Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 70b

Okay, good evening everyone. We're continuing in B. Sorry, we're trying this one more time. Sorry, last night did not work. The Gmorra is commenting on the Mishna. The Mishna says that if the husband dies, his domain empties out to the father. Min and asked the Gumar, where do we learn this from? If she will be to a man and her are on her, it says a double. It compares her state before the first marriage her state before the second marriage to her state before the first marriage just like before she ever got married. The father alone has domain and control over her. So too before the second marriage when her husband dies for the father anols the by himself says before the second marriages has the same as before the first marriage. Just like before the first marriage the father enols by himself. So to before the second marriage after the husband dies well maybe that's only talking about nadim that the father had sole control over. That's the kind of ne that the father retains control over after the husband dies. says or maybe only that were never fit for the aros can she can the father regain control over maybe the that the father after the husband dies is the sole mater that's only talking about nadarim that the orus never had the ability to be mayor such as the he didn't hear but that theos was capable of being may not able to be a maybe the cannot be says if you're comparing before the second marriage to before the first marriage So then compare it completely just like before the first before the first marriage. The father was the only one who had domain. So learn out to Nadarim where only the father has domain before the second marriage. Namely that the husband was never able to be because he never heard about it. He heard it to which the garra says if we're talking about that the never had the ability to be that would be obvious that the father regains the right to be mayor. If we're talking about the darm that the oros never had control over and now the husband dies, she's still ben she's a n and she's still so then it would be obvious that the father is able to regain those says since the was not in them at all. We need the heck for that fit for the now the father alone can be made for this is talking about if she the father only has the capacity to be made for these nad when the husband died if she didn't marry do a sin to a new guy but if she did arison we learned that her father and her second husband are made for her because that's not similar to before her first marriage. Okay. Next we're analyzing the next part of the Mishna. The Mishna said as follows. The Mishna said that the same way the father has an advantage over the husband, the husband has an advantage over the father. In what scenario? In what scenario does the husband have an advantage over the father in a situation where the husband is able to be made for the of aas. So says and there is this instance where the bal is says what's the situation says around what's the scenario that a husband could be made for the elim if we're talking about she got married when she was a narra and then she became And it's saying that the husband could be made for not the father. Misa takes her out. Just like if the father dies, his domain does not empty out to the husband. So too if she becomes a domain should not empty out to the husband. So there can't be a case where she did as a nar and then she became a because logically that would not go to the husband says the since he died his goes off he can't be it to his children, you should give it over as an inheritance to your children. But your daughters, they don't go to the children takes her out of the father's domain. Like it says, So to you do not empty out the domain to the husband since the rishus of the father is on him. Shara have us so too bas will not empty out to the husband because since the domain of the father is kal before the bas because when she got married she was a nar it doesn't empty out to the husband when she becomes a beras. So what exactly is the scenario that the husband could be made for the than a dharma of a byaras and not a father? So it says in one of the cases shear the case must be when she did when she's a boy and in that situation the father is not on her and then the would be not only when the husband marries her fully and does the suin could he be made for but even when the 12 months are up that we give her 12 months to prepare for the wedding at which point when the 12 months are up the the husband is obligated to support her and in exchange for supporting this woman he's able to be made for her says it's coming to say she doesn't have the father on her when the time passes that the rabbis gave the to the to support themselves since at that time and on the husband in feeding her he should be able to be made for the nadar says that can't be because that's coming up we learned it one time later on that waits 12 months. Huh? The is he could be made for her. Now the gar injects over here. Wait a second. Actually, it's not even true. We don't give the bare 12 months. We only give her 30 days. That doesn't answer the question. It's just we're questioning a statement we just made. We still have a question. The question would be if it's referring to a woman who's a bare and the husband could be made for it. We have a Mishna that says that. The only thing is the detail about 12 months is not accurate. Says why would need 12 months? 30 days should be enough says the holy. Why would we need two statements before we conclude the question in this second and we explain why do you need 12 months should be enough for 30 days this is what holds we only gave 30 So now the next part of the run we're not allowed to do. It's not it's um I'm joking. We're allowed to do it but it's not part of the registered run. But what he's bothered by is actually if you if you remember the subus we uh refute Rahuna and we say actually we do give a bag 30 days. I'm sorry we do give a bear 12 months not 30 days. And the Gar's conclusion is that it's a hybrid. Namely, that if 6 months, let's say, pass after she turns a bareas, we don't give her 30 days, we give her another 6 months. 30 days is the minimum. Meaning, if a year passes, we give her 30 days. If 10 months pass, we give her 2 months. If 9 months pass, we give her 3 months. So it's not dapka 3 months but it's it it's not dafka 30 days but it's minimum 30 days. In any event, the Garra answers this side question that we're going to change the ga says not that we give a bare 12 months but either a bareas or someone who waited 12 months a narrow who waited 12 months the is he could be made for her but bottom line is why would we need two different Mishnas to say that when the time for to get married comes he could be made for her says the we that when she is designated for a little bit more than 30 days, less or more who waits the allotted amount of time since the husband is he is made for her why do we need two cases of and the Gar gives two very simple answers. Answer number one here is the main place where we learn when the time comes when the 12 months are up. So why does it say over there to tell me that actually the disagree and the say he can't bear it teaches over there wants to say or you could say the it teaches that when the time comes then the gets um when the 12 months come he could be made for her. The is over there. Why does it say it over here? Cuz once it said there's certain powers the father has over the husband and wanted to list the power the husband has over the father. Once it taught the strength of the father it taught the strength of the husband says the and wanted to teach therefore again to teach it's not unanimous. Now the round is bothered by your question because according to the first answer here is Davka and it taugh over there because um that argue you're saying how could the say the main teaching is here and there was just to tell me a side point that the argue that's not a side point that the argue you have and then you learn is like that Mishna and I like this Mishna. So you can't say the is our Mishna says the gar doesn't mean the is our when the says here is it doesn't mean this is the what it means is that Mishna is like a commentary on this Mishna It didn't start teaching it in that Mishna. Here is where it started to teach. Why did it start to teach over here? It here is the real beginning. And there it's continuing to teach me. not to rely on the first um which is because it's not unanimous. And if you want you could say over there is there is where the Tana began. I'm sorry. There is where the Tana begins to teach the And what about the Mishna here from the first Mishna? This Mishna is not is not even considered. So why does it say it since the rat said in this way the father is greater than the husband? It also picked according to one in another sense the of the husband is greater than the of the father. Okay friends this shall be den for this week. Next week um we may have to do something matzah shabas. Do they change the clock mat shabas or next the following? Following. Okay. So maybe matzah shabas. Okay. Put that on your schedule. Recording.