Daf Hashavua - Nedarim 88a

Okay, welcome everyone. We're continuing infra as the steer. The steer was in the Mishna. It says that if somebody says I know I could anull a but I don't know that this kind of ne is a kind that could be enulled. Ra says you can't enol it because that quasi kind of ya is not considered a yady and say you could enull it because mkas ya is a yady the as the says my son who killed says that excludes a suma because that uh quasi that the person was there just because you could detect they were there but if you didn't see them that's not considered a yah that doesn't seem to be consistent with the of the andor says no it includes a suma because is so there's a stero between and the and the soar says like this said over here by killing it's dependent on what the is talking about and by it's also in uh relevant to the subject matter that's being discussed. What does this mean by the murderer says if you come uh someone who comes to his friend in the forest? Now what kind of person goes into a forest? any kind of person whether they could see or not. All human all homo sapiens are included in the category of of those who go into the forest. Everything goes into the forest. A blind person is also considered someone who goes into the forest. So now if including a suma, why would I need to include the suma? He's already included in is including someone who's blind. We should learn it out from the forest but rather we see from here is coming to exclude someone who is blind. In other words from I would have already included a suma. So must then be excluding a suma. It says if somebody comes to kill his friend without without knowledge without knowing anybody who has knowledge that excludes the suma. So the suma was would be already excluded from biblas. The pratum if excludes I already excluded him from here we see includes so the question is what's the operating word is it which would include so excludes it or is it which excludes it so I would be including it But it's not relevant to the topic of there's a separate like whether is that's not relevant to the discussion by someone who kills by someone who kills bash. The question really is how we interpret the says the last uh first wide line really does not hold by murder that a partial is but it's just different by murder here it's different this is included by the bely without seeing this excludes this implies it excludes assuma. It's here. The person didn't seem in general. The person could see doesn't usually know. He can't know where his friend is standing. Therefore, it's an exclusion after an exclusion. It's only coming to include So the sumo was already excluded from the which is another must be a reo the okay fine says the who made another against his son-in-law it could happen such a thing most of the time um father-in-laws love their son-in-laws and vice versa but it could happen just a theoretically right theoretically it could happen that there's some contention so but he wants to give his daughter money it could happen such a thing that the father-in-law is not so into the son-in-law but he still wants to give the daughter-in-law the daughter money says like this this money is given to you as long as your husband has no control over it, has no uh authority over it, can't use it. Only only what you take and put in your mouth. So he's basically excluding the son-in-law in two ways. He's saying that I'm giving it to my daughter on condition that the husband has no rights to it and you pick it up and put it in your mouth. Very interesting says the mar says this was only taught if he said to her what you take and you put in your mouth. But if he says do whatever you want the husband acquires it. So it's not enough to say your husband doesn't have rights. But in addition to that you have to say only what you pick up and put in your mouth. But if he says you could do whatever you want with it. No. Then the husband is says even if he says do whatever you want like the husband is not what exactly is this I guess we gota we're going to read till the here continuing on to the next page the opinion of Rav is meaning to say what Rav is saying is you have to say exactly like it says in the Mishna Not only does the husband have no rights, but but what you put in your mouth like the he says to her two things. Number one, uncondition your husband has no rights to it. And number two, only what you put in your mouth. But only in this situation the husband doesn't acquire it because saying what you want do that's not going to add anything to it's not adding to your husband has no authority over it. And just like saying your husband has no authority over it alone doesn't do anything. So when he says both your husband has no authority and do whatever you want it's all the same interesting doesn't argue on how to explain the Mishna. The Misha says explicitly, you have to say the husband has no authority and you have to say only what you put in your mouth. You would agree that the Mishna holds that if you say do whatever you want it doesn't help. the he's arguing in poly says is going like that the hand of the woman is like the hand of the husband and Rav holds like so says the like that the husband's everything and Rav holds like and that's why you have to say the husband has no rishus in it and only what you put in your mouth Now, we didn't really explain why these two are necessary. We're going to have to go back definitely holds. This is what the Mishna says. He argues in holds. We don't say whatever goes into the hand of the woman is like it goes into the hand of the husband. Therefore, if he says to her do whatever you want or they're all the same this this works. So basically agrees the Mishna holds you need to say both and only what you put in your mouth. It's just personally disagrees with that and he holds we don't say. So the question that we never explained is how does if you hold how does it help to say your husband has no in it. Okay. But what are you adding by saying only what you put in your mouth? So we need to go and look at the rana and the Mishna. Look in the ran on and the Mishna. The Rana and the Mishna says, "Why is the case in the Mishna you're from your son-in-law and you want to give your daughter money? If you give your daughter food, you don't have to say anything. The husband doesn't have rights in the food of the wife. Why? Because the Ran says we learned earlier um cuz if he's supporting her in the place of the husband, the husband has no rishus in that maz. That's why the says on the second wine line who writes that she could use it wherever he want she wants like we say. So now what are the rights of a husband in the money of his wife? The rights are the wife owns the real estate and the husband gets the fruits. The husband's owner rights to his to the husband's rights to his wife's possessions is he eats the fruits of them even though she owns it. So if you give money to your daughter, you're getting h from your father-in-law because he said he can't get hah. So what what is he supposed to do? Is doesn't the husband get the fruits? So the father said tell the daughter I'm giving them to you as a gift. As long as your husband doesn't have any authority only what you put in your mouth. Now here's the clincher. If you say these two expressions, but if he says if all he says is your husband has no why. So if if that's the case, it's not going to help to say. So you'll ask if that's the case, why does it help to say only what you put in your mouth? Since she herself is not until she puts in her mouth, well, at that time they're gone. you it doesn't help to say because but if he creates he navigates it in a way where he's only she's only it when she swallows it. Okay. So then there's no way for him to get it accordingly. It only helps if he says what you put in your mouth. But if he says what you wear, that's not going to help because as soon as she puts it on, the husband's the question really is, so then let her just say only what you put in your mouth. Why is it necessary to add? But it seems like you need both and that's everybody agrees and the is you need to say both and only personally disagrees and he holds that you don't have to say that the Mishna he agrees holds you would but he doesn't agree with the Mishna and Ra Paskin like Rome and the Mishna that is alfing stopped