Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 85b

Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome everyone. We're continuing in Mesecas Nedarim. Daf Pay Hey, Amud Bais. The Gemara actually the Mishna on Pay Hey Amud Aleph discuss the following case. The Mishna said im sheini oisah piha If a woman said basically she makes a kinam, I'm not going to work for you. I'm not going to give you my maseh yadayam. So the Tana Kama says ein tzoch lafer. You don't need to annul it because it's not chal. She has to work for him. Rebbi Akiva oimer yafer. Rebbi Akiva says he has to annul it. Why? Because she may tadif al yosef min ha'arayit. Like she might work and produce more than is coming to him. So in other words, the halacha is the Mishna says in Kesubos that there's a basic amount that a woman has to work for her husband. How much? The amount of that will weigh five sela of the threads of a warp. So then if she that's how much a woman is obligated to work for her husband. If she makes more than that so then that she keeps. So in case he makes more than is coming to him, he has to annul it. So the question is why? Because she gets to keep that amount. So that amount is uh required to be annulled because it's chal. So the question is why is he allowed to annul it in the first place? It's not being annulled. It doesn't belong to him. In other words I I understand why the neder is chal. She could say I'm not going to give you the excess, but uh but since it's how is he allowed to annul it? We'll have to see in the run. Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri says yafeh, not because she's uh it will be chal on the excess because he might divorce her, at which point the nether will be chal that she she she's saying I can't uh I ask her my handiwork to you. Right now it's not chal, but if he divorces her, then she's not obligated to work for him. And in that case, the nether will be chal. To which the Gemara is medayek Amar Shmuel halacha Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri that the halacha is like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri that you're annulling it for when the nether is chal later. To which the Gemara is medayek lemeimra de kasavar Shmuel adam maktish davar shelo ba la'olam. A person can sanctify something that didn't come into the world. Um Now, it happens to be that we did not see the Ran's yesterday on the Mishna or the beginning of the Gemara. So, let's see that. We have a lot of Ran's to do. The Ran says in the Mishna "Kol hanam she'ani oisa al pi aba ma she'ani oisa yehei lefi aba bekohenem." Whatever I make will be asur to my father. Eina yachola lehafer einu einu einu nidrei einu nefesh. These nedarim are not nidrei einu nefesh ela divarim shebeino lebeina. But if she says "She'ani oisa al picha", einu tzarich lehafer, he doesn't have to annul it. Mishum deshibudei meshubedes lei, she's meshubed to work for him. The lav kol kamina demavkesa leshibudei, she cannot remove the shibud, she has to work for him. Rebbi Akiva imer yafeh. Rebbi Akiva says he shouldn't annul it. De'Akiva Rebbi Akiva hozeh hadafa didai. The the excess belongs to her. ila lei nidra. And the nether is on the excess. The she's not to create the excess. The offer. This therefore he needs to annul it. Why is he able to annul it? He made permission to be in a car. He annuls it because the excess is considered personal. Why? Because the camera holds that the excess belongs to him as well. Next round. We have to worry about her. She might divorce her. The and he won't be able to take her back. He agrees to come home. That the nether is not on the excess cuz the excess belongs to the husband. The ball have. He doesn't have to know it because of the excess. I'll let you know. He might divorce her. The another summer. And another will be held then. Why? She might get her share. Because when he divorces her, well, when he divorces her, then what's going to happen is She's not to work for him. And she will not be able to go back to him. Cuz he can't marry her if he's not going to get her and he actually leaves her. Let her Let her marry her and she'll be able to give her No, it's impossible for him to be careful. She will not be able to grind and she will not be able to bake and all the other things that are taught in the Mishnah. Okay. So, the Gemara said that Shmuel said halacha k'Rav Yehuda, and the Ran says d'Amar Yaffa. To which the Gemara says l'Meimra d'Kashver Shmuel od d'Maktish d'varim sh'lo b'olam? How do we see from the Mishnah od d'Maktish d'varim sh'lo b'olam? The Ran says on the medium wide line, d'Eilai kivan if now the neder is not chal, l'kamei nami lo chal, it won't be chal later. So, now the Gemara has a stira. What's