Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
Hi. Hi. Dear friends, just want to share
with you uh a point on
me.
Ramy had a question. If you asser fruits
on ply, are the asser?
We know if something's asser to you,
if you asser your friend's fruits on
yourself,
since you could asser your friend's
fruit on yourself, then you could answer
something that
you're going to exchange it for. You can
answer
because I have over something that's not
mine. So I have over something
that didn't happen yet.
But my friend, I can't asser my friend's
produce on my friend. So maybe I can
asser my produce on my friend if that
produce is exchanged for something else.
What's interesting is later on in the
Gumar, the Gomarra tries to bring a from
someone who's mad.
If you marry a woman with Arla, okay,
what does that have to do with the price
of tea in China? We're talking about
whether I could asser on you
something that if you exchange it
whether that's mut or asser for you. How
is that relevant in any way for someone
who's
the even says that regarding yourself
there's no question that is so if
there's no question that is user then
how can we bring from two meaning two
points point number one is not
how do we bring from arah has nothing to
do with nadar number two the ran said's
question is only regarding you regarding
me there's no shila
either because I'm a for myself or
because
it's an isan and therefore the kufin is
so if there was no shil regarding the
person themsself
then why is there what's the proof
regarding kaducian
I guess because kaducian
is also regarding the other person
regarding the person your your makish.
Let's take a look one more time at the
says on the bottom of
the says explicitly
we're not just asking a question about
about all
the is not only by the shila would apply
by as well.
Now the also adds
we don't have a sh about can you
exchange it
can you take and exchange it
if you're not to get h you can't sell it
or exchange it. So even for the other
guy who I made I created an to you
you're not allowed to sell it or
exchange it.
Then if you skip to the next line,
the question though is let's say you did
sell it or exchange it.
The sh is if you violated and you
exchanged it.
And if you go to the next line, here's a
suffix. Okay.
Is the is to take
or
so now is an to exchange it
or not. What's a shy love?
Do we say
when the Mishna says
you can't exchange it or you can't take
something that grows from it?
Is it because the of the one who made
the nether is that it should apply to
and in that case that would only be for
me? It would not be for you because I am
not my is not gonna answer for you.
It's true that something that it's
exchanged for is like it didn't come
into the world.
I could ask her something for myself
but for my friend
I can't ask her
maybe
when the mission says
it's not because my toer it's a that
here. This is the
to the one who exchanges it. Therefore,
it doesn't matter if it's me or my
friend. There's a that is whatever it's
exchanged for is assur. Now just want to
point out that
according to this when the garra brings
a from
what do we bring from there it's talking
about the person themsself and the
person so regarding okay we know from
the shila was by nadarim and by allurana
fine but there it's talking about the
nidair himself self. So if it's the no
himself
then the fact that then why in fact
could he be madesh with it for the no
himself it's the said the only shabi is
somebody else so the rand explains that
in the case of kadushen
think about it it's not that
is I have ara and I sold the ara so I
got a a potato for
So that potato is the so that I can't
get enough from. But now I want to
exchange a potato for the lady. So it's
now if
then even
but if it's just a matter of then should
not be that's the shila by yeah so
that's the intro. So now I want to bring
you to the Ram because
the Rans
let me see if I have it up here.
The ra the rans
the way the RN sets up the suga is the
way we're able to bring from
the way we're able to bring a from
because the saying the sh is by
could you see this? You see the ram?
You see the ram on the screen?
You see it?
Yeah. Okay.
You ask her fruits on your friend.
So what's the bottom line had a shila
and the garra has no it's
a shilah that has no uh we have no
conclusion right the garra didn't come
to conclusion it tried to bring a from
but ultimately it pushed off the
soil
it's a suffic
So
he's
and if he was nana he was nana meaning
he's not he's not but if he did he did
the raam seems to pass that it's a
suffic it's a suffic meaning the lisa
the
since it's
so it's a suffic whether you're allowed
to get you shouldn't and if you did you
did what are you going to do
the question is
that
the
Mishna
brings a steer in the Rambam
and by is han in general The rains
you hear this by the ra says it's
and it's a suffic and by
the the ramkins that it is
and therefore the
here look in the here
and that's how the tour pascins
Okay. He says, "Dray
look the he says the um the
[Music]
because according to the when
it's
not only
It's a
garra took it as a dash,
Right. Um
it try to bring an answer to the
question
all the questions.
It's you can't do
but if you did what's the
and this is from the fact that it tried
to bring a from
and the says no only you're now too.
So there's a contradiction in the Rambam
just just to keep things as simple as
possible that the Rambam's conclusion by
Nadarim is that it's a suffic whether
you are allowed to get Hana and by other
is Hana the Ram says it's permitted
is mut here the Ram's conclusion is saf
and by other is the Ram concludes
Mut
So the
Mishna concludes that the Rambam must be
arguing on the Ran that
the Ram the Rambam must hold that the
Shila and Agamar is only regarding
Nadarim. But the Gumar never had a Shila
about other Isurana.
The question though is that if that's
the case, why was the garra bringing a
from? If the garra never had a shila by
Isurana, the garra only had a shila by
nadarim. Then how could it bring a raya
from isurana that there it's mut? Of
course it's mut. We never had a shila to
begin with. The gr
explains the suga that in the beginning
the gamarra thought that ramy bakama's
shila was by all isurana and the answer
is no it's only by nadarim other isurana
would be okay the karan says that that's
not mash and the gumar's answer that the
gar is making a differentiation between
between is nadarim and other isurana
I just wanted just to bring to your
attention really today on this very
short day the opening line of the raan
that the raan says that Shilah is by all
is h and the proof is the fact that the
brings from and that seems to lock the
in that it's a general question
regarding all and and based on that the
says the Ram's inconsistent. Why does he
conclude that by it's a saf
it's I just wanted to bring that one
simple point to your attention
there's some very uh interesting
upcoming sug
for example
this was dam
me
I hope we could talk about the topic of
matana
for esrog
And ones I hope we could talk about the
topic whether
so hopefully the next two weeks we could
tie it into uh upcoming events.
Okay.
>> Okay. Thanks everybody. Thank you for
joining. Really appreciate it. Okay.
