Daf Hashavua - Nazir 9b

Okay, good evening everyone. We're continuing in Amud B. Dessay. So the Mishna said someone says they're a Nazer from ora from dried figs or pressed cakes of figs. Bame says you're a nazer. Bul says you're not a nazer. Rabihuda said even when B shamai said it they only said that you're user when you say harbon which means as follows that the first version of b shami you're bi holds you're a nazer that we pay uh attention to the first statement according to the second version of b shami you're not a nuzer you're just usher in the vine the garra asked Um why are you asser but you assered yourself from figs not from grapes. So first said holds like that of and holds like that we have to focus on the last thing you said and therefore since the last thing you said was figs the whole thing is meaningless. What does bash shame hold? Bashame holds that what you're doing is you're trying to retract and bashame holds there's no retraction by hectish bas hillar could have said held there is retraction by hectish but we're trying to also explain why in the second version basill says you're not user and figs and the garamar says basil sav holds like shim shim holds your potter because you did not make the like those who make meaning we're going to bring a case of a guy who accepted a from uh now there is no such thing as a from so like let's say somebody says they're going to bring a from which is not possible. So holds that you don't you're not responsible. You don't have to bring a ma not from wheat and certainly not from barley. So bame is of the opinion that anytime you say something which is an impossibility the uh it's not. So that's where we're up to in the two lines from the bottom. um you didn't make the like the people to make okay says the bottom line so says I will bring from barley he brings from wheat patters okay Now we're going to have another uh another of the soar says like this the Mishna is not like the following Tana the T we learned inn says B says either he is or he's a nazer Meaning it's one of two things. If he says I meant to ask her figs, then he can't eat them. But if he doesn't say that, then he's a nazer. So if he says that he intended to answer figs, he's user and figs. And if not, he's a nazer. If he says he meant to answer figs, he is user as a but he's not a now. So basil seems to be saying that if he says he meant to asser figs he is but he's not aner. So let's explain this holds like that a person doesn't say his words for nothing like meaning that a person doesn't say his words and therefore if he doesn't explain what he said we we assume it's nazerus but if he says he meant to ask her figs then he he's going like rabihuda namely that uh according to Rabbi Huden the second version of Bal um if he says he meant to asser figs he's asser and figs if he doesn't then he's he's a ner like now hill holds like raioi what is Mean what does Rabio hold? Rabioi we quoted earlier that a person is held accountable for his final words. Therefore, um his nazerus is not going to be effective because he qualified it by saying he's assering figs. However, the question is did he really mean to ask her figs? So, uh basill would say that if the guy says yes, I meant to ask her figs, then I'm answering food. This is like rahuda. So both bashi and basill hold like rabihuda but bash holds like raor and basil holds like let's see twice it's interesting the Gamarra says B holds like Rabio Tyus's Ga is B holds like Rabhuda. Okay. Um right so I think that that's a bit different than the of the garra the garumar says that basill holds like raioi and our garra says that uh the says that he holds like fine now we're going to see another version of this whole thing another version. What's the other version? It goes like this. Says says it's a but you're not a meaning like. So this b shami is like rabihuda's b shami and this b hill is like the first version of b in the mishna let's see uh theis bay oh so the will explain goes like huda and basil goes like shim which shim Um holds that he didn't make a let's see fine now we're going to see where did say his we learned in somebody says behold I accept upon myself a min to bring from barley. So there like we pointed out there's no such thing. You can't bring a min from barley. So he has to bring from wheat. If he says from coarse flour he has to bring he brings from fine flour. If he says I'm not bringing it with oil and frankincense he does bring with oil and frankincense. >> [clears throat] >> is let's say he says I'm going to bring a from half an is he brings it from a a whole is if he says an is and a half. So he says no you got to bring two he should bring two is why says in all these cases he doesn't have to bring anything because he didn't make the nether in a way that people typically make a nether named And the way he did it, it's completely ineffective. Fine says, "No comes from barley only of a sinner." And there's no less than an reason of all of them. Fine, says the garra, let's we're going to let's learn this Mishna the because the shim says you're and the tanakama says you're just bring