Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 17a

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