No community start suggestion yet.
Why are certain utensils forbidden entirely while others only when used for food? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: some nedarim create an issur on the object itself (requiring shiur perutah), while others forbid receiving benefit from the person (requiring toch shave perutah). This yesod explains Rav Papa's statement and resolves the apparent contradiction between the Mishna and the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of a sack for fruit.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental contradiction in the Gemara (גמרא) regarding which objects are forbidden under a neder of hana'as ma'achal (benefit from food). The Mishna lists items like a napa vekivra (sieve and basket) as forbidden, while Rav Papa states that a sack for bringing fruit is also forbidden. This appears to contradict the Mishna's enumeration—if the Mishna stops at gramah (direct food preparation), why would havah (indirect food use like a sack) be forbidden? The Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rashi (רש"י) offer different approaches to this question. The Rambam understands that the Mishna discusses giving objects to the mudar, while Rav Papa addresses using objects one already has. According to the Rambam, you may use a sack you already possess for fruit, but cannot borrow one specifically for that purpose. Rashi and the Shulchan Aruch, however, hold that even using an object you already have for food purposes is forbidden.
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 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.
