Why Can You Make a Tnai in a Mitzvah that You Can't Make a Shliach For

progress okay good morning everyone sh great to see everybody and uh we have a fantastic uh topic today brings the statement of woman and you lived with her you do not have you do not need a gat because the T was unfulfilled and and the is M so's nephew asked that we know mut is a good what's mut where you say give her KH on condition that she gives you 200 to which says we see that if you do AA the is B here too when when you make a t in the Kad and then there's ba the T should be B to which his uncle said are you asking a good question what's the source of in the situation of said I will give you if you fight ahead of your brethren I will give you is but if you do not fight ahead of your brethren then I will not give you so in other words if you want the a if you want the portion of land if you want that share that you've been eyeing if you would like the trans Jordan then you have to go fight ahead of your brethren if you do not fight ahead of your brethren I will not give you is I will not give you the now in that situation of giving was able to be done through in fact did do it through he gave he gave the the trans Jordan to so since the source of stipulations of is so then only a only aai would only help in something that you could do the through like by but by where you can't do Thea through because she has to remove his shoe in such a situation aai is invalid that's what the gar says that it's not because the say no there's a totally different reason for that the reason is because there's a totally different reason the reason here is because the t is not a goodai because it's in AA that cannot be done through a okay that's uh that is the gar that the source of is and since that's the source of therefore it has to be something that it's okay now comes tus and tus says something very important tus the second tus asks here let me get it up on the screen here tus asks what logic is there here we don't learn out from the only what's logical we don't learn out from there that a doesn't help only by giving land in other words tus is asking that the fact that is the Paradigm of aai there has to be a logic for it it's not it was we should say well just like was a in giving land so too maybe you should only be able to make a when you give land but not by marriage but we don't say such a thing because there's no logic for that so what what what does that teach us that teaches us there has to be a rationale and a logic behind what we're going to glean from ru because we only learn out from there what's logical we don't learn out from there that aai only helps when you give land so that shows is the is the a paradigm of aai provided that there's a logic for it so what logic is there that aai only helps in a situation where you can make a so listen to what says this is the logic since the ACT is so much in your control that you could fulfill it through a it's a logic that it should likewise be in your control to make a stipulation where you can't do it through so you don't have as much control to make a and therefore even if the is not fulfilled the ACT would remain standing because of this compelling logic everyone agrees that you need to be able to fulfill through the requirement of let's say t that we know mayor holds you need a t that logic is not so compelling so there's an argument do you need a tonai cuffle or not but regarding do you have to be able to do it through a in order to make a that's there's a compelling logic to that what's the compelling logic that what does a tanai mean a tanai means I could control when and how this thing should be effective or not well we only will give you that license to control how effective it should be if you have enough control that you could ask someone else to do it but if you can't ask someone else to do it then you should not be able to control how it is made okay that's the logic of tus the theu questions the the rationale of this uh the says that it's theu says just the opposite says that this is perplexing because the more that Act is in your hand the more you shouldn't be able to make aai think about it the fact that I control Thea means it's more of AA so if I could if it's more of AA then so I should say the tonight doesn't work mean says if I could control the act by making a that means it's a reala the more of AA it is the less likely you should be able to make aai in it okay so um so therefore Thea says the opposite if not for the fact that I'm not worthy I would say the opposite that if it's a that I could do through a it's not a m you can't do through so it's not a then comes if I can't do it through a if if excuse me if I could do it through through it's not a reala a reala you can't ask someone else to do for you because anytime a is to in your go you can't do it through a oh it's a I can't make a a can't be but if it's something like giving which is not a real M I can ask someone else to do with it do it for me so I can make a tonight so let's contrast tus andu tus learns being able to make a demonstrates BOS control so if I can make a and I have BOS to make a I have BOS to make aai if I can't make a I don't have to make a I don't have BOS to make aai panua says just the opposite the fact that I could make a shows it's not a major league it's not a major league however so how does it feel with the how does with the the gar is beautiful where do we learn out that's it's not a real which is a real because you have to do it yourself that that's how the would read the now I would ask on theu if the reason why T doesn't help by a reala is because