No community start suggestion yet.
When is a safek in nedarim lakula versus lachuma? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: does a neder create a chalos (status-change) in the object, making it a safek mamon, or does it create a chiyuv (obligation) on the person to deliver, making it a safek issur? This distinction explains the Ran-Ramban (רמב"ן) dispute and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of hefker as non-neder yet still subject to bal yachel.
The shiur opens by examining the machlokes Rishonim regarding whether safeikos in nedarim are lakula or lachuma. The Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rashba hold safek lakula, while the Ran holds safek lachuma. The central question is: why should a safek in nedarim be treated as lakula when the general principle of safek issur is lachuma? Rabbi Zweig addresses this by proposing that the machlokes hinges on a fundamental understanding of how nedarim work. There are two possible models: (1) The neder creates a chalos—a status change in the object itself, making it belong to tzedakah or hekdesh. In this model, the safek is a safek mamon: whose money is it, mine or the ani's? Such a safek follows the rule of safek mamon lakula. (2) The neder creates a chiyuv—an obligation on the person to deliver the object. The obligation itself (mitzvas piv tishmar) effects the transfer. In this model, the safek is a safek issur: am I obligated to deliver or not? Such a safek is lachuma.
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 7a
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.
