No community start suggestion yet.
Does the concept of "yad" (partial language) only apply to nedarim, or does it extend to other obligations like pe'ah and tzedakah? The shiur analyzes whether pe'ah and tzedakah are actual nedarim or merely financial obligations, exploring fundamental disagreements between the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) about the Gemara (גמרא)'s structure and the nature of verbal formulas in Torah (תורה) law.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question in Nedarim 7a: does the concept of "yesh yad" (accepting partial language as valid) apply only to nedarim, or can it extend to other types of obligations like pe'ah and tzedakah? The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether one can use indirect language ("yad") for these obligations just as one can for korbanot. The shiur begins by examining Riv Kivegar's question: if the Gemara asks whether there is yad for pe'ah and tzedakah, how is this reconcilable with the Ran's understanding that the underlying issue is whether pe'ah is comparable to nedarim? The Ran learns that yad only works when there is a chalos issur (creation of a prohibition), which exists by nedarim. Therefore, the question of yad for pe'ah depends on whether pe'ah has the status of a neder.
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.
