No community start suggestion yet.
What creates the prohibition of baal te'acher (delaying fulfillment)? The shiur contrasts two approaches: is it purely monetary (delaying payment to hekdesh), or does a separate prohibition apply to delaying one's word? The Ran's position that "lefater min ha'olam" creates immediate liability is analyzed through this chakira.
This shiur on Nedarim 3b develops a fundamental distinction in understanding the prohibition of baal te'acher (delaying fulfillment of vows). Rabbi Zweig explores whether nazirus operates through a neder (vow) creating a shibud haguf (obligation on the body) similar to neder hekdesh, where one commits to deliver oneself to the laws of nazirus, with kedusha following as a consequence of that commitment. The core discussion centers on a machlokes between the Ran and the Rosh regarding the nature of baal te'acher. The classical understanding, presented as the Rosh's position, is that when someone says "harei alai korban," they immediately owe hekdesh, but the Torah (תורה) grants a grace period of shalosh regalim (three festivals). This creates a chakira: does baal te'acher mean you owe immediately but have time to pay, or does the obligation itself not come due until three regalim pass?
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 3b
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.
