Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 69a

Okay, good evening everyone and we're continuing inf we're in the middle of a shila that we digressed from regarding whether a husband or a bal is may the nether is it mega ga or mikl kalish do they split it in half or do they weaken and we're trying to bring and ultimately we have not brought Aria from the four cases that have been mentioned so far we did not bring Aria. So um we're we're now going to bring a from case five. Case five goes like this. If the father heard and he enulled it and the husband didn't have a chance to hear till the husband died the husband the father retracts he goes back and he enols the portion of the husband and this is a case of nrokna rashus Now basically what does what does the husband what does the father do? He already anulled his kale. Now he's anulling the kale of the husband. Now we already know this. So what is the of this case over let's say case one or case three? We'll have to see says the garnan said these are the words of says he can't be Mayfair. Now does that mean B Shamai holds Nisroya and Basill never holds of Niskna or maybe Basill would concede in case one and case three. It's just in this case he would not agree. It seems that Basillo would agree in case one and case threeus. Why? Basically in case one and case three, let's talk about case one. Case one, the husband either did nothing or he was made for it. But the thing is the husband died. And when the husband died, his hap was meaningless. So in that in that case what happens the father is inheriting a complete nether. But in this case, in other words, in case one and case three, the husband tried to anull either he uh didn't hear anything or he enulled but then he died. When he died, the husband's enulment is meaningless. In that case, what is the father inheriting? The father is inheriting a a complete nether. Complete nether. That's something significant. That's something the husband is able to enul. However, in this case three, we're coming to a new situation. The father already enulled half. So now he's only taking over half another. That's something that's not it's something that has lack of it has no significance. Something that has lack of it cannot transfer. So in this case while B says B say I would have to disagree about this case. This is the only case B disagrees to because in the previous cases the father is assuming total control for nether. In this case, he's he's just taking half. So, Bashami says he can't take half. I'm sorry. Bami says he could take half. Bas says he can't take half. So regarding the question of megas according to b shami the lumbuses they cut away half and according to mikes according to basel they weaken it according to b shami we split the nether in half the entire thing is split in half so I so the the father originally was made for half and then the father is able to inherit a full chunk. He could inherit a full chunk. But in the world of B hill, the way it's working is the father weakened it. So what's left now is he's what's the difference between vertical or horizontal? vertical is it's at full strength. It's only half of it. Half of it, but the half is at full strength. As opposed to downgrading the whole thing, right? As opposed to weakening the whole thing. It's the whole thing is at limited capacity. It's not half of the quantity. It's limited capacity. Limited capacity is not transferable. So, it's the ultimately the garam. So in fact B shame says Megas guys and according to B Shami if let's say a father was made for a nether and there were two olive and she ate both she would get malus and according to basil no you would not get malus according to basel you would not get malus let's see um the Why does it say it's not that he goes back and he knows what he already anolder? This is why he says he already anold his then he goes and he ans of the husband and in this it's enough he doesn't have tool his own he didn't die even though the husband died the father stands that the father could be made for in such a case. And it's enough for the for the husband it's and by anulling the of the husband alone it's enough since the anulment of the father since the father didn't died was not now you'll say okay why can't he men go and be made for the husband and his own. No, even if he goes and he goes back and he enols his the husband and now we're going to explain the reason we're going to supply the reason it's cut in half. When the father anold his heel alone the was not diminished it's stands completely and it's significant to transfer to the father but mlash according to it's weakened When the father ans his you see when he does it horizontally you see when you do it vertically my thing is completely anold and your thing is completely intact so your thing is completely intact it's transferable but when I weaken it I weaken your also so I weaken your also it doesn't transfer It's not significant to be murious to the father because since the father is still here his is not nullified. The nether stands in its weakened state. Since weakened, the husband can't be made for it. Now says the this is talking about if she didn't then get married to someone else. Basil is of the opinion that the father can't be mafur if she didn't do to someone else. If she married someone else, then on that day the husband, the father and the second husband could be made for we'll get to that. This is the commentary on this. that we rely on very much. I rely on this approach very much. But boy, have I seen a lot of things the rabbis wrote that are not clear that are not bor and I did not even concern myself to write it. Basically, this is