
oath BYU says the
the we don't
find not to two with one
because since he said that I'm not going
to eat this
K you're already
sworn and then you're not on a
second there's no concept of counting a
second
period That's not
applicable as opposed
to true you don't get
to we do find two
obligations when you repeat your two
times that is to count
twice as opposed
to okay so now the is bring between Runa
and Sh
exactly how can you be in two different
Nas how could you be in two different
nzas what exactly is
there oh good question
good so according to the first that I
started with that if you say you're
actually twice it would apply by all
types of
Nadar naos let's say I say I'm azer I'm
azer so if you violate the twice if I
say this banana this banana if you eat
it twice but the r the ran rejects that
so according to and now according to
the the it only gave an example of nazus
because that's the source of it is a PK
by nazus but it would apply to on but
the way the ran learns no it's only by
nazus so it's not it's not
even correct but since is a form of
right it's a form of nus but yes you're
right it's only according to the way the
r learns it's only by Nadar it's only by
nus okay now we're gonna see
further you know when this works if a
guy says I'm azer today so then we know
that minimum the zerus is 30 days so
it's for 30 days and then he says I'm a
tomorrow so if ner tomorrow
then you've extended your naer at least
one day because it's from day two to day
31 so since it's for day 31 so now it's
for a full 30 days after holds it only
we only learned
this since you're adding one day
if you say I'm today I'm
to is
not because you're not adding anything
okay and ACC to
raun okay fine I'm
sorry even if you said
so according to you have to add
something and once you added one thing
one day even it's for 30 more days and
according
to then it is even if you
said to observe
later instead of the mishna saying in
the world there's no Within
why does it have to go when it
says why does it have to say oh you know
when it's
not even within the itself it's not when
if you're not adding
anything
list instead of saying but there's no
with teach there is a within a
and there's not a within
a if somebody says behold I'm a today
behold I'm
tomorrow this is like a classic LIF
leg instead of going to left field to
find the case that doesn't work you
should show within NE itself it doesn't
work
it's why the Mna didn't
say if you just
say but
in it um
even would
not um work um does work so the only
thing that doesn't work
is so men's thinking what do you mean
even in Shu why did we have have to go
to that doesn't
work doesn't work
either except for works but every other
form of doesn't work
either you see according to the first
and that we learned that it always works
byad you can't ask that question in but
according to the ran that this is a
special din
by
that because you could observe one
period after another so then why
would why is it any better in sh in sh
also we could ask what that why does the
have to
say all other so the r says like this
really I should read inside but it's not
a legislated ran so I'm not going I'm
tell you outside and let's see if we can
explain it
clearly the round says like this this is
not a classic question
of because anyway the purpose of this
mishna is to find the of over
shua what why is this mishna listed we
want to show that there areas by over
Shu so don't say oh why did it go to Shu
that doesn't work say even sometimes by
Nar it doesn't work the whole purposes
to show is more strict than than shua so
then if you'll ask that so
why should we be ma within itself we
have to show is more no the question
is the Mish is masma it always works by
n it's the mishna is misleading
according to according to it only works
if you
say but the mishna is misleading it
says always works it needed to clarify
sometimes it doesn't work
sometimes it doesn't
work so you'll ask but in sh
also the mishna is misleading how is the
mishna misleading it
says nobody ever said it works by other
it's not misleading in but it's
misleading in rauna the question is
not that instead of going to just
differentiate with NE cuz that's equally
a question on the question is the Mish
is misleading in Raa cuz by saying that
it always works by that implies it
always works even if you
say but that's not true it doesn't
always work okay
um we're now
that's thank you very much
