No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rashba hold that a safek in gifts to the poor goes stringently, while safek matnas kehunah goes leniently? The shiur analyzes the Ran's critique—that only safek chezkas chiyuv should trigger stringency—and explores why pe'ah (with its chezkas chiyuv) differs from ordinary tzedakah funds. The Levush's distinction between cases with and without a mari kama is defended against the Taz's objections.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute in Nedarim 7a concerning whether a safek (doubt) in matnas aniyim (gifts to the poor) is treated stringently or leniently. The Ran and Rashba disagree: the Rashba holds that a safek in matnas aniyim is pasul me-chumra (stringent), while the Rif treats it as a general chumra. The Ran questions the Rashba's position based on a Gemara (גמרא) in Chulin that attributes stringency only to cases of safek chezkas chiyuv—where the grain or produce was at one time certainly obligated in leket or pe'ah. In the case discussed in Nedarim, however, there is no chezkas chiyuv: the owner has already fulfilled his pe'ah obligation, and the question is only whether he designated additional produce for the poor. Rabbi Zweig poses several difficulties with the Rashba's position. First, if the reason for stringency is that safek matnas aniyim is a safek issur, why would safek matnas kehunah (gifts to kohanim) be treated leniently? Both involve a mitzvah (מצוה) to give. Second, in our Gemara there is no pre-existing obligation—the safek arises from the owner's own designation—so the concept of chezkas chiyuv seems inapplicable. The shiur suggests that the Rashba may hold a broader principle: even a safek whether one has created an obligation triggers stringency, not only a safek whether an existing obligation has been discharged.
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.
