No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of isur hana'ah in nedarim—is it about receiving pleasure, or about a transfer of value? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira between Tosafos (תוספות) (who holds the issur is subjective pleasure/use) and the Rosh/Rambam (רמב"ם) (who hold it's an objective transfer of monetary value). This yesod explains why tipa hana'ah lehekdesh works in hashavas aveidah but not in other cases.
The shiur opens by reviewing the previous day's analysis—whether the prohibition in nedarim concerns hana'ah (benefit) the recipient takes versus hana'ah intended for him. Rabbi Zweig now introduces a fundamentally different approach to understanding isur hana'ah in nedarim, one that shifts the focus from subjective pleasure to objective monetary transfer. The Beis Meir raises the question of whether mavri achari (indirect benefit) is permitted in isur hana'ah cases other than nedarim, such as avodah zarah. The shiur suggests that isur hana'ah in nedarim may operate differently than in other areas of halacha (הלכה)—nedarim may require actual taking of an object, while other issurim may forbid even indirect pleasure that doesn't involve taking.
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
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.
