No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "mudarni mimcha" (I am separated from you) without specifying "she'lo ochal lecha," is it a valid neder? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between yedayim shemochichos (clear indications) and yedayim she'einan mochichos (ambiguous indications), analyzing whether partial neder language requires explicit specification to take effect.
The shiur explores a complex sugya in Nedarim 4b dealing with the status of partial or incomplete neder language. The central question is whether saying "mudarni mimcha" (I am separated from you), "meforshani mimcha" (I am removed from you), or "mechurchak ani mimcha" (I am distanced from you) creates a valid prohibition without adding explicit language like "she'lo ochal lecha" (that I will not eat from you). The Gemara (גמרא) initially suggests that these partial phrases might be considered yedayim she'einan mochichos—indications that are not sufficiently clear to establish what is prohibited. Shmuel's position is analyzed: according to one interpretation in the Ran, these phrases create no prohibition at all unless combined with explicit language specifying what is forbidden. According to a second interpretation, the phrases themselves do create a prohibition, but only for the specific activity mentioned (such as speech for "mudarni" or business for "meforshani").
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 4b
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.