the stira? Let's go back to the Gemara. U'ramin hei, we're going to ask a stira. Hamaktish ma'aseh yadeiha ishah, one who's maktish the handiwork of his wife, harei zu oiseves oicheles. She can continue to eat, to produce, and to eat. What does that mean? She should She could continue to produce and to eat. Meaning, she could still go to work, and she could uh and she could use the money that she makes. If somebody sanctifies the ma'aseh yadeiha of her wife, um she could still use the earnings, and v'ha ma'aseh. Oh. Here, she could work and eat. What does that mean? She could work and eat? Basically, the hekdesh is not chal. Why not? I thought the ma'aseh yadeiha go to the husband. So, why the Why is the hekdesh not chal? So, look in the Ran. U'ramin maktish ma'aseh yadeiha oiseves oicheles, eika d'mukmin b'perek aleph lamed beis. There are those who establish this. We have this in Kesubos. Afilu b'malo Because the question is, >> [snorts] >> the halacha is the ma'aseh yadeiha of a woman go to her husband. Otherwise, um he's not going to want to support her. But the question is, why do we do this? Why do we give the maser dime to the husband? Is it because we want to make sure he supports her? You know, what's the uh what's the logic of giving the maser dime to her husband? So, there is opinion that even if he is supporting her, still he can't be mocked as her maser dime because of you she's beyond the love of the day. She could say, "I don't care that you're supporting me." And technically, you get my maser dime. No, thank you. She could work You know why the the You know what the rationale of why he can't uh be mocked as her maser dime in a situation where she says, "Listen, you don't feed me and I don't give you my earnings." According to the man down there that she doesn't have the right to say, "Don't feed me and I won't give you the earnings." How's that? We're talking about a case where he's not feeding her. So, therefore, she doesn't give him the earnings. But now the question is the hamoiser back in the Gamora. What if he's mocked as more than what she is required to work? It is sanctified. It's not sanctified. That it's not sanctified. And the logic is in other mocked as so, we have to study this. Why would that be an explanation for why the excess is not hectic? If he sanctifies the excess of her my cedar and the honey yes, more than the five seller. Ramiro Ramiro says hectic. Ramiro says it's hectic. Mookie lot small Hassan. >> [snorts] >> Small establishes it there. The mellow zenus. Where he feeds her. The cassette should take new luck at home and the local is like this. The local is the government were messing in that the husband gets the excess as well. And in forgetting the excess, the husband has to give his wife spending money. How much? One ma. One ma every week. So the case here is he's not giving it to her. He's not giving her the ma cassette should take new luck at home and the local is like this. Ramiro hectic. I saw why is it holy? If he's not giving it to her. Love me high and come out. It's talking about where she died. And now the husband Yarshins her excess. The last late baby me D. Cuz he doesn't own it because he didn't give her the ma. And the hectic to come. It means it's hectic after she dies. Shabal Zaha by whom I saw him in the Yurosha. Which we later may or may not Magnesh Dover Shul below oil on. So you're Magneshin and when is it how it's how for when she dies? So we may wrote Adam Magnesh Dover Shul below oil on. Which fits well in with Rebbe Yochana ben Nuri. The problem is Shmuel said Halacha K'rebbe Yochana ben Sandlar. Even though earlier he said Halacha K'rebbe Yochana ben Nuri. So Rebbe Yochana ben Sandlar I'm a fool and this rule lay in Adam Magnesh Dover Shul below oil on the run says. So we have a S'tira. What in our Mishna Shmuel said Halacha is like Rebbe Yochana ben Nuri that you could be mad that if you make a nether you're assering her Maseh I'm for after she's divorced. Right? If the woman says my Maseh I'm also to you, you will know it because it will be how after she's divorced. That means the nether is how for a later time. Adam Magnesh Dover Shul below oil on. And here we say that the the excess money if she's if the husband is Magnesh it it's not going to be how for when she dies cuz ain't no other Magnesh Dover Shul below oil on. So the guy says we can take my key camera Halacha K'rebbe Yochana ben Nuri Allah Dover who the camera. Maybe when when did Shmuel say Halacha is like Rebbe Yochana ben Nuri? What he meant is only regarding what Rebbe Yochana ben Nuri said about the excess. Remember, Rebbe Yochana ben Nuri said the nether is how for after the divorce. But it's not how on the excess. And the