even though you didn't say it right you bring it the right way who's the tana that when you say from you have to bring from wheat who's which t is that which Tano says that even though you didn't say it right, you have to bring it right. The first Hana would be something which is the first Tana who said that even though you didn't say it right, it's Bame. It's mish of our Mishna. Why is it Bame of our Mishna? Because the shame and the Mishna says even though he said I'm a ner from figs says you're from grapes here too also somebody says I'm bring from barley you bring it from wheat it's mish parallel [snorts] didn't say here also when you say from barley maybe you bring it from wheat says the is shi fine tis even though dried figs are not here too is So that's says it's no say doesn't have to be. It could even be basill let's say who says that your statement is meaningless but your statement is meaningless when you say but it's not going to be meaningless when you say why because you know we're talking about over here where the guy says if the guy says if I would have known that you can't make this way meaning from barley or this number of is or without Mishna is talking about a case where the guy qualifies. He says, "Had I known that you can't do this, I would have done X, Y, and Z." So basically we're a guy says let me just so basically we were a guy says had I known that you couldn't do barley I would have done wheat then bas would believe him then basil could say even like the Tanaka and B would would uh validate that. That's if it's something that is reasonable. But in the case of the Mishna, it's not reasonable cuz nobody in their right mind would think you can make an Azeras from figs. Meaning, you know why Basil is consistent with the Tanakama. You know, Basil would say that if the guy says, "Oh, I didn't know you could do it this way. If I would have known, I would have done it the correct way." But that's only if you could believe such a thing. It's believable by a min. People don't necessarily know all the but they they do know one thing is only from says he says explicitly if I would have known that you don't make a nether from I made a mistake to say I thought you could bring a voluntary offering like the of had I not known that you can't do it I would have made from wheat that's why he brings wheat he made a mistake because a brings So it's a believable story. So if he says if I would have known I would have done it right. So therefore we we uh explain it in the best possible way. But by nazirus nobody would believe such a thing. Fine. said like this that even in the ra again the said that tanakama is bi because is the one who says that if you don't do it right it's still valid that's only if you say from barley let's say he says I'm bringing a from beans he doesn't bring anything Wait a second. That's like a contradiction because now is saying that if the guy says something that's obviously foolish that everybody knows is not effective then it's not effective. But is the one who said that is Based on the fact that Bame holds that if you say figs it's effective. But what do you mean figs should be like lentils? says who then could say the mission is like he can't say the mission is like you know why because holds that if it's something obvious that's not effective it wouldn't be good but lentils relative for dummy. It's like dried figs for another have another. And B is saying that you are another. So it can't be because B would say even by should be good. Says the GRA changed his mind. And the changes mind that the tana of the Mishna is going like shi ultimately says that if it's something that's everybody knows doesn't work then it would not be effective since he holds that the mitan is not between and soar says Why did he retract? Let's see Tyus for a minute. You could hinge it on a mistake because there are other offerings that are from you can't make a mistake. There isn't there aren't lentils. says that you're a nazer. He holds the missions like who says that you're because >> [clears throat] >> Then if that's the case then even should work says he was from saying it's and he says the Mishna could be everyone everyone And this is interesting meaning is saying ultimately held like that the Mishna goes even according to Basil namely Basil holds by Nazerus it's ridiculous nobody in their right mind would ever dream up that um Grogeras is a form of Nazirus. So even if he says if I would have known I would have done it right we don't believe him. However however our Mishna in in is talking about somebody who says if he would have known he would have done it right but not by Okay, let's see this a bit further. Why did retract from saying the Mishna is because he had a question on the Mishna? What was his question? Why did it teach only barley? It should even say beans meaning the Mishna says that if you say it's valid. Why doesn't he say even from beans? It should have said even from beans and then it would have been a bigger kadesh. Meaning at first wanted to say the Mishna was like Bashame and the reason why it's effective is because Bame holds