Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 6b

okay good evening everyone good to see everybody we have a great question until now we've been discussing the topic of y y whether Y is definitely a concept by Nar either we learn it out from and the double teaches us or we learn out from the Z we learn that from the zeros and there's a that's between we have a question by G whether y works by G ultim the says that holds that even though but AB is of the opinion that Ruda who holds that by y that you need would say no you don't need holds that by but by they would be because a person will not divorce their friend's wife so one thing we know also we know y are also uh is effective so works by there's whether they have work by there's whether they have to be one thing's for sure work y are effective both by and by G now we're going to discuss whether y are effective by Kad Now by Kadin you need to have an AM Kadin is effectuated in three ways but you also need you can't just give a woman a wedding ring and stand on the you have to say but what if you say a quasi statement now the question here is not if you need though we're asking more basic than that do you need to say a full statement by kadan or is a partial statement effective even before we get into well does it have to be a partial statement that's indicative that's compelling or not compelling we're not even discussing whether it has to be compelling or not we want to know is there an institution of partial statements by are there for or not want to know what's the case so one possible Cas is you say to a woman behold you're married to me and then you say to her friend there are two ladies standing there they're and Y by the way whenever they're two women you know their names are alwaysa and Y that's just a cloud that we established manyas ago in yamus already okay there's and Y and you turn toin and you say then you turn to her friend and you say you too soar says that's obvious that is kadushin itself now the question is it's very nice you said to Y you too did you give y any money if you didn't give her money it can't work and if you did give her money in other words if you gave woman one uh a wedding ring and you said and you gave wom to a wedding room and you said and you too then obviously that's kadushin you know even if y wouldn't work that's uh that's an obvious statement of kadushin so what exactly is the case did you give her money did you not give her money thear doesn't say look in the ran the ran says the question here is even if it's a compelling y it's true there's no by that includes y so the round is bothered by a question what do you mean is there y by K it's not like we have a to say that y work for Kad we have aad we have by uh but we don't have AA by kadus so you say well we didn't have aasha by G either so that's sort of what thean is saying we would we would make a from m is we could apply laws of the from one place to another even without an explicitas unless you have a reason to differentiate or do we say do not work even would not work by K now why would it work byad and not work by Kad the answer is the is different is very is so that you don't have to do an act you could just have a statement so since it's so that you could just make a statement the partial statement would work but by marriage a statement doesn't work you need an act so since there's that we're lenient by Kad that it's not going to work until you do an act so that maybe you also need a full-fledged statement so in other words the sh is do we say just like badar partial statement works so to or do we say well no maybe only by Nadar where it's so Hummer so stringent we even allow statements without acts so maybe even a partial statement would work but by kadushin where you where it's uh a requirement we're lenient that it's not going to work until you act may be a partial statement it won't work won't work so now regarding what we asked before did you give this second woman money let's see a little bit further in thear thear says you said to woman behold you're married to me you said to the friend and you you didn't say and you also you said and you so now the question is that's a y do we say and you also he's saying to the friend do we interpret his words and you also meaning I'm Maring you also maybe and you look into whether you're interested in marrying he said to the friend and the is not meaning if he handed if if he said gave money to one woman and said marry me and he said to the second woman and you also then that's not a Yad that's explicit a proposal of marriage but if he says to Woman one well um you behold you are married to me and the other woman he said and you what does he mean and you and you also or does it mean and you think about whether you want to get involved in this kind of relationship also now the question is is he giving the second woman money or not if he gave her money then obviously he wants to marry her and if he didn't give her money then how in the world could the marriage be effective so the ran says something very interesting he gave the first woman to PR he gave the first woman two PR one for her and one potentially she could act as a on behalf of the other one so it's not explicit kadushin after all he didn't give money to the second one but it will be effective because he said and you looking around when she says she wants to be married her friend accepted it for her however the ran says you can't say that he gave auta to the first woman and auta to the second one because then there would be no question at all he's not saying and you consider whether you want to get married or not obviously he's proposing to her or do we say look at the next round I you'll say how could you interpret it that he's saying and you consider whether you want to do this it's not masma that way even though it's not and it's a compelling handle it's compelling that he's saying and you also maybe we say there no y for maybe because it's not affected he's saying and you see if you want to do this now the gar continues did have such a sh whether the institution of Y supplies to K but once said to I can't believe it hold by K that are not compelling are y that implies that holds work for K he just holds they have to be so how could you say had a question whether the institution of handles work for kadushin but R Papa once expressed in incred uh incredulousness no the had is a better way to say it incred incredulity how do you pronounce it incredulity Allan is giving me official approval Papa once expressed surprise that's easier to say that re that shmuel held non-comp telling handles work that implies that he held handles work it's just a they have to be compelling so how could you say R Papa wasn't sure whether y worked for Kadin but we know he held that the do work they just have to look in the the fact that he only questioned a handle that's not compelling that proves that it is a says the gar no really I'll tell Papa wasn't sure whether y work for kadushin the reason why he was incredulous about shu is he wasn't sure that y worked one thing he knew that if they do work it can't be they work even if it's not so he's just discussing really also he happened to know holds that have to be so irrespective of what R Papa's personal was which may be that he's not sure if they work or not he was just asking about the opinion of sh so thean does not have the word in his but regarding what held Papa was talking says it's true maybe don't work for you can't ask on him from he holds work he was just asking AA one onto the other now the run on the first wide line asks a very interesting