A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If someone pays off another's debt without being asked, can he collect from the debtor? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes mavri achari (removing a lion) from actual payment. Where you merely persuade the creditor not to collect—without truly paying the debtor's obligation—there's no hanah given and no legal obligation created, even though the debtor benefits enormously.
The shiur focuses on a fundamental question in the laws of debt payment and benefit: when a third party pays off someone else's debt (parei achov), under what circumstances can he collect from the debtor? The Gemara (גמרא) introduces the concept of "mavri achari" (chasing away the lion) as distinct from actually paying off a debt, and this distinction has profound implications for both monetary law and the laws of nedarim. The Gemara discusses Tosfos's two approaches to resolving why parei achov might not create a legal obligation. The first teretz suggests that the entire din of parei achov applies only to mezonos ishto (a wife's support), not to regular debts, because mezonos ishto is not considered borei hazeka. The second teretz argues that even a regular debt is not borei hazeka because the debtor might have been able to get mechilah (forgiveness) from the creditor through friends or personal appeal. Rabbi Zweig examines why this seemingly unlikely possibility would eliminate the legal obligation to repay.
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 33a-b
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.
