A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When ambiguous language is used in halachic speech-acts, how much clarity is required? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings reveal three distinct standards: by gittin 50/50 suffices mid'Oraysa, by kiddushin 51% is needed, and by nezirus even 40% works. The shiur explores why each domain demands a different threshold and whether the issue is the words themselves or the intention behind them.
This shiur presents a profound analysis of the principle of yadayim she'ein mochichos (ambiguous expressions) across four different areas of halacha (הלכה): nedarim (vows), nezirus (nazir vows), gittin (divorce), and kiddushin (marriage). Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that the Rambam (רמב"ם) rules differently in each domain regarding how much clarity is required when someone uses language that could have multiple meanings. The shiur begins by establishing the basic positions from Gemara (גמרא) Nedarim 5b, where Rava and Shmuel appear to disagree about whether yadayim she'ein mochichos—expressions that don't clearly prove intent—are considered valid expressions (havin yadayim) or not (lo havin yadayim). The expectation is that the Rambam should follow Shmuel's position that they are not valid. However, a careful reading of the Rambam's language across Hilchos Nezirus, Hilchos Ishus, and Hilchos Geirushim reveals a much more nuanced picture.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Nedarim 5b
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
