A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone designates one field as pe'ah and then says "hadein" about a second field, does that make the entire second field pe'ah or just the required amount? The Ran and Rashi (רש"י) offer fundamentally different readings of the Gemara (גמרא)'s question—the Ran understands it as rows within a field, Rashi as separate fields—leading to a broader dispute about whether pe'ah is a neder-based obligation or purely a monetary one.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 6b, focusing on a complex Gemara (גמרא) regarding the laws of pe'ah (the corner of the field left for the poor) and the principle of "yesh yad" (implied intent completes incomplete statements). The central question is: when someone says "hadein ugya havei pe'ah" (this row/field should be pe'ah) and then says "hadein" about a second area, what is included? The shiur presents a fundamental dispute between the Rishonim in understanding the Gemara's case. According to the Ran, "ugya" means a row within a field, and the question is whether saying "hadein" on the second row makes only that row pe'ah or extends to subsequent rows. According to Rashi (רש"י), "ugya" means an entire field, and the Gemara asks whether "hadein" on the second field means the entire second field becomes pe'ah or only the required amount (shi'ur) of pe'ah.
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.
