A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you) followed by "shelo ochaloch" (I won't eat from you), is this a vow of nidui (excommunication) or nedarim (prohibition)? The shiur analyzes how the Rambam (רמב"ם) understands these combined expressions as transforming a shevua-like language into a full-fledged neder with malkus, while the Raavad maintains both the nidui and neder apply simultaneously.
This shiur explores a complex sugya in Nedarim 5b dealing with the halachic status of compound vow expressions. The fundamental question is how to classify statements like "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you), "meruchakani mimcha" (I distance myself from you), and "mefurshanim mimcha" (I am removed from you) when followed by prohibitions like "shelo ochaloch" (I won't eat from you). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental uncertainty: are these expressions creating an issur hanaa (prohibition of benefit) or merely prohibiting speech and interaction? The Rashba raises a critical question: if there's genuine uncertainty about the nature of the vow, why don't we apply the principle of "stam neder l'hachmir" (unspecified vows are treated stringently)? Furthermore, the Rashba questions why the word "mimcha" (from you) is necessary if we hold that a shem (divine name) makes something forbidden—the word "meruchakani" alone should suffice.
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 5b
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.
