Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 26a

This Torah class is brought to you by tora anytime.com. Okay, dear friends, we're continuing in we're learning. Okay, the Mishna said and brought let's say you saw a bunch of people eating figs and you say you're user to the figs. Turns out one of the people was your father or your brother. There were other people as well. So Bame says your father and your brother are Mut and the other guys are Asser because you never meant to ask your father and your brother. Bres presumably does not subscribe to Shabbat. Bas on the other hand says everyone is M. The garra brought the mahus about somebody who asserted eating uh a certain amount of time and didn't realize that you can't do that because you have to eat on chabas and yamt. Um and do we say the whole nether is mut? So at first they wanted to say all the days are um user except for shabas and ka came and said or so we're going to have a rabba and rabba rabba we learned already rabba we're going to learn tonight what did rabba say rabba said everybody agrees that if your original nether was I as all of you and then you say if I would have known my father was among you I would have said I as all of you except for my father they're all assur and the father is mut and no nobody holds of because in that case all you all that happened was you mistakenly thought your father was there and it turned out he wasn't there but you would not have in any way tweaked the language of the ne you still would have said kulk Everyone, even Basil would say, you know, when they argue, according to Rabba, they only argue. The only time anybody ever says is if you say if I would have known my father was there, I would have tweaked the lion of the nether instead of saying instead of saying which momentarily would have indicated that I'm answering my father. I would have said you and you and not my father cuz I wouldn't have even wanted there to be a mash for even a short amount of time that I'm including I'm including my father. So according to rabba no sh never holds up and basil says we only say it with the additional factor that you would have tweaked the original language of the nether. Now we're going to see rava's opinion. Rava's opinion is that in many cases everyone agrees. If you're going to if you say you would have tweaked the language of the nether everyone says they only argue as if you would have preserved and maintained the of the says everyone holds Anytime you say if I would have known that my father is among you I would have said I would never have said I would have said you and you are and my father's in such a case everyone is mut because if you would have tweaked the original fundamental nether even bame would subscribe to nether mikasa They only argue only about someone who says if I would have known I would have said you're all you know when they argue if you wouldn't have tweaked the mayor like who says says grab the first meaning if you would have tweaked the language everybody says even you know when they argue if you say I would have said you're all assur except for my father so who says says grab his first and the first thing he said was I would have said and is not a change at all from what you said originally. You said originally and you say you would have said so what do you mean you wouldn't have tweaked anything? [Music] Um and basel holds like bas holds like the who says the main focus is on your second words. your second words are and if the focus is on your second words that does constitute a change from what you said originally. Now we're going to see the original between Ror and Rabioi is in a very interesting case of Timura. We know that if you have a cow, we'll call her Elsie, and she was an a. And then you have another cow, we're going to call her cow, and she was a regular cow. You had designated her for flanken for the chalant. She was ken. And then you say zoo zoo. You want to exchange the kaduca from animal A to animal B. Number one, you violate a law. You're not allowed to do. You're now to exchange the kaduca of one animal to another. And number two, the kaduca of the first animal goes to the second animal, but the kadusha remains with the first animal. They're both holy. Okay. Now, what if um the animal was holy and animal one was holy and now you say that the second animal should be an a should be a schlamim. You say both. So Rome says no we just follow the first thing you says um that's the opinion of Rome says no we're going to follow so to speak the second thing as well as well and that we're applying the of between Rabaka and Rabioi to this Mus of B Shami and Bahas as well. In other words, if you say that I would have tweaked my words from even says when do they argue? If you would not have tweaked your words, you would have said let us see that means the basic difference between raba and rabba is in the world of rabba bame never holds of raba on the other hand in the world of rabba bame never subscribes to it only subscribes to it if you would have tweaked your words in the world of rabba everyone subscribes cribes to it. If you would have tweaked your words, everyone holds. They only argue in a case where you retain that you would have said and they argue about a side point and that is do we follow your first words or do we follow your second words. Let us see the holy Then in this case there are two issues. Number one you made a mistake about your father. Number two you would not have said like Dan explained earlier that when there are two factors number one you made a mistake about your father. Number two, you would not have said they only argue if the guy says if I would known my father's among you mayor holds like mayor who says grab the first the spir is about whether we uphold his first words holds in the let's say you say animal is a then you say it's a we follow the first it has a dinner does not have the status of a says you're a person is held accountable for his final words that we focus on the first thing that you say therefore since originally Your first words that you say you would have said is that's exactly what we said in the beginning. Even though the way you finish off that you would have said even though those words are casting an error in your first words like we are not on this theor of a person are his first words the just like over when you said your first words it contradicts your last words. We don't pay attention to the we don't pay attention to what you said in the end just like we don't pay attention to your second words when you say we ignore that here also even though your last words the words that you say in the And that contradicts what you said in the beginning. Now, by the way, we're going to we're going to utilize the words. They don't