Zichru4Life
Bava Basra Daf 150
"Zero for life," I've asked. The first thing on the daft, the minimum requirement for ratios, I guess. On the previous daft, Fabius says that the word "calshuhu" should be understood literally with no required minimum. I buy ass on a mission. If Daceman Herkinen says, "Five sheep," and each one is "Nigzaz," a "mono press" is higher than ratios, I guess. But the hymns say, "Five sheep," that produce a "calshu." I think Marx explains that a "calshu" is a "mono press" as long as it's split into the "five sheep." You see that "calshu" can't have a minimum requirement. The grammar ends that the term "calshu" shouldn't really have been used over there. But since the time the comma said a larger "shear," and he said a smaller "shear," he used a term "calshu." Second, so again the daft, an "evid" whose master gave him all his property, but retained some, does not go free. The grammar discusses what is included in the gift of all of one's metaltalim. They might ask if an "evid" is considered like "carka" regarding this, since it has a den of "carka" for various "alachas." Or they consider metaltalim since they move. Avina brings a mission that says that a person writes "Allas n'chas" and says "evid," his "evid" goes free. If he left over "carka-calshu," he doesn't go free, because the retained "carka" could be referring to the "evid" himself. Ava Lazar says, if he left over metaltalim, he also doesn't go free. Avinaach won't explain that an "evid" is referred to as metaltalim, so that "evid" might have been the metaltalim that the master retained. So you see an "evid" is considered metaltalim. Avashi explains the mission differently. The reason why it doesn't work is because there's not a clear cut separation between the "evid" and the "master," because there's a small possibility that he's referring to the "evid." "Third" says "evid" is referred to as "hamesh," including "mabrahas." Avnach won't say that there are five people that have to write over all of the "n'chasim." Number one is "shtimbraha" can only be heard of him as "matana," if he gave away all his "n'chasim," and "evid" in the case mentioned before, if he gives all his "n'chasim" to his "evid" goes free, "ishtai," we had before enough "caflamadalim." If a person writes all his "n'chasim" to his wife, he only made her an apotropis, if he gave all "n'chasim." Bonav, we had "n'chaflamad" base. If a person writes all his property to his "n'chasim," the right's a "carcocultural" to his wife, she forfeits the right to collect a "cuba" from the properties that were given to the "n'chasim." "Mabrahas" and "almona," who doesn't want her new husband to be kind to her property. Before she gets married, she gives her property away to someone else, who she trusts will return it, when the marriage ends. But she has to give away all her property to demonstrate her intent. "Zu'q'a'f'laf'laf'laf'laf'laf'qaf'nun." The first "sugan" adapts the minimum requirement for issues, I guess. Second "sugan" evid, whose master gave him all his property, but retained some, does not go free. Third "sugan" evid, "chasim" evid, "cuba" enl'chasim, including "mabrahas." This "sim" from "asn'chaf'nun" is a con artist. The con artist who tried convincing a "cayen," that a "culsion" was enough for "asn'chas" as "cayen" has evid out of his freedom by leaving over "carcocultural" in the "stir" that gifted him all of his possessions, and was out conned by his new wife, who wrote away all her property to a friend. "Carn artist" amans daf'cuff'nun. He tried convincing a "cayen" that a "culsion" was enough for "asn'chas" reminds the first "sugan" daf, the minimum requirement for "asn'chas". He conned his evid out of his freedom by leaving over "carcocultural" in the "stir" reminds of the second "sugan" daf, and evid, whose master gave him all his property, but retained some, does not go free. And he was out conned by his new wife, who wrote away all of her property to a friend, reminds of the third "sugan" daf, "chamischa" "ch'is" evid, "chasim" including "mabrahas."
150