reason why it's not how on the excess Rebbe Yochana ben Nuri said Yosher Shemi Gashana. But it's not on the excess because holds like the that the excess belongs to the husband. So maybe that's what meant regarding the excess, but not regarding the fact that it's for later. Says the that he should have said that it's like on the excess. See says the third third line third line regarding what he says you are not because of the excess. This is because of the excess. This is because of the excess. This is because of the excess. This is because of the excess. This is because of the excess. He says it's on the excess because it belonged to her. He argues and he argues argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues and he argues. Maybe didn't hold that you need to it because of later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. This is because of the fact that it's for later. In or another is No, this can't be. Why? Back in the because if he meant that it's like by the he should have said that it's like by the he should have said that it's like by the he should have said that it's like by the he should have said that it's like by the he should have said that it's like by the he should have said that it's like by the he should have said that it's like by the he should have said that it's like by the he should have said that by Namely, look in the Ran. He should have said that the Halakha of Rabbi Akiva is stamma. Because saying Halakha of Rabbi Akiva is stamma is not mashma, it's only going on the excess. It's mashma he's agreeing with his main teaching, namely that or he should have said Halakha like Tanna Kamma. Or he should have said that the Halakha is not like Rabbi Akiva. That the neder is not chal on the excess. But not Halakha. By the way, the Ran flips these two answers. Look back in the Ran. That would have been beautiful. The meaning that the Halakha is not like Rabbi Akiva about anything. Not regarding what he said you need to annul it cuz you don't need to annul it for later. The chafara mishum the Adam Makdish le-Ishto le-Olam. And not regarding what Rabbi Akiva said. Meaning what what did Rabbi Akiva say? Rabbi Akiva said you need to annul it because of the excess. So Halakha of Rabbi Akiva because you don't need to annul it. Not because of the excess, because it would belong to her, and not because of le-Ishto le-Olam later. The lesser it belongs to the husband and therefore it's not chal. Halakha like Tanna Kamma. He says you don't need to annul it. The Adam Makdish le-Ishto le-Olam. May the law is like the Tanna Kamma that you don't need to annul it because not because of the excess cuz it belongs to him and not because it's later cuz in other magnets of the laylam so I appear and nothing. This is the correct interpretation. After he appears came out the paragraph of P. Although this is not how Rashi explained it in Kesubos, this is the correct interpretation. So the Gemara says, we can answer the steer and Shmuel differently. Again, the steer is on our Mishnah he comments that a law like that other magnets of the laylam and regarding a man who answers the master you the story we he holds like Rabbi Nassan Adler that how raise the moiser is chulin. Why is the moiser chulin? The way the run explained it cuz in other magnets of the laylam. It's the moiser of the yerusha. So the Gemara Rabbi Shimon says my is kind of is different. What does it mean kind of is different? Really? Really the halakha is let's see in the Mishnah she said kind [clears throat] of and in the case the Gemara asked from it's hectic. What's the difference? Shani kind of my is. Really we say >> By hekdesh, the halacha is ain adam makdish davar sh'lo ba ba oilam. That's why Shmuel said, "Halacha k'Rav Yehuda and not like Rav Meir." You can't asser the meisur after she dies. But in our mishna, we're dealing with kainamis. Kainamis? For kainamis, a person could be makdish davar sh'lo ba oilam. Why? Shani kainamis hol v'adam oiser peiros chaveiro alav. Since I can asser your fruits on me, I could say your fruits are kainam to me. Wait a second, your fruits are lo ba oilam to me. I don't own them. How could I say Michael, I could I could say your fruits are asser to me. You live in in a hot place. I can't say where I don't want to give up your identity, but you live in a hot place and they have good mangoes there. So, I say your mangoes are asser to me. What do you mean? I don't own your mangoes. They're asser to me because I they're yours. No, but maybe one day I maybe one day they'll be mine. So, I could asser your things on me? So, that means I have a there's a certain concept of us you could asser davar sh'lo ba oilam. So, too, since I kainamis applies to your friend's