When A Monetary Case Has Issur Ramifications - Do We Follow Rav or Shmuel?

progress. >> Okay. Discusses raven which began on of if a man assured his son-in-law in Han but he he still wants to give money to his daughter. Yeah, it could happen such a thing that the guy doesn't doesn't go for the son-in-law but he still wants to help his daughter. So he told his son-in-law, you know, get lost. I answer you Bahana but you still want to give money to your daughter. So what do you do? You have to like circumn the son-in-law. What do you do? You tell the girl, "Here, I'm giving you this money." Excluding the son-in-law and but I'm only giving it to you that you should buy food and I'm not giving you the food until you swallow it. This way at no point in time the son-in-law gets it. So, Rav takes the Mishna literally that you literally must say on condition the son-in-law has no rights to it and it's going to you when you put it in your mouth. And says even though the Mishna says that he disagrees because he says um the Mishna is going like and says I disagree with that. I hold so you don't have to say I'm only giving it to you when you put it in your mouth. I'm I'm saying I'm giving it to you and it shouldn't go to the son-in-law does not hold Rav holds like holds and so who do we pas and like that's the subject we're going to discuss usually when it comes to monetary matters is like when it comes to the rush says that Rav Rav was uh very excelled in excelled in some say was a doctor knew the practicum. The Gamar says knew the astronomy like he knew the streets of is very practical. He knew. So this is D. So the should be like even though by the way wait a second but it's a d ofadim. You're making you're answering his son-in-law with a nad. Now the question is does he get is does that forbid him from somehow getting this these possessions? In other words, the question is it is the about is but it's rooted in money. So is this called is or is this called m. So the run says 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 five six seven on the eighth wide line on the quotes interestingly I don't remember ever quoted in Iran he holds the is like Even though here the seems to be regarding what is forbidden since the main is dependent on do we say a hand and woman is like her husband we go like when it comes Rav goes like we never pass like goes like and also throughout Shas it seems that it's enough to stipulate as long as a husband doesn't have rights in it even if you don't say I'm only giving it to you when it's in your mouth and you already swallowed it. A few lines down, the ran raen. The raen does not hold like holds like why they're arguing about therefore it would only help and you add And so this is a very interesting that even though we know the is like but this case it's but it's dependent on so therefore pask like he says it's uh it's dam it's d Ra and the rivet say okay it might be rooted in din but it's regarding and therefore the is like so that's an interesting application of so what about if it's that has ramifications for is a median road But the holds the says that even according to you need both. You need to say on condition the husband has no rash and you need to say do whatever you want because the ra explains that argue as follows and no other would help doesn't work and holds No, it's lavka mashi also works but everybody agrees you need two. Anyway, this is just uh an illustration. This is an example of in general we passing like by like and here's an example of between and they say here this is we passing like and the say no this is ultimately and therefore we passing like that's just one little I want to bring to your attention here Okay, have a great rest of the day. >> Just a quick question. Whenever you whenever if I give something over to Freddy and I make a condition on what I'm giving it to him, that that means that he does not have full control. Correct. That it's not I'm not fully transferring over. If I tell him you can only use it with your eyes closed or whatever, does that mean that he doesn't have full control and therefore it's not fully it? Once I can impose a condition, it's not his and he doesn't have the right to give it over to anybody else. >> Yeah. But so why can't you do that with let's say the daughter, >> right? >> Because you can't you can't stipulate against the reality which is she doesn't have her own yad, you know. So what are you gonna say on condition the husband doesn't have rash? But what do you mean? But she doesn't have independent yad, you know. So >> just start >> and it gets into also this week's para we had a share on this this morning you know do you need to double stipulate in other words you need to say I'm only giving this to you if you do a and and I say if you I'm not giving it to you if you don't do you know >> right that's usually the case right you have to do that >> usually you do but if if If it's something like you say, I'm only giving this I'm giving this to you when it rains. So, it didn't happen yet. So, then you might not have to double stipulate. It's only if it's here right now and now you want to control it, you have to double. But if it's like off into the future, it's dependent on a future occurrence, then it might be different. >> Very nice. >> Recording stopped. So,