No community start suggestion yet.
Why is it permitted for the mudar to pay the mudur's debt, and how does this not constitute giving benefit? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Chanan and the Chachamim over whether paying a debt is mavri achari (giving to the creditor) or giving directly to the debtor, and explores Rashi (רש"י)'s position that the mudur owes the mudar the money back—raising the question of why this doesn't itself constitute forbidden hana'ah.
This shiur on Masechta Nedarim examines the fundamental principles behind the hetter (permission) for a mudar (one who made the vow) to pay the chov (debt) of a mudur (the one restricted from benefiting). The Mishna establishes that the mudar may pay the mudur's debts, pay off his shekalim obligation, and return his lost object in certain circumstances. The shiur focuses on understanding the dual requirements for this hetter: the payment must be mavri achari (considered as giving to another party, not directly to the mudur) and it must be muttar (permitted). The Gemara (גמרא) brings the machlokes between Chanan and the Bnei Kohanim Gedolim regarding a husband who went overseas and another person supported his wife. According to Chanan, when the husband returns, the supporter cannot collect from him—the payment was mavri achari, given to the wife, not to the husband. The Bnei Kohanim Gedolim disagree, holding that the supporter can collect because paying off someone's debt is like giving them money directly, creating an obligation of repayment.
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.
