A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is a yad in nedarim a language that *creates* an issur, or is *describing* an issur sufficient? The Gemara (גמרא) shifts through four readings of Shmuel's position on "merchokani mimcha"—moving from treating it as "not even a yad" to a yad mochachas that asers on both, then to limited issur hano'ah, and finally to a yad she'einah mochachas (ambiguous between talking or eating). Rabbi Zweig develops the principle that the Gemara's evolving readings turn on whether neder requires explicit language of prohibition or whether accurately depicting a state of issur is enough—a fundamental reframing of yad.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s four successive readings of Shmuel's position on Nedarim 5a, focusing on the case of "merchokani mimcha" (I am distanced from you) and its implications for the halachic concept of "yad" (incomplete language that still generates an issur). The fundamental question is whether a valid neder requires the speaker to actively *create* an issur through his words, or whether it is sufficient to *describe* a state of issur that he wishes to exist. The Gemara begins with Shmuel's first reading: "merchokani mimcha" (clause one) alone accomplishes nothing—it is not even a yad. Only when combined with "she'ani ochel mimcha" (clause two) does it become a yad (and even then, only a yad, requiring further clarification). The Ran explains that if clause one were even a yad she'einah mochachas, the Gemara could not have asked a difficulty from the Braisa that says it is oser, since some Tannaim hold yad she'einah mochachas is valid. Therefore, clause one must be "less than a yad she'einah mochachas"—a phrase so remote that it falls outside the realm of yad altogether.
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 5a
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.
