Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 2b

this Torah class is brought to you by Torah anytime.com okay friends we're back at it B on the B okay we're continuing again we're trying we're trying to do it with some of the basic R and uh I hope we'll be able to do that okay so the gar says all nicknames ofad like you know just says why doesn't it say and we have a whole of all the possible subjects in where nicknames are like the thing itself why don't we have a similar thing in we have it by why don't we have it so says look in the r it doesn't say so says the third line and are said together in the same so we always like to put n together with Shu so once we put n andu together we'll throw in so tart it's it taught two once it taught two it taught the other two but by it doesn't say together with anything else so it says Alone says the f why is the order look back in the mishna the only reason it brought all four is because and are together so you would think in the Mish it should say and together that's the only reason we talk about all the cases is because it says and together in the so let's say and together in the Mish say no this is the key to the it taught where the item iser to you it taught where the item iser as opposed to an oath the item is not user to you you are user to the item this is the quintessential example of you know what the difference between a and a is ather is I have an apple I say the apple is user to me like a carbon so then the apple is user to me as a Nar it's like it's trfe so it's user to me there's some injection of Prohibition in the Apple the Apple has an the apple is to me but when I swear if I swear I'm not going to eat an apple it's not that the Apple has no problem with me the Apple gets along with me I don't get along with the Apple the Apple has no beef with me the Apple would like to me be my friend it's just I can consume it by the apple has a problem with me there's some um intrinsic element of Prohibition in the Apple that I can have it same goes with so when the Mish is listing the various prohibitions it's grouping together in categorical uh understanding as opposed to which is look in the r you're answering the to you you hear the difference between the language the terminology of a terminology of a nether is the eating of the item iser to me as opposed to an oath where I don't say it's to me I say you know when I say I say this apple is user to me when I say I say I can't eat the apple now a major Topic in the is let's say the guy mangles his his expression let's say a guy says I swear that this apple is user to me or I take a NE that I'm not going to eat that Apple Su say it's meaningless you can't swear the Apple's user to you how is the Apple user to you you can't make a n there you're not going to eat the apple you're allowed to eat the apple you can only say I make a NE the Apple's user to me or I swear I'm not going to eat the apple and other say no if you say ne we know how it operates despite the fact that you misrepresented the mechanics of it it could still work okay but we're not we're just going to read that part of the r fine the gar continues thear ask a bomb question remember back in the mishna the mishna spoke about nicknames and then the Mish spoke about a case of somebody who says I'm far from you I'm going to be distant from you I'm going to be a nether from you that I'm going to eat that I'm going to taste remember that was the third category called y so I don't understand the mishna began by talking about the the category of K and then went on to explain examples of Y why does it jump from kinoi to once it gave the examples of K it should explain what cases of K are why does it list and then explain cases of Y those are two separate categories soar asks it begins by talking about that and it explains the case of it says says to his friend I am user to NE from you this um so that's question number one it begins with k and it explains y the and second moreover y ini it forgot to even say there's a category of Y in other words these are two distinct questions question number one is why does it it speaks about the category of kin and then it go goes on to list cases of Y so it's listing the wrong type of case after speaking about K and furthermore the mishna forgot to say there's a category called yis so before before you could explain cases of Y don't you need to introduce the concept that there is a concept of Y I mean there it's very similar questions question number one is it said the category of kinu why would it then list the exact examples of Y and furthermore Why didn't it establish that there is a category of Y forgot so says no I we're talking about them we are the M does talk about Y where it left it out that's where it's it should have said it by the way does not mean that the Tana forgot it means that it was intentionally omitted for various reasons either it didn't fit the tune that they used to learn mnas in so they took it out so that the C the tune would be more catchy for the words that's what the is says or or even though it was in the original text of the mishna but when revi condensed it um he did not include those words but it actually originally said that okay that's another that's probably the more authoritative basically like this this is very important to know the Mna used to be much bigger the mishna used to be 600 SAR of mishna says now we only have six rebbi condensed it otherwise there's no way we could hold on to it in our minds he took much larger information and he condensed it so when we say means it's missing and in fact this is what it used to say it used to say in the original text of the mishna so it said it said so we were talking about and it was missing this is what it means to say I'm sorry all nicknames of and all handles of and then it goes on to explain the Y so says okay but I still have another question why does it if it first says K and then it said y why does it first explain the Y and then by the way it will explain K in later M so it's sort of out of order it says it used to say y why would it explain y before it explains K so thear asks um the why didn't explain K first says very very simply uh very simply you know why the one that it just departed from it explains first it said it said y we just said y so we'll explain y you know what examples of this are every Friday night what could you light with Friday night what could you not right so there is that's an example of really it should have said first but since we just said we explain first what could you insulate with what could you not and then we first explain or you um what could a woman carry on let's look at the ran the ran says the second last narrow line he's explain the's [Music] question I understand the T began with because in other words why didn't the gar say