question do work by yeah we had earlier but everyone holds the concept of work for so if it works for why wouldn't work for K what's what's a Pap y work for divorce why they work for marriage what is only you ready for this maybe y only work by get you know why because we're very lenient by gon cuz G needs an act so since it needs an act and without an act so therefore even a partial statement would work but in our case kadan doesn't need an act you say of course it does you have to give her money no in this case you gave both prors to The Other Woman so there's no act to this woman this woman is actess so the ran says so then the act lends more power let's say it the better when you do an act so then it's very indicative that your statement is a statement of but in the case of you're giving the two coins to one lady so there's no indication through your act what your words are saying so maybe only by getting y work because the ACT lends credibility and credence to the words you're saying but there's no act in the case by condition because you gave both coins to one woman okay that's suure number one next gamar so even so there's a new topic okay next topic is there a Yad for PA is there a Yad for pay we know that you have to leave a corner of your field off for the an I want to tell you an amazing idea um this is out of this world just on the subject of PE in general you know we know that there's one part of the harabas that was never destroyed and that's AI right you know historically Ki is not a wall of the B mikdash it's the retaining wall of the Temple Mount people think this is the wall of the B mikdash okay let them think that it just it happens not to be it's the retaining wall of the temple M but it was never destroyed what's the idea that the we that the the Western world was never destroyed so the the rebi of RAB sh of K says an amazing idea called the called itob called it but called it s yeah now God keeps the T so if the B is a field he has to give us a PA so the PA is the harab is the it's the P that God always leaves for the Jewish people anyway so the question is in order for something to be P it needs an oral declaration you have to say this is but what if you say a handle in other words you said a partial statement then could do partial statements work by do hand work for if you say this piece of land or patch should be Pa and then you say and this patch also so then that's not a that's a explicit statement the question is you said this piece should be and this you didn't say and this also my what do you mean look in the r the r says third wide line if you want to say don't work for that K is not compared to at all we're going to see you can make the cases compared to so what's the case if you said is is a it's called the word usually means ditch usually the way you make Fields is you make ditches around the mound okay comes the gar the gamar says something very interesting something a little bit difficult and the gar says well what's the case over here you said this piece should be Pa and this now the first piece did it have a big enough Shear to be considered P it had to have because if it didn't have obviously when you said V and this you meant to add the other piece otherwise the first piece is meaningless in other words that first piece of P you separated is it does it meet the requirements in size or not if it doesn't then obviously when you say and this you're adding to the first piece just to make it effective so it must be the first piece was a qualified pay and look in the that implies say to have a that implies if you say my whole field should be P have it should it's effective now how is it that even if you say your whole field should be pay it's effective the says definitely was talking about such a case that even if in the first ditch there is the requisite otherwise otherwise even if don't work for this would work this would Be an Effective certainly once you began to make when you said and this you meant that it should be added to the first offering just so that it should be effective when you said and thisav you definitely were you intended to complete it so it must be the first patch had the share of PA and even in a case where the whole field is pea even if you're making the whole field since there's a in the first pie we have a question soar says yeah no problem it's true if you make your whole field pay it's effective in we learned in how do you know if you want to make your whole field pay you could the corner of your field that your whole field could be pay so now back to the rench back to the question are there since is compared to Caron just like have a would also have handles or do we say no p is only compared to carban that you're if you delay it you're maybe they're only compared that if you delay you're delaying just like when you delay a carbon but it's not compared regarding other namely it's not compared regarding y so the ran asks what do you mean maybe it's only compared for about there's a well-known rule so the r says here it might be different cuz even though you don't make a heish part way as we're going to see the comparison between PA and carbon it never really says paa explicitly so since it's a very weak heish this type of heish where we're comparing not explicit pay to carban but carban to uh a veiled reference to PA regarding that kind of heus you could say maybe it's only compared for not for other things okay um and next week we'll learn what exactly is the heish between carban and Pa and that's all that's v b for you good how could the woman be a for another woman without being made a gave her two so therefore good question because normally um we say that you can't be in k for someone because Kadin is not necessarily you know but not every woman is going to say it's a to be married right she could say now the Run adds when she says yeah she's pleased with it and she's revealing that it is a it works but the thing is at the time well the way Z works it's she would have made a um well just because she made the woman a but he's the one who has to make the statement he to no she has she's a to be Mel the kadan the for the down he said he to an act by giving the second why is that not an act of the answer is because he didn't do an act to the second woman of course he only have to give one he extra maybe question when you married your wife you get the the ring was worth one pra believe a little bit more no yeah so he gave the first woman two prise but he never did an act now woman no it wasn't it the ACT wasn't to the second woman we have the Act was to the first woman the by get where he gave he did an act to the second woman that act re um gives us into um interpretation in his words but when it comes to kadushin he didn't act at all toward the second one it's very possible he gave the first one to PR what um no it is a Yad no listen carefully it is a Yad the question though is Maybe the institution of Y don't work a works by get that's because the ACT that he did to the woman gives us uh puts into context what his words mean because he handed something to to this woman so now we say the words he said are interpreted as har mesas but he never did an act to this woman so you say well then how is she he married because we could say based on the words that the pr the extra PR he gave to the first one was for the second one and the and the first one was acting as a for the second one again she never asked her to accept it for [Music] her she she's just she on her own she becomes a we trying to prove from that therefore that okay not neily no we're not no we're not proving we're asking