No community start suggestion yet.
Why is there a bal yachel violation in nazir when the prohibition is already expressed through specific lavim like bal yoka and bal yishte? The shiur develops the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and other Rishonim: whether nazir involves only a kabbalas kedusha or also contains a neder-like commitment dimension. According to the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s reading, the hekesh to nedarim teaches that nazir itself is a neder—mechallel nidrei issur—creating dual violations.
This shiur analyzes the opening Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 2a, focusing on the relationship between the prohibition of bal yachel (not violating one's word) in nedarim and in nezirus. The Gemara establishes that just as one violates bal yachel when making a neder and transgressing it, there is also a bal yachel violation when one accepts nezirus and violates its restrictions. However, the Gemara raises a fundamental difficulty: while by neder the bal yachel violation is clear—when someone says "this loaf is forbidden to me" and then eats it, he violates his words—by nezirus the violation seems redundant. When a nazir drinks wine or becomes tamei, he violates specific prohibitions like bal yoka (not drinking wine) and bal yishte (not drinking grape juice). What room is there for an additional prohibition of bal yachel? The Gemara's question reveals a fundamental conceptual issue about the nature of nezirus. According to Tosafos (תוספות) and the Rosh, the Gemara is asking: how can there be a bal yachel violation by itself in nezirus? They understand that the Gemara concludes lavra la'vishnei—a nazir violates two prohibitions simultaneously when he drinks wine: both bal yoka and bal yachel. But the question remains: why should there be any bal yachel at all when the Torah (תורה) already specified the particular prohibitions?
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 2a
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.