a good approach to this as opposed to other things that I've seen. Next, Rava Rava asked, let's say like this, a husband here is an he's making it. Could he? I think we had a garra that assumed you could, right? Remember we had a garra that said, you know what the case is? One of them was and then they were theak. So I think was assuming there is to the hakama. But now the Gomorrah has a shim. And if you're going to say there is a way to anull an affirmation, could I anull an anolment? I en the nether. The father anold the nether. Could he then retract and say never mind. You see a heckum is a positive thing. So if it's a a positive statement, maybe it could be retracted. A hu you enulled it. So how you how do you pull it back? Imagine a man divorces his wife and then he says, "I want to divorce the divorce. I want to I want to banish the divorce." Okay, you're not married anymore. Can't you know what do you mean you enol the anulment? There's no nether you you know it's an interesting let's see the if they were and then they retracted it could they retracted that day or not the next day of course you can enul I mean if the husband is silent for a day then it's then it's an affirmation there's no way to retract that. So come in here said you are allowed to um you're allowed to anull affirmation but you're not allowed to anull an anulment. So that's a pretty definitive uh conclusion if I've seen one. You know, one second. We're bringing a tash from Interesting. I mean, wasn't a uh a Tana? If I'm not mistaken, we had an eonir in Kubis a few years ago. Is Raana? Did we have that? Does that sound familiar? Like do anyone remember did we discuss it on Natana? Let's see. Huh? No, I don't see that. No. Okay. I thought we I thought we uh once discussed that. I'll have to look further. Um, >> no no no no. >> It's not pushet. >> It was He's after Rebi was the Rav Rav and Ravmo were the first >> say Rav Tanu. Yeah. But even with Rav, we don't consider him a Tana in regards to arguing. Only very rarely does he argue. Yeah, but what we say with Rav we there are those who say we could say withan now let's see um one second one second the battery is about to go Did we have No, we didn't have um the Yad Malahi. Okay, I'm not finding it. Okay. Was it Tana? >> I've never heard that before. >> Now you heard it. >> Okay. >> Was a very early. Sure. >> And he could argue on the Okay. >> Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, we quoted a mali. Okay. We'll check after the share. Boy, rabba. Oh, see if this went back on. Okay, let's say you said it's affirmed. It's affirmed. It's affirmed to you. It's affirmed to you. China. Now the second affirmation was meaningless cuz once you affirm it's affirmed and then you retract the first affirmation. So does the second affirmation come in? What's the says the do we say since at the time that you said the second it's not it's not anymore maybe it's true that at that time it's not that's because the second didn't stand because the first stands It doesn't allow the second one to be. However, when you're made for the first one, the second one finds room to be okay. So now the gar brings come here. If you were made for the first the second one is this. What is this talking about? This is actually talking about a look in the earlier in we say on the I swear I'm not going to eat. I swear I'm not going to eat. So we say that if you if you the second sh is not but if you're made for the first one the second one is so but by way of extension here also if you're made for the first the second one will be next. It's affirmed for you and it's anulled for you the and I don't want the affirmation unless the anulment is so this is very interesting what what exactly is this shah You're saying I want it to be affirmed. I want it to be an but I don't want the affirmation to be unless the anulment is says there's a lot of uh chatter about this question in terms of the shil and the response. Therefore I'm going to explain what appears to me. Rabba is knows for sure the affirmation is not why if the isal you en it and if that is you only allow that to be if the if the is It's true later on where I wanted to I wanted to be affirmed and then I wanted to be an there you put a you made a set amount of time here. We didn't make a set amount of time. If the then is not and if you're going to say you made it tonight, you said you don't want the affirmation is for sure not. So what's the Shila? The Shiloh is about the what? Yeah. Do we say since you first said I wanted to be affirmed and then you said I wanted to be that implies you want the to be after and you don't want the to be Unless the was first you were stipulated. You made a stipulation. You don't want the to be unless the is you didn't stipulate the opposite. It sounds like you're making a that you don't want the to be unless the was first. But that means you were the should not be unless the you didn't make the opposite stipulation since you first said and then you want that to be Nothing is stopping it because you're concerned that that you didn't leave space for the you stipulated that you don't want the affirmation to be unless the isal. So it's like you stipulated on both of them or maybe not. It's true you said it's not that you want to be second. You can't say two words at the same time. He wants the anulment to be since he's more he's more makmed that the hafur should be kal. You want to be more than you are that if the you're revealing that the should not be but even though the of the is the you did not stipulate that the should not be. So the isal and the we'll go over this more tomorrow night, okay? to get the this exact last Shila of Rava.