Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 83b

Okay, good evening everyone. We're continuing. I once went to afarim and nobody knew and he said simlash geilta fish. Yeah. Okay. So but I don't think in this uh daf we encounter gilt fish but we do counter the sheet of holds that if somebody makes a if the husband is made for the nether that is afflictive to her the is that he is only enoling the nether which is afflictive and he's not made for the one that's not afflictive as opposed to the name of Shel who says that by enoling the one that's afflictive he is perforce enoling the one that is not afflictive fine so the garra is challenging a who's asking on him I don't Oh, who is the Balamera who's asking this question? Did we have any specific um makshin? I don't think we did. So, I don't think there's any way to know who the makshin is. Okay. What? >> 8382. >> What? >> Just quoting the page. >> You're saying raasi? >> Yeah. >> Based on what is a raasi, huh? We didn't have all we had was Raasi said in the name of and some say Raasi asked and responded. Now when the garumar said before, do they say it's raassi? They do. Maybe beforehand there was maybe we need to know what the word is means. That would be nice if we knew the exact terminology of but otherw I don't know what that's based on. Okay, here's the question. A woman who made to be and she became and then the husband she brings the carbonas of a bird. Okay. and she doesn't bring the and also she doesn't bring the carbon that we learned about yesterday says wait a second if you're going to say that the husband is only anulling that she's afflicted by maybe he's only enoling the wine that she is afflicted by if she doesn't partake of it. Sah maybe he is anulling from wine that he has um but from m that she doesn't have he's noting there's no there's no there's no um there's no if a woman can't be matame in other words she she said amino that entails two things she's not going to have wine she's not going to she's not going to be matamem Okay. So, he's presumably only able to enol nadim that she's uh afflicted by. He's only able to know that she's afflicted. She's afflicted if she can't drink wine. She's not afflicted if she can't be mame. So why is the that she brings a if she's why would she why would she bring a says so they answered she can't bear to her why the says and the living will place to their heart it says It says in better to go to house of morning than to house of party. Why? So the living should pay attention. What is that? What what do the living pay attention to? One who gives a hpid others will eulogize him. If you cry over the deceased they will cry for you. If you bury the deceased in other words what goes around comes around. One of the things even though in the muser is interpreted pay attention one day one day uh a person's going to die take advantage of your life but the garra says there's a more practical thing to think about you need to service this mace if you want to get a good husbid you need to give a good husb if you want to get a good kavor you know in other words do shovel the dirt in a nice way You want when you want go to shovel the dirt, you're going to shovel the soft dirt and put it and put it gently on the guy or you're going to take those big rocks and hurl it. You don't want them uh, you know, hurling the rocks at you. I'm only partially joking. In other words, the service you give is a service you're going to get. You give a good husband, you'll you'll get a good husband. And on that topic, you remind me after the shar I have one of the best alltime jokes. Okay? You give a good husband, you'll get a good husb you could make yourself cry. You want people to cry when you go. You don't want people to start cheering, you know, or saying it's about time. You want you want them to cry, so you got to cry. So therefore if she can't go to um a Shiva house so then she can't go to a Shiva house it's painful to her says the it's interesting the doesn't say You don't bring in there's no carbon for a partial time of here on the round continues. So it would come out that even after the anulment of her she still she still warned on what the is bothered by is wait a second he's only a nulling part but I thought we said before what's the kasha What's the Gar's that he only enols the the wine but no means there's no nazerus on on wine but not grapes or wine and not grape skin but the wine aspect of nazer and the tum aspect of nazir are two totally different parts of the nazerosim So to fulfill the whole count of the since he's enoling the wine by that affler Okay Mishna newishna let's say she says person's wife said I ask her any han I get from people she says I'm not getting han from people the husband can't anul which is a what do you mean can know we said before even if uh she asked one person, she you might be able to enol it. And even though she said, "I'm not to get h from people," she could still collect and if one or two, let's say, stalks um fall, they have to remain there. Shikha if you uh left one or two bundles pa is the corner of the field. So the is she could still collect these things like atik and pa um because as we'll see that's not called getting hana from the owner. The owner just leaves it and she comes and takes it. Let's say she says from getting from me there they could come and take his they could take his micer against his will. Why? Cuz apparently a person has no ownership of of his miser. So even though he says I from getting enough from me, it's not called I'm giving it to them. However, if he says these then he can't give it to them but he could give it to other and we'll have to see why that's not a says that which I benefit from people should be also to me like you said earlier if a woman answers the husband couldn't know it. So here you're answering all the people in the world. It's a matter with the biggest steer in history. Said if she answers d from one person you could anal it. And here we're saying if you ask her all the people in the world you can anal we we concluded based on what said that is like the Raban the Raban have a very lenient view on and what's but our perk over here in our Mishna It's says abandon it and it's extra doesn't say give it the owners do not have the rights and the benefit of giving it to who they choose. So the owners have no rights whatsoever unlike Therefore, when when they take when she takes that's not called benefiting from others. So, she's allowed to if she assers herself from getting h she could takea then goar is going to explain this. Fine. The garamarra will explain. Now we move on to the Gamarra. And before we do that, okay, says the Gumar Alma Evitsami delay. Wait a second. The Mishna started off by saying if she said, "I'm not getting Han from any people, the husband can't enol it. Really? Why can't he know that? How in the world is she going to be supported? How could not getting enough from any people not be enues? You know why? Because even though she can't get enough from any people, she'll get enough from her husband. That means a husband is not a person. That confirms what you've always thought. A husband is not a person. Okay. This shows husbands are not part of people. Does that mean they're an extraterrestrial life species? No. It just means that in the vernacular in the way people speak when a woman when a woman says don't don't you know don't get down on yourself. It just means when a woman says she's not getting h from people in general, she's not including her husband. And that's the reason why he can't be made for it because it's not. Now, let's see the You know why he could be made um you know