No community start suggestion yet.
Is hefker a transfer of ownership to the public, or merely an ownerless state? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between the Ran and Rashba regarding hefker as a safek issur versus safek mamon, and develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding that hefker creates a binding prohibition (bal yachel) not to revoke permission, resulting in loss of reshus even while ownership technically remains.
This shiur explores the fundamental nature of hefker (renunciation of property) through an analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of the topic. The central question is whether hefker constitutes a transfer of ownership to the public (analogous to matnos aniyim/tzedakah) or represents an ownerless state where no one has ownership until someone acquires it. The shiur begins by examining a difficulty in understanding the Rambam's position on safek hefker (doubtful hefker). The Ran holds that all safek cases regarding nedarim are treated as safek mamon (doubtful property ownership) and therefore ruled leniently, while the Rashba maintains they are safek issur and ruled stringently. According to the Ran, by hefker specifically even the Rashba should agree it's safek mamon and therefore a kula. Yet the Rambam rules that safek hefker is chayav in maaser derabbanan because of safek d'oraisa lechumra. The question is raised: if safek mamon means the property is vadai mine (as evidenced by the fact that you can be mekadesh a woman with safek mamon and she is vadai mekudeshes), then how can the Rambam be discussing "safek hefker"? If it's vadai mine, it should be vadai not hefker, and therefore vadai chayav in maaser, not safek!
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 (daf not definitively stated in transcript)
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.