item, it also applies to davar sh'lo ba oilam. Hol v'adam oiser peiros chaveiro alav. Since a person could asser the fruits of his friend on him, oiser nami davar sh'lo ba oilam. They could he could also asser something that is not in the world. Says the Ran, Shani kainamis hol v'adam oiser peiros chaveiro alav. Mai k'parachta? Why are you asking a stir may hekdesh l'kainamis af al gav d'ein adam makdish davar sh'lo ba oilam? Even though a person can't be makdish davar sh'lo ba oilam, adam oiser davar by Adam. A person could also by Adam. >> [snorts] >> I can't be your fruits. I can't say your mangoes are hectic. But I could say they're also I could say they're kind of. So. I know the but Adam also by Adam the other we find something that applies by the lesser of hectic shall we have a piece of the pears of even though a person can't be the fruits of his friend Adam pears of Adam of a person could also the fruits of his friend on him but you can since this is so Adam also Nami Adam shall I but Adam since this is so a person. Also something that's the pears of Adam the day cuz a person's friends fruits to him Adam like something that didn't come into the world the less of who made it I don't have any ownership in it. So I buy you says no that's a bad analogy you're saying just like I could also I can make a kind of on your fruits to me. I could also be kind of Adam shall I buy Adam I'm really a buyer Bish Lama Adam also pears of Adam. Bish Lama I could also your fruits on me. Shall we Adam also pears of Adam. Cuz I could also my fruits on you. I can also your fruits on me. Because I can also your fruit I can also your fruits on me because I can also my fruits on you. Why is that? But Adam also Adam I'm going to also something that's not in the world on you. Shall we Adam also pears of Adam. I cannot say your fruits on you. What do you want to ask her in this case? You want to tell your wife the wife wants to say I ask her my handiwork on you. Well, first of all wait, first of all her handiwork is not in the world. So, she's going to ask her her handiwork on you? She can't ask her I can't ask her your fruits on you. So, I can't ask her something that didn't come into the world on you. The reason I could ask her your fruits on me is cuz I can ask her my fruits on you. You know why? Cuz in both of these cases the person who the answer is to is here. But, I'm going to ask her something that's not in the world to you? First of all, it's not in the world. And I have no rights over you. I can't ask her your own fruits on you. How can I ask her something that's not in the world on you? Look in the run. >> [snorts] >> I'm going to lay this llama on them periods Allah this llama. You can ask her the fruits of your friend on him on you. I could say your mangoes ask her to me to Adam periods cuz I can ask her my fruits on you. In yes, but I could stop camera. You said good. The periods could have a dummy. That the fruits of your friend is like something that's not in the world. Me you me mark on Shabbat. But, from the place that you came the we don't find by the Adam L A have a minute by the shoe say. by kind of we only find you could do something if one of the items is in my domain, namely or your pair is either it's my fruits or your Adam and the hem or the person who's becoming us in my domain. Adam Paris have a a love. I can ask her my fruits on you. I'm sorry. I can ask her your fruits on me. You know why? Cuz even though your fruits are not in my domain, I'm in my domain. I can ask her your fruits to me. But what do you mean? Your fruits are loyal to my Okay, true. The item is not coming to my world, but I I do have control of myself. I don't control your fruits, but I do control myself. So I can ask her your fruits to me even though your fruits to me are loyal cuz at least I'm loyal to them. Then he shall pierce like go say Mia pursue say who the the Adam Paris I can ask her my fruits to you. What do you mean? You're not in my how can I ask her my fruits to you? I don't control you. You're right. I don't control you, but I control my fruits. I will be Kim shall pierce from here. We see only need one thing to be in the domain either the item or the person. I could ask her my fruits to you even though I don't control you. I control my fruits and I can ask her your fruits to me even though I don't control your fruits, but I could control myself. That you could learn. The Adam will I can ask her your fruits to me even though they're loyal to the loyal to Paris have a saying that's not in the world is like your friend's fruits. So I could ask her the loyal to the loyal to me. But what do I want to do it? In the case of the Koinamis, I'm sorry, in the case of Hektish, where