A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does accepting nezirus in a cemetery trigger bal ta'achar and malkus? The shiur analyzes Nedarim 4a, proposing that bal ta'achar means "don't be a procrastinator" rather than mere failure to pay—an active prohibition punishable even through dibur alone. This reframes the machlokes between the Ran and Rosh regarding nezirus and Kona Chametz on Pesach (פסח).
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 4a addressing the question of why one who accepts nezirus while standing in a cemetery (Beis HaKfaros) is liable for bal ta'achar (the prohibition against delaying fulfillment of vows) and receives malkus (lashes). The central difficulty is understanding how this could be considered a lav she'yesh bo ma'aseh (a prohibition involving an action) when the person hasn't actively done anything wrong—they simply cannot begin their nezirus immediately due to their state of tumah. The shiur begins by reviewing the positions of the Rambam (רמב"ם), the Ran, and the Rosh on this sugya. The Rambam holds that one receives malkus in this case, which is difficult to understand because bal ta'achar appears to be a lav she'ein bo ma'aseh (a prohibition without an action). The classic understanding would make this similar to failing to bring a korban on the regel—a mere omission that doesn't warrant malkus.
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 4a
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.
