Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 87b

Could you hear me? Could you hear me? >> Recording in progress. >> Okay. Excellent. >> Yes. >> We're going to give this a shot. We're learning da. And here we go. The Mishna said as follows. If somebody asserted figs and grapes. So if the husband affirms the nether on figs, the whole thing is affirmed. If he knows the figs, the Misha said it's not an old until he knows the grapes as well. We learned that there are two different perush and what does it mean? What it means it's not an old doesn't mean if he knows the figs the grapes are not an old until he knows the grapes or even the figs are not an old. But if a woman says I ask her figs that I'm eating, grapes that I'm tasting. So then she enunciated nether on each one separately. So then they stand on its own. Now so the Mishna says that if you affirm one both are affirmed. If you enull one it's not affirmed. Who's the husband will affirm? The husband will anal. What do we what do we see from there? She says I asked her figs and grapes that I'm eating. If she affirm if he affirms the figs the whole thing is affirmed if he knows the figs it's not till he knows the grapes as well. The Mishna that says affirmation on one is effective for the whole thing and anulment on one is not is going like but now we're going to bring a descenting view the view of it says it compares them. It says you see Rabi learns implies even if you affirm only partially but says it compares the two the husband will affirm the husband will anol just like by affirmation even if it's partial it's valid for the whole thing so to by anu if he anols part the whole thing is anulled Okay. So asked does it say menu? It doesn't say that partial anulment is effective and therefore partial anulment is not effective. But Rabika says we're going to compare the two. We're going to compare anulling to affirmation. Just like affirmation even partial. So this is the above mentioned opinions are the opinions of we compare affirmation to anulment. namely just like by an h what you anold is anold and what you didn't anold is not an by the way this is mashma like the Mishna that if you affirm partially at least what you sorry that if you enol partially at least what you enulled is valid is at least what you enulled you you undone you undid So too by affirmation what you affirmed is affirmed. So in other words say partial affirmation is for sure effective. They argue about um partial anulment. Everybody agreed partial affirmation the whole thing is affirmed. Mahikus says what if you anold it partially. Rabi compared Rabi compared it and Rabi didn't and but it sounded like there is a mandar that everybody agrees uh complete everyone agrees partial affirmation is valid. The question is what about partial anulment? Rabi Ka says partial anulment the whole thing is anold and Rabi Schmo said no partial anulment nothing is anulled that's what it sounded like or there was a view the whole thing is not anold now we're bringing in the opinion of the they say we compare affirmation to an just like by an what you anold is anold by the way that was that's not necessarily unanimous Yes. Why? Because Rabbi Rabbi Yeshua held partial affirmation the whole thing is affirmed. Partial anulment there is a view it's not anulled whatsoever. There was a view in the Mishna that at least what you anold is anold. But now we're taking it as a dra pash. It seems like that by an what you anold is an. So to buy hakama now let's see the run hair. It's a little bit hard to see the run here. Okay. The whole nether is not a like we say. So when we say it's not a note at all. Another meaning the first uh when we say it means for the grapes it's not an for the it is another is it's not an at all even for the figs like we wrote in the Mishna just like affirming even partially Um the mash even partial that's what it means the whole thing is affirmed even though it's not but we're going to make a it's hukash it's hukash nevertheless it's hukash oh There are people I don't I didn't see. Okay. Um Okay. Verar says the end of the Mishna we said as follows. If she said I asked her figs I asked her grapes. So the is that each one it's a separate nether. The mission is going like until you say the word for each and everyone. It's talking about like this. If many people are uh you money, if somebody swears falsely, they have to pay and add ash. But what if somebody uh is claimed? Many people say, "You owe me, you owe me, you owe me, you owe me." And he says, "I swear I don't owe any of you." So is it is it like swearing falsely once or swearing falsely five times? So says it's not considered swearing falsely five times until you say to you to you to you our until you enunciate it separately for each one it's not considered a separate says the if five people were you money I swear I don't know you and I don't know you for each and everyone until you say for each one individually here also it's not concerned separate until she says until she enunciates the words that I taste But if she says if she just says one for each one then the is um it's only one acc but according to the who say you don't have to articulate the nether separately for each one. We read he said earlier we passing