No community start suggestion yet.
Does a husband's or father's hafara (nullification) work retroactively or only prospectively? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: by ordinary nedarim, hafara only cancels the unused portion going forward (mekan l'haba), but by nazirus, which is a unified 30-day entity (ish leketzusa), hafara must work retroactively (l'mafrei'a). This reading of the Rambam (רמב"ם) resolves why the Torah (תורה) needed a hekesh to teach hafara by nazirus and explains Rashi (רש"י)'s selection of nazirus for "Hashem (ה׳) yislach lah."
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on hafara (nullification of vows) and develops a novel approach to resolving an apparent contradiction between the Rambam and other Rishonim. The central question is whether hafara works retroactively (oker l'mafrei'a) or only prospectively (mekan l'haba), and whether there is a fundamental difference between a chacham's hataras nedarim and a husband's or father's hafara. The standard understanding among Rishonim (Ramban (רמב"ן), Rosh, and Tosafos (תוספות)) is that when a chacham is matir a neder, it works retroactively—the neder is uprooted from its inception. However, when a husband or father is meifar a neder, it only cancels the neder going forward. The classic case: a woman makes a neder not to eat tomatoes for 30 days, eats tomatoes on day 15, and then on day 25 either a chacham is matir or her husband is meifar. According to the standard view, if a chacham was matir, she receives no malkus even for day 15, because the neder never existed. But if her husband was meifar, she does receive malkus for day 15, because hafara only works from that point forward.
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 6b
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.
