No community start suggestion yet.
Does a nazir who becomes tamei receive malkos for the prohibition of bal tachol (delaying fulfillment of a vow), even though no active deed prevents him from completing nezirus? The shiur examines the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on malkos for a lav she'ein bo maaseh (prohibition without a positive act), comparing it to the cases of koneh chametz on Pesach (פסח) and entering the Beis Hamikdash empty-handed. The analysis distinguishes between acts that create the prohibited state versus acts that merely create circumstances preventing fulfillment.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Nedarim 4b, focusing on the fundamental question of when malkos (lashes) is administered for violations that lack an active deed (lav she'ein bo maaseh). The central case is that of a nazir tahor (ritually pure nazir) who becomes tamei (ritually impure), thereby delaying the completion of his nezirus period and potentially violating bal tachol—the prohibition against delaying the fulfillment of vows. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement "hayo b'chein"—if so—which introduces a novelty regarding malkos. The question is: what exactly is the chiddush? The Ran and Rosh appear to hold that there is malkos in the case of a nazir who enters a beis hakevoros (cemetery), while the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position is examined regarding when one leaves the Beis Hamikdash.
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 4b
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.