like okay newishna let's say a guy says like this I know that she has I didn't know a husband could be made for he he said a month later you know I heard him make another month ago I didn't realize I could be made for the nether so the is um yafer he's allowed to anold the nether because the yim sh is determined not by when he heard it but when he found out that he's able to anull it however he says I knew you could I didn't know this is the kind of nether you could know so he he has what is called partial knowledge he knew she made Nadarm. He knew you could be made for Nad. He didn't know you could made for these nadarm says he can't anul it. Now beforehand we learned it means he can enol it on the day he finds out about it. He does he can't enol it on the day that he finds out that you could enol this ne. But there's another way to learn here. Another way to learn is he can't enul it even temporarily on the day he hears it. Even though he knows he can enol it just in case he could. It seems like Rome holds that this partial knowledge namely that she has nadam but not sure that he could be made for this nad is not considered yady and therefore he can't be made for it. Not on the day he hears it because that's not really the day he finds out because he didn't know he could be made for it. And not on the day he finds out he could be made for it cuz he had the partial knowledge before say he could enull it. Meaning when she makes it the day she makes it even though on that day he didn't know you could anal it but if he did if he did anull it that ya is considered yadyah. So it seems like Romero's partial yad is not ya and the say it is. Let's see the runa said. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Have a garment. I knew my wife made a full nether. I didn't know you could be made for it. Shahabal made for um Shabal made for I didn't know husband could make for any nether whether it's or personal he could be made for later on when he finds out that the husband could be on that day that he finds out till that day it's not called the day he heard but if he says I know you could be I didn't know this is okay let's explain this says around there are two ways to view this way number one is there is an opinion you can't it at all I can't it Not on the day that you find out that you can enol it. Today you can't anol it. Today is not called the day you heard it. It's not called the day that you heard that you could be because you didn't know on that day that you're able to enul it. And when you find out because that first knowledge that he can enul it later is called the day he heard. Meaning the day he hears is not really the because he didn't know you couldn't know it. But on the day he finds out he couldn't know it. That's also not the day he heard it because he heard it before. So partial either way is not a you could today when you heard about it he holds partial but once the day passes you can because the first day is called regarding that you could be made for it on that day. So basically the iso partial y is yah and partial yad excuse me is not y and the say it is yah okay so let's see the gumar we just have a short little gumar the garra has a ste or a mini I have a a contradiction it says if somebody kills bash he goes into galos if he didn't see if he didn't see. It says that somebody goes into gulos if he didn't see. Now what does that mean? He goes into gulos if he didn't see. So it's talking about somebody let's say killed bash and normally he would go into galas. It says he didn't see this excludes a blind person who doesn't go into gullis because he never had the ability to see. These are the words rahuda holds partial yady seemingly is not yady says to include a blind person. So look in the mini doesn't go into from the fact that it says without seeing >> it's without seeing it still says >> because you >> one second that since it says without seeing It's here. He didn't see but he has the ability to see elsewhere. It says he didn't see in this case. He didn't see the person he killed. But that's why he could see in general since he had partial knowledge because even though he can see but it's not total see holds if he couldn't see that's not bash it's without any knowledge at all. Partial yadya is not yadyah. Rome says no partial yadya is ya because even though you can't see you could hear you could feel you could feel the guy's coming even though you don't know exactly where he is since you don't see him still it's called a fully. So that means by killing raor holds partial yady is a yahy and yet when it comes to nadim partial y is not considered shama holds that you could have null it shud holds no partial yah by nadarim is not ya partial y excuse me is yadyah mean raor holds that by nadarim partial yadyah is not Yadia and therefore your knowled not on the day you hear about it and not on the day you find out partial is not Yadyah and yet by murderer mayor holds partial is and by the say partial that the fact that you know that there are some that can be anold that allows you to an isy and yet when it comes to killing bash par is not y that is pes And like we mentioned, we're learning Pion 87 cuz this week's paras has 87. Have a great day everyone. Thanks for joining.