you're saying the Meisar is Kulin. Let's see how the Ran says it. Kaveira I The Gemara wanted to say that in the Mishna we hold Adam Kadesh Olam. Why? Because you're dealing with Hektish. But in the Braisa, we're dealing I'm sorry, in the Mishna we're dealing with Koinamis. And therefore you could Dava Lo Olam. And in the Braisa we're dealing with Hektish and therefore you can't. And by Koinamis, since I could Asser your fruits on me, I could Asser Dava Shalo Ba Olam. Meaning, the woman could say, "My handiwork that's Lo Ba Olam will be Asser to you." No, that's not analogous. I could Asser your fruits to me because I'm Ba Olam. But now I want to Asser My What does she want to do? I'm not going to work for you. It's lay bala oilam. The item I don't have control of and I don't have control of you. So, how in the world could you say that by kein yirbu she could say, "I asur my handiwork in a situation where we get divorced?" No. I can't I don't control you and I can't control something that's not in the world. So, I don't have control over either of these items. Look back in the run. A lady yesur davar shelo ba oilam chaveiro dumya d'masnisan. Similar to the mishnah she says asur masya dayah that she's asuring her handiwork. Shelo ba oilam oilam didn't come to the world. Halo matzliach l'vishat l'isura. You can't prove that it's asur. Adarabah, mi makom she bas from the place you're coming from ikul ameil of heteira you could learn heter. Shari inu d'moiser peiros chaveiro chaveiro. I can't asur your fruits on you. So, I shouldn't be able to asur davar shelo ba oilam oilam to you. V'davar shelo ba oilam chaveiro k'peiros chaveiro chaveiro d'mi. Can I say your mangoes are asur to you? No. You know why? Cuz I don't control you and I don't control your mangoes. So, I can't say my masya dayaim will be asur to you in 10 years when I make it. Because I don't control you and I don't control something that's not in this world. >> [snorts] >> So, we have to try another answer to answer the stira. How could Shmuel say that halacha in our mishnah is like Rebbe Yochana ben Nuri and in that braisa the halacha is like Rebbe Yochanan Hasandlar. In the mishnah it seems to indicate adam oiser davar shelo ba oilam and in the braisa it seems to indicate inu adam oiser davar shelo ba oilam says the gemara. Ela amar Rav Huna b'rei Rav Yehoshua b'ei maras yikadshu yada ila oisein. It's talking about if she says You know what it means that answering her handiwork? That's not double shalom she's answering her hands now for the produce that it produces. The mission is not an example of double shalom shalom because she's not answering the handiwork she's answering her hands. Says the run. Must needs and he the government of hockey. The mission is talking about this case. Let's see she says this then her hands are dish but you have to allow her hands are to her husband. Says the run. Even if you hold the person can be double shalom shalom. But I can't be something. Let's see the run is adding that this question is even if you hold Adam Marcus the bar shall I learn. What's the question? Park the key high governor in such a case when my honey it shouldn't help that feel like a comma cuz even Adam Marcus the bar and only said it but I remember the favor she I used to say this man she have to let her only if he said explicitly that he did not but still my it means now and now her hands are the bed. And the more says the human got you It's when she says it should be hechtish when she's divorced. Which sounds like even if here it works cuz her hands are in the world. So Gamara asks she's not divorced now. Why do you from where do you get that if you say this it will help? Let's see the run. Even if you say for later, why does it help? I'm not sure I understand the question. She's saying that it's going on her hands and her hands are by Olam. Okay, we'll have we'll have to explain this more. But what exactly is the question? Why should this not work? We're trying to say really but here she's saying I'm not being the earnings I'm going to make. I'm being my hands for the earnings. So why is that a violation? Why would that be a problem? Yeah, but it's it's the ownership in the hands now. No, it's the Halak. No, it's right now. >> It's when when she's divorced though. >> It's for when he's divorced. It's for when he's divorced. So, it's still a violation of other stuff by Adam. Cuz even though the hands are here, but still the hands are sure of it. The what? He only has over her head. She does it you mean she only has violence on her hands after the end. Mhm. Okay, very good. Thank you. Have a great night. Have a good night. I have to run to a wedding. Call tough. >> [laughter] >> Okay, good night. Bye.