that but then he was forced to retract. Why? Because why did the Mishna say it should have said a bigger adashim it must be no it would not apply to adashim. So it wouldn't apply to adashim then it's no longer consistent with the uh with bay. So, who does the that who's the Tanakama of the Mishna in um only said over there by you know why he said it thereuda so you know why B shamai would say it there is going like rabihuda what do you mean he's going like rabihuda b shamai holds like rabihuda rabihuda's version of b shamai is that even by grogorous it's not effective rememberhuda's version of a shami is that you're not a nazer and even though you said hariner you're not a ner it's just your user as another so that's why in the case of adosim it's ineffective because it makes no sense sense. So the question is what about um we have to try to understand why why would he hold if you say then it does work. Let's read it inside. One second is going like let's see Tyus says there. It's because one second. Um, no. Okay, that's further. Fine. So, I guess what we still have to try to understand is waser [snorts] and he would say when does Bamai agree to the teaching of the Mishna? So it goes like B shama. Um but B shame's version according to Abhuda. So why you usher from why do you have to bring a nether from why do you have to bring a carbon minimum that we have to try to get to the bottom of okay what does holds even if he said he would also bring a from not only from not only if somebody says says not only like the Mishna implies that if somebody says he's going to bring a from he brings even if someone says I so why didn't the Mishna say a bigger so the gar says but then say the the logic is only if the stories credible where he says if I would have known I would have made the nether this way but he can't say that he could say that by barley he can't say that by beans is going to say that if somebody says I'm going to bring a from he has to bring how could such a thing be says the garra it's like this he said as follows of only said it according to the namely at my time. Why were you and you ultimately said that uh the Mishna doesn't have to be like Bi. You originally said the Mishna is like Bi and then you were you were because the Mishna didn't say So the fact that didn't say implies that if you say it doesn't work no maybe the Misha didn't say that way. Maybe the reason why the mission didn't say the bigger of is because actually goes without saying is a smaller it goes without saying that if you say I bring it from lentils you bring an actual why you could say he was on what he said originally meaning maybe he wanted to uh take back his commitment to bring but we don't pay attention to it cuz we follow his first statement of so if he says so we ignore that cuz he wants to beer but you can't beer so obviously you say he has to bring him but maybe if he says maybe he's saying as follows you know he doesn't mean to retract act. He says he meant to say is I want it to be infused with like the carbon which is of barley or like so therefore then it should be holy if it's going to be holy that way but if not it shouldn't be holy and therefore if he meant this. So if he's retracting, he can't. So he'll be a so he'll have to bring a but if he says maybe he meant to say I wanted to have the kadusha of the of the or the otherwise I don't want it to have kadusha. So in in such a case he made a stipulation since it's not going to have that kadusha maybe it shouldn't be. So therefore the mission said he brings from wheat. Um and this is a bigger that even in this case he brings from wheat but maybe the fact that even if he would have said he would bring from wheat. Let's see tyus. Let's see what this typhus is going on. So by you could say he was you could say he's beinger theorish. And his last statement contradicts his first statement when he says and when he retracted and he said he's retracting from the first statement and we'll just follow his first statement because maybe he meant to bear but he can't but He's not coming to contradict his first words. That if it's possible to be sanctified with that, it should be. So really it goes like and I and even if you say but there it's that it would be you would be because there you obviously are trying to just retract and you can't but by you might think you're not trying to retract he's trying to conditionalize he's trying to make a condition. I only want it to be a if it has the but it's not. So maybe well let's ignore what you're saying. No, even then we don't ignore. Not only do we not ignore where you're trying to retract if you say then we can ignore you made a statement of of andh you try to pull it back. You can't. But maybe where you're qualifying it so we have to follow your qualification. No, we don't have to follow your qualification. We'll still render it a min. Okay. So, that is the suga. It's a quite a quite a difficult kamar, but at least we're going into next week and into the we're still on pace. Thank you very much for coming at this late hour to a year of good health. >> [snorts] >> Sky recording stopped.