A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a person is magdish something, does he transfer ownership to hekdesh or impose a prohibitive status? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket between the Ran and the Rosh on the nature of nedarim and hekdesh: the Ran views it as a transfer of monetary ownership (magbiah le'chaveiro), while the Rosh holds it creates an issur on the object through speech. The analysis examines how each position resolves when hekdesh is chal and who violates the neder.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental disagreement between the Ran and the Rosh regarding the nature of hekdesh and nedarim, specifically addressing Nedarim daf 34. The central question is whether making something hekdesh constitutes a transfer of ownership (mamonistic transaction) or the imposition of a prohibitive status (issur) on an object. According to the Ran, hekdesh operates as a transfer of ownership similar to any other kinyan. When one is magdish an object, he is effectively transferring it to the reshus of hekdesh through an act of acquisition (magbiah tzel chaveiro, kones chaveiro). This means hekdesh receives the object in a monetary way, not merely through kedusha. The Ran applies this understanding to nedarim as well—when one makes a neder, he is transferring some ownership interest to hekdesh. The shiur explores the Ran's position that this transfer can occur even without physical possession (biyado), as long as the object is within one's control or jurisdiction (reshuso).
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.