a t is words and is an act and so even if I could do it through it's still a albe it a weak one I shouldn't be able to make aai the seems to say like the the we don't learn everything out from we don't learn out that it has to be doubled we don't learn out that the yes has to come before no this we do learn out the since it's such a strong that you can't do it through a a doesn't work so the seems to be saying a like the seems to be saying as the way we learned the that a really strong the million dollar question is that what's the if a person wants to wear R so the says that the one that is because otherwise you get into an issue of question that means you can make a in putting Onin could I have someone put Onin for me and yet it t works or where we say in the morning by before when you say you should say in case if the is not doesn't say so your that if I don't end up saying I want to be now otherwise it should be that means you can make aai in or a famous T is the of the where you say I'm eating the now and then I'll eat the meal after and I'm allowed to eat after because this man of the is over and if is like so then I'll be later after my sud how could you make aai you can't ask someone else to eat a for you meaning we could use whether or the how could you make a according to if I can't Appo to means I don't have Bist over the the situation if I don't have Bas over the situation then how could I make it tonight according to Thea if I can't appoint it's a full-fledged so how could I make a so that's what we're going to address today so let's seeb says there are two types of agencies that without act as nothing you can't divorce your friend's wife for him a person can't sell something that doesn't belong to him without or so these are instances that without what you're doing is nothing or let's say where the ACT doesn't need let's say where I'm doing the A and the is just there to to attribute the to the to the in the first situation without the all only the could effectuate when makes he's giving that ability to the this is only this is only only where the person is effectuating the but we the is by itself through Thea the that you need to be able to effectuate any type OFA that only is true where the person is making the but if the happens by itself through the you can't give that to why he himself can't do it let's give an example the husband is the matter he could give that ability to the by the is M his wife so since his in his control is M's wife he he could give that over to someone else is the then can't give something that he can't do he can't get give over the is only M if it's done through the Y and therefore doesn't help that the should be like the Y for example could a make AAR to do the a that he should be like a Cen look at the end over here listen to what is saying says you know when you can make a you can only make a if you have the capacity to do something then you could give it over to someone else but what if you're not doing it what if the effectuation happens by itself the is not the the is M the is M he could then give it over to the but by it's not the that's M it's the that's M so I can't give it over to you can't give you over a I can't give you over the MAA okay yes we could try to figure out why is that why why is what proof does have that by G the and by the act of M but if you accept that that there's a difference between the person and the act that if it's the person the person can give over his personage to someone else if it's the ACT he can't give over the to someone else says likewise aai could only help if I'm doing it so I'm doing it I will determine how it's done but if I'm not doing it it's the act that does it it's not I can't make a tiai if I by I can't make a why because it's the ACT if it's the act and it's not me I can't make aai by Gish it's me if it's me I can make aai so comes of p shinberg and he says this might explain why you can make a t in mitz what's the reason why I can't make aai in KH because I'm not the BM in it why am I not the BM in it because it's I'm not the one making the it's the ACT making the it happens by itself but by says shinberg the reason why I can't appoint to is not because I'm not the BM on the the happens by itself it's a separate my body has to be be the one doing the Mitzvah okay this is how R shinberg explains based on ran these are the mar provided on this subject by um the daa sh program I want to share with you I think uh to my mind a more straightforward approach to this um and this is presented by Frank again the question the simple question is that we have two why only an act that you could do through you can make a says if I'm enough of a that I can make a I can make a if I'm not enough of a BM to make a then I can't make it tonight so which we ask well you're not enough of a BM to over Mitzvah is to appoint someone to do it so how could you make it t or according to the if it's not a strong act because I can make a then I can make a t but if it's such a strong act that I can't have someone else do it for me I can't be M so then how can you make a b it looks like in the footnotes um he brings as follows say Frank that my son-in-law asked in the name of shim how does ity help inin but it's to which Frank says we could use a ran in Bas why could a make a he can't make a to do the n for him why could he make aai because we only learn out from when it's a but always works you hear the ran this situation of is making a stipulation it's between two parties but when I'm doing a Mitzvah it's between me and myself then aai does work what would the logic of that be I would say the logic