A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If konam-language creates hekdesh kedusha, what happens to the underlying issur neder when that kedusha is removed through pidyon or me'ilah? The shiur works through the Ran's radical position that lo ya'achel d'varo is inseparable from the kedusha—when the hekdesh status goes off, the neder issur disappears too—which conflicts with the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Mishneh Melech's understanding of nedarim as a separate parshah.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether there is me'ilah (misuse of consecrated property) in konamos (vow-language). The Gemara states that in a place where one benefits another through returning a lost object, the payment goes to hekdesh, implying there is me'ilah in konamos. Rabbi Zweig begins by challenging the basic mechanics of how this would work: if someone says "I won't have hana'ah from you" using konam language, how does that create me'ilah? The person himself is not hekdesh, so how can there be a violation of me'ilah when accepting benefit from him? The shiur examines two Tannaitic positions on pidyon (redemption) in the case of konam. The first case involves konam klali (a general vow affecting everyone), where if someone says "this loaf is hekdesh" and eats it—whether he or another person—there is pidyon. The second involves konam prati (a specific vow affecting only certain individuals), where Rabbi Meir holds there is pidyon when he eats it but not when another does, while the Chachamim hold there is no me'ilah at all in either case.
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-33b
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.