why it he can't be made for it? She could benefit from Why could she benefit from lachea? She's not poor. She has a husband. You can only takea if you're impoverished. She's not impoverished. She has a wealthy husband. She has her husband's American Express Platinum card. So why could she take leaka? that's worth more than um the 200 that makes you uh exempt from not able. So the fact that she could take leaka means the husband cannot support her. So we see the husband is a person. Let's see the says around At first we think the says she could benefit from it's not it's not the conclusion of the time the reason is the reason the reason he can't be made for meaning at first we don't say that the statement of the safa of it's not a conclusion of the race and giving a reason that you know why the husband can't anul it because he she could really collect like aa why Because if the was a reason, it should have said because because the does not imply a reason. So therefore the Mishna is not saying if she assers all people he can't be made for because she could collect like a then it would say the word So rather the husband is not it's because the husband could support her. And also if the husband could not support her, another reason if you're going to say that the husband is a person and the reason why he can't be mafur is because she could collect like a Really? That makes sense? You're saying nobody in this world could support this woman and this is not eno nephesh. We just learned in the previous Mishna if there's one store that she can't shop in, it's eno nephesh. But the fact that she can't be nana from anybody that's not nephesh, that doesn't make sense. is gray is the husband than all people worse than a store. So there are two reasons why the statement that she could get like a pa is not a reason why the husband can't be made for her. Number one because it doesn't say the word because and number two if she couldn't be nana from the husband. But the reason he can't be made for is cuz she collect collect a chicka. It's not mustab that if she can't be nana from anyone and she has to rely on a chicka that's not afflictive to her. So must be it must be the reason it says he can't be made for it's because the husband could support her because the husband's not a person. So the question then is so why could she collect like a skip to the next round. Well, then she can't eat from the husband. So, we're going to have three answers. You ready? Really, a husband's not a person. And when she says, "I'm not going to be na from people." She could still be Nana from the husband. And that's a reason why And that's a reason why he could be he can't be made for because she could rely on him. It's not afflictive. Another reason it can't be may is because she could benefit from I we ask but if the husband supports her she can't be benefit from ampa it means there will be situations where the husband might become poor and in those situations um she could rely on leaka and that's why he can't be made Let's see the run. Really the husband's not a person. That's why he can't cuz he could support her. Even if the husband is a man, he's poor, he still can. So you'll say, does that mean she's user to the husband? No. She's not user to the husband. Because if she's to him because she could benefit from alone. We don't say we don't say that you can. It's not that she's user to the husband because if she was then that would be enough of a reason that the husband could be made for. So the first answer is like this. The reason number one that the husband could be made for cannot be made for is because he could support her. So it's not afflictive. And even if he were to become poor, he still can't because she could just collect like a really a husband is a person. When she said I'm not getting her enough from people, she meant the husband. I So what's the reason he can't enol? It's like it said because the reason he can't is cuz she could collect like the Mishna is giving the reason. What's the reason he can't it? because she could benefit with says it's saying what's the reason what's the reason you can't even though it doesn't say because the because is inferred It's said in a style of what's the reason? So you'll ask well wait a second if a husband is a person and she can't get enough from any people including the husband. So what happened to the question of why is it if she's merely ushered to the one store that the husband could get credit from he could anal because it's afflictive. Isn't this for sure afflictive tua? There's a big question according to is the husband worse than a store that he can only collect from there? Even says it's nephesh. The answer is not legislated by the dafa shvua program. Also, I can't really understand it. Um, let's see. Let's we'll try, but I'm just I'm just excusing myself. The This is where it stopped being legislated in the but we'll give it a shot. Interesting. I never saw a with the name. Here we're talking about she collected where the you know we're talking about over here there's so much available there's so many there's so many very very generous ah that's the answer it's not afflictive you know why cuz one of these you know the neighborhoods like on purm you have some groups what did you collect collect $17.33. Other groups, what did he collect? $170,000. What? Yeah. I went to this kavir. He gave me $50,000. You know, these 10 year olds, they come back from collecting on Puram. They're different neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods, they're really they're rolling in the give generously. So that's what we're talking about. That's why we have to change the I where do we see in the words that it's common? It says she's able to it's a situation where it's very likely for her. It uses the word I but earlier we're talking about a store where it's the rainy season and there's not so much leae around. So that's answer number two. Answer number three is you ready? I just want to point out that the majority opinion is a husband is not a person. Most most authorities rule both and say a husband's not a person. But that's a good thing cuz when she as getting enough from people, she doesn't mean the husband. I if she could get enough from the husband, why bring in the second part of let's see she's divorced. So really she could get enough from his property. So why does it say the factor she could get like a comp? Let's see the This is why you can't because look if she can't get her from him even if she could collect it's afflictive you know and he doesn't buy oh we'll talk about a case where there's an abundance of no the only way it's not afflictive is if she could get enough from the husband What if she's divorced? So now it becomes afflictive. There's no it's not called I'm getting from the giver because the giver is not giving it. He's just forsaking it. And as the is once he divorces her then the husband becomes a person again and he can't bear. So, so the answer of is really the reason he could be made for it, he can't be made for it is because it's not afflictive. She could be na from him. And what's the second part of the Mishna? The second part of the Mishna is if he divorces her and now he's one of the people and now she can't get enough from him. She could be Nana from like aa could he then be made for it? No. Because he's not the husband anymore. That's why if he divorces her Yeah. But oh, he should be able to be made for it cuz it's afflictive. Yeah. It would have been nice. The only thing is what happens when somebody gets divorced is they're not married. Yeah. Okay. That is pim the three answers of rava raman. >> Recording stopped.