is it's a matter of control when I'm dealing with you how do I determine if I have enough control over the situation that I can make a stipulation if I control the situation I could have someone do it for me so then if I can have somebody do it for me so then I can make aai that's the barometer to determine what level my control is over the situation but that's between two parties Mas if it's between me and myself says Frank then I don't have to ask myself do I have enough control over the situation what do you mean do I have enough control over the situation it's my situation it's my Mitzvah I only have to determine right so the the issue is like this can a person make aai so we say what do youan make a tanai you're dealing with it's between you and somebody else yeah maybe you don't have enough control over the situation to make aai in the stipulation between you and someone else so we say no if I have enough control of the situ situation like says that I can make a then have enough control to make a but says the ran that's only then we don't learn out from you have to be able to make a and I think the logic is because if it's between you and yourself you you are already the only governing individual over the situation we don't have have to determine do you have enough control there's no lack of control you're the one doing it that's how I believe Frank would answer this of the that if we learn only in situations where you can make a then how could you make a in a Mitzvah no Mitzvah is differents but in the footnotes of the in mes there are notes called KES KES was written byen the father of R DAV and I had I had this when I was learning I once heard from the Father the of he's the one who put together the m he has footnotes he quotes the Mish that asked this question that we're asking on that if the source of is and is saying you can only make a if it's because only then you're the BM so then why are you allowed to make in mitz and the Mish yob says that based on we have an answer learn the M is so much in your control you can make a t the is that if I can't make a there's a in my B over the situation so I can't make aai in the situation but says that's a person let's say is there any in the you see if tells if you go over and you fight for I'll give you and if you don't I won't give it to you so now there's a struggle here between two parties how much control does have to say he's only going to give the Pro if they fulfill their end of the deal so then there's a compelling logic if controls the situation he could even have Yeshua B give the land so he doesn't even have to do it himself he could appoint someone else so then he has enough control to make aai however however if he does not have enough control over the situation to a point he does not have enough control to make it tonai so um r k says this could be what the ra means you need to have and if you don't have that you can make a then you can't make a it's not get anybody else why should it be on the of the Mas it's so it's not no anybody else you're the only BM over here okay that's what we got today so again just to summarize says the gar says we learn out therefore only can make you can make a you can't make you can't make a asks but we don't just arbitrarily learn out from there has to be a logic to it so what's the logic only where you can make a so and the says if you could make a that shows the you're so you can make a if you can't make a it's not you can't make it t the learns the opposite that if you can make a it means it's a a weaker it's a weaker you could be if you can't make a it's a strong you can't we asked according to both how could you make a in a you can't make a so it shows it's a strong and it and it shows you you have a lack of Bas and ultimately the answer that Frank gives and that R gives is that it only shows a lack of BOS if there's another party involved so then we have a question who's in control of the situation but if it's just between you and yourself because there's it's a matter ofv then we say um then we say that it is not uh relevant whether you're able to make a because there's no question about your bence over the situation okay everyone that's what we got today have a wonderful day okay how do you determine when you have a and a bow how do you know which one is stronger look for example yeah someone's making a Kenyon you're going to buy something in that case obviously the B can make the so you say it's not theice that's you say theice the how do you determine which one's stronger the B the B we don't it's not a matter of determining whether the B is stronger or Thea by you mean who determining who makes the the the the person or the Act Right seems like I was thinking there is a difference I don't know if this is true but every time if a could do the same thing then then he can you make can't do it you can't in other words could go buy something from somebody you go make he says I'm buying it myself you're allowed to you need to bow do you can't can't do it himself is that possible that the difference yeah I hear why can't you send a for because you need the B to do the physical so if you need the Bal then what the M does it and not the B then the M does it and not therefore the the B can not make a but if it's a making a do something and could say I don't want it I'll do it myself like like buying something there you're allowed to make a you can make a if the Bal could do it himself so by Gish you could make a and by kadush you could do a even though by kadushin he could do it himself by Gish he can't do it himself right the problem yeah okay have a good day everyone