No community start suggestion yet.
What makes incomplete language effective for vows—clarity alone, or an extended lashon? The shiur analyzes Ran, Rosh, and Tosafos (תוספות) on Nedarim 6a, developing a fundamental chiluk: yad creates chalus (the halachic status change) but may not create the neder aspect (bal yachel obligation). This distinction resolves why we need a limud from hekdesh and why malkus by yad is not automatic.
This shiur conducts a deep analysis of Nedarim 6a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s question of whether yad (incomplete or abbreviated language) is effective for kiddushin, and by extension, for all forms of nedarim and hekdesh. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting two fundamentally different approaches to understanding the Gemara's discussion. According to Tosafos (תוספות), the reason "ve'at nami" works for kiddushin is that the man previously said "harei at mekudeshes li" to the first woman, establishing a complete lashon that can now be borrowed or extended. The Ran and Rosh, however, understand that yad works whenever there is no safek regarding the speaker's intent—when we definitively know what the person means, the incomplete language is effective. Rabbi Zweig raises a fundamental difficulty with the Ran/Rosh approach: If kiddushin merely requires clarity of intent rather than specific words, what is the Gemara's question about whether yad works? If we know what the person means, it should be effective; if we don't, it shouldn't. Why do we need to derive anything from the laws of hekdesh? The very fact that the Gemara asks whether we can learn yad for kiddushin from nedarim/hekdesh suggests that something beyond mere clarity is required. Furthermore, if clarity alone suffices, why does the Gemara discuss whether to say "ve'at chazon" (meaning this one specifically) versus "ve'at nami" (meaning this one also)? The Gemara seems to be creating a doubt about intent, which contradicts the premise that we know what he means.
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 6a
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.