contradict your first words. It's explaining it. In other words, what the R is saying is that in the world of B shami and the way it's applicable to rava um is that bame holds we're going to follow your first words. Originally you said now you say I would have said we focus on you. I would have said that's not a to what you said originally. I the second words of except for my father is a what you said originally we're not focusing on that so much the focuses on we are not going to ignore what you said and the reason we're not going to ignore it we do ignore when you say if you first say and then you say we will ignore that's because a complete contradiction to but when you say I would have said so we're going to focus more on but we're not going to throw out because the words are not contradicting the it's explaining it and since one It's not your first words. It's since we hold when they contradict. Let's say by the we focus on the first words. So since byanos when they contradict we we focus on what you said first when they they don't contradict. We also make the focus on the first thing you said since the first words that you said namely agrees with what you said originally. It will stand regarding everyone else except for your father. We don't have because we're going to give the um the emphasis and the focus on what you said first. It's not because your father was not part of the nether at all. And what does B holds the focus is on what you said last. The second thing you said when you contradict yourself we also follow what you said last when you said I would have said we're going to give significance to the second thing you said is a to what you said when they don't contradict. We're going to make a focus on your second words. There's a toss in the nether and therefore in the world of does not subscribe to if you say I would have said everyone says the nether stands except for the father. If you say I would have tweaked it, Bame does not subscribe to B does. In the world of Raa, if you say you would have tweaked it, even B subscribes to the if you say and the reason why B does not utilize there is because it's not because the focus is on the first thing you said. The first thing you said is says we also focus on the second thing you said. The second thing you said is so now we're going to quote another Mishna and we're going to see that it could fit into Rabba because Rabba is of the opinion that only Basillo subscribes to but it's not going to fit well into Rava because Raa Rava says everyone subscribes to so even Had we not offered that for this would have been not only hard impossible now Hashem answer it's actually easy it's easy right it's clear was dan dan is beautiful explains everything very beautifully ask this is aishna later on. There's a lot of discussion here. Uh is it a Mishna or is it a but it's a Mishna? How does Rabaka say? Now if we say that seems to be like not like if a guy says I answer all of you if one of them became because one of them was the father. So that's the case. I'm not going to get not for this one and not for this one. One of them is they're all now the last one became M. In other words, if the first one was the father m if you say um again if if you say I'm not getting hana from everyone and one of them became mut they're all mut. I'm not going to get h not from this one and not from that one. If the first one became mut they're all mut. If the last one became the last one became the last one was the father the last one's the so basically this Mishna has three cases we'll call it A B and Case A we say the case there is where you said case B you said we say case A and B we say case C we do not say now the thing about case B and case C is there there's a factor that's mentioned that in case B if the first one is MT everyone's mut in case C if the last one is MT they're all they're not all mutar is not giving any significance to the fact that in Case B, it says if the first one is mut, they're all mut. The same thing would be if the last one was mut, they would all be mut. And in case C, we're not giving significance to the fact that we say if the last one is mut, they're all assur. It's even if one of the first ones were mut, that would be only that one would be mut and they would all be. So basically in case A and B we say yes to Rabika and in case C we do not. Now in the world of Rabba here's the thing this seems to be going like Rabi Akiva who's the one who subscribes to and it's saying sometimes it applies sometimes it doesn't apply. So off the bat that's fine in Rabba. The cases where it applies, we'll say where he says he would have tweaked what he said originally. If he said he would have said I if I would have known I would have said this way I wouldn't have given any even for a moment that my father was included. Likewise he could flip it the other way. Listen carefully. If he originally said, he would have he said, "Well, that if I would have known my father was there, I wouldn't have said because it took me a long time till I got around to say and my father's mut." I would have just said snappily everyone's else except for dad. So in the cases that we say, Rabbi would interpret it that he says, "You know why? Because had I known my father was there, I would have tweaked the way I said it. So now, not only was it a toss, but he even says he would have changed the way he would have said it. The last case where we don't say is where he doesn't say that he would have tweaked his lash. But in the world of raba, we always say in Yeah. So, so what's the case? What what are these three cases? Why would there be a case where we don't say in the world of we always say even if he would have preserved what he said originally actually if he would have tweaked it even shi would have say would say we say so now all we have to do is read it inside says bisha bish accumla he would explain the rata the rat is case one A and case B where he says I would have said this one and that one. And what's the case of the safa? The safa is I guess case B. Rata is case A. We'll see. Um case A and probably and I believe case B as well. The ratio is where he said um one more time I would have said that's what I would have tweaked the or in case B I think it's the opposite. He said and he would have said and what about the case of the safa the is I would have I wouldn't have tweaked it I wouldn't have tweaked it where we say it's where you would have So in we are you would have kept what you're saying. So then we understand why only would say we say because would not say it in a case where you would have preserved what you said but in the if you would have switched why would you say it's only why would anyone argue but didn't we say everyone would say if you would have tweaked the way