A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone designates one field row as peah and then adds "and this one," does the second designation work despite incomplete language? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether yad (implied meaning) applies to peah. The Ran's innovative approach distinguishes between completing an incomplete first statement versus creating a second independent obligation—a fundamental distinction in how yad operates across different areas of halacha (הלכה).
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Nedarim 6b, examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether yad (implied meaning from incomplete language) applies to peah (the corner of the field left for the poor). The central question is: if someone says "this field is peah" (hadein ugi havi peah) and then adds "and this one" (vehadein), does the second designation work even though he didn't explicitly repeat the word "peah"? The shiur begins by contrasting two approaches in the Rishonim. Rashi (רש"י) understands the case as involving two separate fields, where someone gave ten times the required amount of peah on the first field and then said "vehadein" regarding a second field. The question is whether yad works to make the second field peah as well. The Ran, however, understands the case differently—as referring to rows within a single field rather than separate fields.
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.
