Why Would the Husband Have to Divest From What Falls To His Wife After Eirusin?

this Torah class is brought to you by Torah anytime.com okay good morning everyone I know it's a very busy day thanks for joining to understand an important here in the of the mishna talks about a man who writes to his wife I remove myself from your so the question is what exactly uh that accomplishes does it is it effective could a man remove himself from the of his wife if he wants to say I don't I don't have rights to your pay Ro I don't have the right to block your sale I don't have the right to inherit you and ultimately the gar asks that if you have two partners and one of them says I have nothing to do with my it's meaningless because it's not a l of transfer so then why does it work by a husband he already has rights to his wife's fruits so the gamar says what are we talking about uh we're talking about if he wrote it to her when she was in arusa like R said that a person because it's only and it's before you could preempt fine so in the mishna the rights to the fruits are M so you could uh sort of um preempt it so the have the following question let me see if I could get this up and everyone has to behave very well today because um I'm out of storage on my SD card so the file that's going to be posted is the zoom file so make sure you smile and you look good because you're gonna go on Tor anytime.com okay so so wow that was quick so it's good for you it's good um they so the gamar said that it's only effective if you are um it's only effective if you preempted so the ask and this is found in asks wait a second there's a question whether this is effective or not doesn't the gamar say that we're talking about where he said this well if he said ITA why does he have to be mic himself didn't we learn in the M didn't we learn that b both agree everybody agrees that if fall to her before nin and then nin happens that it's a good sale so why exactly are we uh we dealing with why would the Bal even have to be mik himself anything that fell to her she's allowed to sell even when she's in a that if something fell to her before and then she had why did he say that I have nothing to do with it because if she sells it it's valid and the says those fell before and it's talking about where they did do after because if he didn't write it to her then the sale would be botal so don't we see from here meaning don't we see from that the sale is buttle why does the husband even have to say din can't the woman just sell it anyway don't we hold that something that falls to Hera and then they doin the gar says that everybody agrees that she's allowed to sell it so then why does the husband have to be mik himself from it this is the question all the ask that why does the husband need to be mik if once once the gar started off by saying then the husband doesn't have to even say the woman could go ahead and sell it I'll tell you the truth I don't understand understand the question all the ask this question I don't understand it it's true that the woman is allowed to sell it but she's not selling it the question though is if he says I'm mic myself does that do anything so you want to know why does he have to be mic because he's in he has he has rights and if he's not mik I guess when when the mishna said you know we have to get the the mishna says somebody who says he gets to eat the fruits he gets to Y in her and what what is his statement effective that she could sell it ah so the question is it's only effective regarding that that she could sell it well if that's all it's doing she could sell it anyway because we said earlier that everybody agrees that anything that falls to her before nin she's allowed to sell after nin right so you hear the Kasha now I hear it very strongly we said earlier that everybody agrees that if property fell to a woman during AIS and then she Didu she could sell it so then why does she have to say why does the husband have to say even if he does doesn't say say that she could sell it anyway that's the Kasha of tus the ra says even that fell to her afterwards it also works this L is only a person could stipulate even on something that's not in the world so even though the gar says that we're talking about she said it but so we asked if she said ITA presumably it fell to Hera and in that case she could sell it even if the husband does not retract yes says ramban of course she could sell it even if the husband doesn't retract but she can't sell something that falls to her after Nan she could sell something that fell to her after thein even if the husband didn't retract but the ran again to says why does the husband have to be mic himself she could sell it anyway raan say yeah she could sell anyway if it fell to Hera but what if she said ITA but it didn't fall to her until she was then she couldn't sell it anyway but if now that he's mik now she could sell it says anything she has when she's even though she like all women according to the that she comes first before they retracted and they said the so let's get what the ran is saying ran is saying a very important again the is why does the husband have toik himself from the to about to allow the cell to be good didn't we learn in the mishna that everybody agrees that if it'sa and then we do that everybody agrees she could sell it yeah that's when it fell to her when she's in arusa but if it fell to her when she's in AA then the husband cannot be then if it fell to her when she's a she cannot sell it husband can be and now that he says he loses the ability to be that's how the raan deals with's by saying where okay comes the rush and the rush says it's not true the rush says so the rush wants to say that the mishna is going like the tan that you could be m yourself from something that's our Miss is going like the that our mishna holds like the tan that hold that you could beik from the that will fall to her after she does because it's a sea look and something that's not yet Roy to him and you could be however the rush says the rush says that thei implies um The Rush wants to say that maybe you could be misic yourself from something that will fall later however um is not this way what would be if it fell to her after and a person could be massed on something that's not in hisa it's not similar to if you write while she's still in arusa because when a man says to a woman who has when she's not uh it's already in the woman's hand so maybe then the husband could be mik himself for a later time Forin but if it didn't yet fall to to him in other words for him to say I'm myself from something that falls to you after nin we don't know that you could do this the rush seems to say that the Yami is not ma masma this way meaning the rush disagrees with the ramban the ramban says to answer tas's question why does he have to be misik himself a she's allowed to sell something that falls to her after Arison in other words again the question is that anything that she has when she's in arusa even though she does thein she could sell it so then if we're talking about in our in our mishna that he's mik himself so then he doesn't have to be mic himself because anything that falls to Hera she could sell when she's in AA so the ra the ramban is saying well the answer is he's M himself for something that falls to her after n that's something that ordinarily she would not be able to sell and that's um but the rush feels that thei is masma you cannot beake yourself from something like that you can't be misic yourself from something that doesn't exist I mean the ran to answer the question of why the husband needs to be mik himself can she sell it anyway so to that the ran says well she could sell anyway what Falls to Hera after theu but she can't sell anyway what Falls to her after theu and the rush asks on that well if if she can't sell it anyway he can't be mik from that because it doesn't exist in the world so what exactly is this makus between the rash and the ran can a man be misake himself from something that's not yet in the world while she's in arusa could he be misic himself from something that will F her when she's in AA so the a let's see if we could uh just see get something from this briefly tries to explain what exactly is the whether you could be yourself from something that didn't fall to her yet because the you can't be mik from property that doesn't exist really a person should not be able to himself while she's in ARA for property that F fell after he has no to it didn't come to her the reason why the rush holds the would help is why he's not being from the property he's himself from the woman he's removing himself from the woman not to be and the woman at the time of the for the that she sells and to the pero and to the rusa and to the woman herself he does have Shas cuz she he's anus to her so theum says you can't be mic yourself from property that didn't fall to another person yet but if you have rights in this person why do you have rights in her because you're she's your arusa and being her your arusa that gives you rights in blocking her sales so you relinquish your right in her not relinquish your right in the property that's the Sha you can relinquish your your rights of a property that that the person doesn't have yet but there are those who hold you could relinquish your rights in the you could relinquish your rights in the woman who is here and that's how it could be effective so again bottom line is all the ask if it's if if he said Ita then why does he have to say anything we learned earlier on that anything that falls to her she could sell even after n and the say oh here we're talking about it fell after Nan and that's why he would have to be mik himself because that's not something she could sell but the question is how can he beik himself she doesn't own it yet the answer is he's not M from the he's M from the rights he has in her friends have a great day everyone have a good day you've just experienced another Tor class brought to you by Torah anytime.com