you know what an interesting way out of this could have been the mishna is missing and the mishna really started off and that will explain why we explain before K but the says that would be ridiculous that the mishna was missing at the very beginning you can't be missing at the beginning you know you can't you can't say I'm part of D I just didn't come for d b no no if you you can miss other days but not D B if you Miss D B you didn't join the program you know you can't be missing in a mishna before the mishna started so even says even if you want to say the mishna is missing can't be missing in the beginning person is not missing in the beginning of his words only in the middle since the had to be beginning with even if it taught after and it's just missing it should have first explained that it began with and secondly the question is Y in it left out y entirely it forgot it it didn't even mention it and the answer is it answers the second question that we were talking about it and once we were talking about it we continued to explain it so the G asks why don't we explain first the says even though you answered the second question of why Y where did y go so you say but should shouldn't we have explained first we still have the first question the answer is it's the of the to explain first the one that it ended off from like so now the gar asks it's not true this is not an accur this is not a true approach but we learned in some people inherit and Beque like a father and a son if either one dies the other one inherits and if the other one dies the other one inherits in other words a father and a son the son could inherit from the father and if the son dies the son bequeaths to the father um there are some who they it but they don't Beque like a son and a mother a son and a mother where a son will inherit from the mother but not bequ to the mother and it first explains it explains the first case first or there are some people are M to their husband and to the Y thean says what's an example of that a listen to this a regular who married a widow right let's say a regular married a widow and his brother's a so if he dies his brother she's m to her husband but she's to her y because the y k she can't marry uh or you could have a case to the Ander to the husband for example let's say a married an so the husband's user to his wife but she would be m to the so in this this case it first lists it first lists and explains the first statement not like what we're doing here in AD or need oil and frankincense sorry some need oil and frankincense or oil and not frankincense the following need oil and frankincense the explains four lines to the I'm sorry they need and and is and there it explains the first case first so how could you say that it's the style of the Tana to explain the case we left off from in fact we see it's not the style of Tana to do that it's the style of Tana to explain the first case first or here's another example someon need you to bring it to the close to the southwest of the and some I'm sorry some carbonous need you to bring it to the southwest of they don't need you to wave it some need they need you to wave it and not bring it close the following need you to bring it close the ran explains which need that the bring the close to the southwest corner this is the so someon need or what's the puts his hand on under the hands of the BM and he waves so what carbon need and don't need need the says what need and don't need that's the of or the bottom line is it says some needha some need and it first explains those that needha or there is a for inheritance let's say the firstborn of a father who who's not the who's not the firstborn of the mother or there's you could be the firstborn for the because you're the firstborn of the mother but the father already had previous kids and it explains so we have many many examples of where the mission will first explain the first case listed and not the last case so how could you say it's the style of the Tana that it says a it says b and it explains B first we many examples where it says a and it says b and explains a first says no there's a a regular order there's there's a way to categorizes all these previous cases there are many many examples in all these previous cases where we explain the first case first is because they're more than two cases what does that mean there're more than two cases in all of these previous cases in all these examples given it goes back to the it is um again these because there's so many cases explains the ones that it began with because these five examples that the gar quoted they all have four different categories with t without T without haha since in all these five cases there's so many examples it's going to be confusing if we first explain the last case mentioned so we have to keep things in order but in our mishna where we just list and Y or all the other previous examples it's only two examples it's not complicated we could first explain the last case mentioned so the says what about the we they're not a lot of cases and it first says the camel goes out so it first explains the first case so that's an ex so that breaks the rule we just said that the pattern is such that we only explain the last case mentioned when there when there only two uh categories mentioned so then why by B there where there not a lot of cases mentioned there it should explain the last case and we don't there we explain what so the G's conclusion is and we'll end with this it doesn't really make a difference there's no specific style the T there is no set style the T the Tana could freelance the Tana has flexibility who ever said that the Tana has to be boxed into one way of doing things let the Tana breathe a little bit the Tana could do sometimes this way sometimes that way it sounds a little strange no like huh flexibility and how you write a mish but sometimes it explains the one it started with sometimes it explains the one it ended with and the ran says that um even though usually there's a principle of that you should choose a specific methodology nevertheless when it comes to this there's no specific style and you could do however you would like so if you wanted to know why did the Tana start with k go to Y and explain y first is it because that's a set Style no it's not a set style that's the style of Nadar and it doesn't have to um conform to any other way of any other mishna because there's no Rhyme or Reason when it comes to how aana which which category aana decides to explain before the other did the Tana have any reason maybe but we don't know what it is there's there's no model that the Tana has to conform to okay so we did da um and that's it that's what we did we got it done bar thank you very much you've just experienced another Torah class brought to you by tor anytime.com