A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a kohen performs Temple service, is he acting as an agent of Heaven (shlucha d'Rachmana) or as the owner's agent (shlucha d'didan)? The Gemara (גמרא) explores this through the lens of nedarim—may a kohen who has vowed not to benefit the owner still perform his service? The Ran and Tosafot disagree on whether partial agency for the owner creates a prohibition.
This shiur presents a deep analysis of Nedarim 35a regarding the status of kohanim performing Temple service. The fundamental question is whether kohanim are considered agents of Heaven (shlucha d'Rachmana) or agents of the korban owner (shlucha d'didan), and what that means for the laws of nedarim. The Ran connects this sugya to the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin, where the principle "im lo matzi ovid, shlucho lo matzi mevid" (if the sender cannot perform the act himself, his agent cannot perform it either) proves that kohanim must be shlucha d'Rachmana—since a non-kohen cannot perform the Temple service, he cannot appoint an agent to do so. The question then becomes: if it's shlucha d'Rachmana, can a kohen who made a neder not to benefit someone (mudar) still bring that person's korban?
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 35a
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.