you made the nether it would be let's see the inside. Everything is hunky dory according to rabbi. He would establish [Music] the what does that mean? The rat refers to case A and case B. The safa karan the safer refers to case C. So the ratios A and B the C. This is how you explain it. Both case A and B is where the guy says I would have switched the way I formulated the harsh. The reason why we say is for case A but really for case B he's gonna switch it to but because since he originally said now that he knows his father's among them have known originally and that's why Only Rabbi says in because in Shai never subscribes to there are two things here. Number one, there's a mistake the father tossab and a mistake in the original expression of the tossab in case B also it would be the exact the converse where you originally said and then you would have switched it to why would you have done that? where he said I won't get originally I won't get from this one and this this one it's where he would have switched the is the opposite from the first in the originally he originally said I everyone and what he would have done is he would have Now he he says he would have switched it if he would have known that's case A. He originally said if he would have known he would have switched it to in the middle case it's talking about originally he said this one and this one now he's switching and he's saying if he would have known That's also a why what's the why would he switch it from the answer is there are some people are when they know their father's among the group they would prefer to say Some people prefer to have to switch it from because they don't want it to imply that their father is among the group even for a moment. But there are others who are the opposite way. There are those who are the opposite way. They change it to when they know their father is there and they don't want to say why. If you say Il and gend and not my father, it takes a long time till you get to and not my father. It takes a long time until you specify and not my father. He's going to think of maybe he'll mention the father. So therefore he says now that I know my father's among them I would have been to say everyone but my father. Therefore, now that he knows his father's there, he chooses to be the others in so that it's clear originally that his father is not among them in the first case of the kamashon mlap in the First case it's teaching when he switches from that's a fundamental and the is that when he originally said and he says he would have switched it to that's also a fundamental change. Um originally said and now he says this is also and now why does the specify if the first one is mut they're all mut it's not only the first one it's any of them it's not only if the father is the first one and what about the the third case that says if the last one turned out to be the father the last one is that's where he said in the beginning end or in other words where he doesn't say he would have switched the way he made the nether since he's upholding his words. It's all the same. That's why it says the you know what it means in case the last one is if one is that one is at this step in the garra the feels first and last are only referring to one of them that's how will nifty nifty learn this Mishna. Case one, you would have switched your words from tozal. Case two, you would have switched from tok. Why do I need both? It's a kdosh. Either way, cuz the some people will say, you know, I really would not have wanted to say that it should imply my father uh even for a moment. Others would have said I never would have wanted to say laz because you think that I'm never going to get around to saying not my father. But according to Rava who says that if you would have switched your words even B says that and if you would have kept your words um even says in the where we What would the case be? The case would have to be because only by only says in the but according to the since you're being shame dvar of so that's why in case a it will be mid and that's why it's only according to but the now what's the case of the second case if the case is he said meaning what does it mean that you originally said and now and when the B says it's not going on what he said originally it's going on what he would switch it to is it reba but the Mishna even the raan would be maid that if If you switch your words, the is that we say the first case where we say only says, we could say where you maintained your words. But in the second case, if the case is by the way, and we're lo does not mean what we said originally. You see in in Rabba when we said meant their um what you had said what you said ultimately But you said in other words the way the ran learns that means originally you said and now you're saying you would have said so the same thing here the safa case two case B if the case is that you're switching it from then why would only say everyone should say that's the question you could say and you're and that's only but case two if you said meaning you switched from Kohl. So then why is it only Raba? So the ran now asks an obvious question. So just say case B is where you also were mid where instead of originally you said and you're saying you would have switched it to LZ just interpret it that you originally said and now you're saying Lzah the same way the ran learned in Rabba case A is you went from to and case B is you went from Lzelle. So basically case A and B are the are both. Why don't we say the same thing in Rava? Case A and B are both mid. Why don't we say case A and B are both mid? So the round says you can't say that bishlam and rabba you could say case A and case B are mash because remember there's a of either way of whether you from to or to the is one guy could say oh if I would have known it's my father I wouldn't have wanted to say that it should imply that I'm including my father even for a moment and another guy could say I said Lzel But if I would have known my father was there, I wouldn't have wanted to say lo because it took time for me to get around to say but not my father. However, if in Raa both cases are you're saying the exact same thing, you started with and you're ending with or you started with and you're ending. There's no of one case over the other. It's the exact same thing. What difference does it make if you you uh started with and you say I would have said or you started with and you say you would have said so you can't say that. So it must be that case B is different where you're switching. Well, if you're switching then why would only say wouldn't even say so why would argue but we said so tomorrow we'll have to see how RA will answer this question okay Rabbi say yeah thanks a lot everyone cult Sure. Thank you. Morning.