A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does returning a lost object create issur hanah? The shiur contrasts the Ran's view that hanah in nedarim requires present value (not just potential) while shomer sachar requires only potential, with Tosafos (תוספות) who says taking the object removes it from ma'avir chari entirely. The debate hinges on whether schar batalah is payment for the service or just for idle time.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion in Nedarim 33b regarding the machlokes between Rabbis on whether a person may return a lost object (aveidah) when there is an issur hanah (prohibition of benefit) between him and the owner. The central issue revolves around prutas Rav Yosef—whether saving someone from having to pay an ani (poor person) who finds the object creates sufficient hanah to violate the neder. The Ran's fundamental position is that in hilchos nedarim (laws of vows), there must be actual present hanah of a perutah's value, not merely potential hanah. By contrast, for the din of shomer sachar (paid guardian), potential hanah is sufficient. According to the Ran, when one picks up an aveidah, he becomes a shomer sachar because there is potential to receive a perutah, even though lo shachi (it is not common) for someone to actually pay for that service. However, for the issur hanah in nedarim, since no one would presently pay a perutah for the right to return the aveidah, there is no present hanah, and therefore it is permitted.
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.
