No community start suggestion yet.
If someone pays your debt without being asked, are you obligated to reimburse him? The shiur develops two fundamentally different approaches in Tosafos (תוספות): the first views payment as creating a yored relationship where property value increased; the second argues that obligation depends on whether you would have hired him for the job. The analysis shows how this distinction impacts the issur of neheneh from a neder.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental machlokes in Masechta Nedarim regarding the case where one person pays off another's debt without being asked. The central question is: under what circumstances is the debtor obligated to reimburse the person who paid on his behalf? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Chanan and the Bnei Kohanim Gedolim regarding the concept of bari hazeka (a certain obligation) versus something that is not bari hazeka. Rabbi Zweig begins by highlighting an apparent difficulty: Chanan holds that where payment is not bari hazeka, you are patur (exempt from reimbursing), while the Chachamim hold there is pegam (an obligation). According to Tosafos (תוספות) and the Ran, Chanan's reasoning is that perhaps the creditor will be moichel (forgive) the debt. But this seems like an absurdly remote possibility—the shiur asks pointedly: what are the actual chances that someone holding a mashkon (collateral) will simply forgive the debt? If the likelihood is one in a thousand, how can this be called "not bari hazeka"? The Chachamim say you are chayav because it IS bari hazeka—but if even Chanan agrees it's extremely unlikely, what exactly are they arguing about?
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 33b-34a
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.
