A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone prohibits benefit related to food preparation, does the prohibition attach to the vessels themselves or to the benefit derived? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that the issur is on lending specific vessels (keilim), not on the benefit (hana'ah) of food preparation. This resolves the Tur Even's difficulty and explains why vessels rented for other purposes remain prohibited even when borrowed for non-rental uses.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Masechta Nedarim regarding the nature of prohibiting benefit (issur hana'ah) in the context of food preparation. The Mishna discusses which vessels may or may not be lent when one has made a vow prohibiting hana'as ma'achal (benefit from food). The Tur Even poses two difficulties: First, why does the sale of an Asherah remain prohibited even though people are not makpid (particular) about the shade, yet by vessels used for food preparation (like a sieve or sifter), being not makpid makes them permissible? Second, Tosfos says that vessels directly used for food preparation are prohibited even if the benefit is worth less than a shaveh perutah, whereas vessels not used for food preparation (like a tabas or nezem) are only prohibited in a place where they are rented out (makom shemaschirin), where there must be a shaveh perutah value. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Nedarim (6:1-3) rules that if one prohibits hana'as ma'achal, then lending vessels directly used in food preparation (napa, kevara, tanur) is prohibited, while lending vessels not used in food preparation (tabas, nezem) is permitted. The Rambam also brings Rav Papa's case: lending a sack to carry fruit in it is prohibited. In the next halacha (הלכה), the Rambam rules that in a place where vessels are normally rented out for payment, it is prohibited to lend even vessels not used for food preparation. The Kesef Mishneh asks why the Rambam omits the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of a horse to ride on (sus lirkove alav).
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 20b-21a
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.
