No community start suggestion yet.
Why is there meilah by konamot when the issur hanah comes from neder, not hekdesh? The shiur builds a fundamental yesod from the Rambam (רמב"ם): meilah b'konamot applies only when removing title from hekdesh (kishyotzi), not from mere hanah. When the nosen is permitted, the mekabel can acquire the monetary value without taking title, so devarim shebalev einam devarim doesn't undo the kinyan—resolving an apparent contradiction in the Rambam.
This shiur delivers a comprehensive analysis of meilah (misappropriation) in the context of konamot (vows formulated like hekdesh), reconciling an apparent contradiction in the Rambam (רמב"ם) and establishing a fundamental distinction between title and monetary ownership in hekdesh. The shiur opens with a steira (contradiction) in the Rambam. In Perek Dalet Hilchos Meilah (10), the Rambam rules according to Rav Amar that when someone says "kikar olecha hekdesh" (this loaf is to you like hekdesh) and gives it, the nosen is not mo'el because lo asur alo (it's not prohibited to him), and the mekabel is not mo'el because he can say "had I known it was prohibited, I wouldn't have wanted to acquire it"—yet he is mo'el kashyotzi (when he removes it from hekdesh's domain). The Ran explains this is because had the mekabel known it was prohibited, he wouldn't have wanted to acquire it, so there's no meilah on kabbalah b'shogeg (receiving unknowingly). However, in Perek Vav (7), the Rambam discusses a case where both nosen and mekabel are mo'el, and states clearly that if both act b'shogeg, the second person is not mo'el only because it already exited to chulin (yotza l'chulin). This implies that a mekabel b'shogeg would be mo'el if not for yotza l'chulin—a direct contradiction to Perek Dalet.
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 33b-34a
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.
