No community start suggestion yet.
Why should there be me'ilah—misappropriation of consecrated property—when someone makes a neder using the language of korban? The shiur develops two fundamental approaches: either the neder creates actual kedusha on the object through tafasta (linkage to korban), or it represents a reversion of ownership back to Hashem (ה׳) rather than a transfer to hekdesh. Each approach yields different practical implications for pidyon, keren v'chomesh, and whether the object becomes chullin after me'ilah.
This shiur explores one of the fundamental conceptual questions in the Gemara (גמרא)'s treatment of nedarim: how can there be a din of me'ilah (the prohibition against misappropriating consecrated property) when someone makes a neder using the language of hekdesh or korban? The Gemara in Nedarim 34b raises the question of whether yesh me'ilah b'konamot—whether the laws of me'ilah apply to objects forbidden through nedarim. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing that according to some Rishonim, every neder requires tafasta (attachment/linkage), meaning one must say "davar zeh asur alai k'korban" (this thing is forbidden to me like a korban). If one simply says "davar zeh asur alai" without mentioning korban, it only has the status of a yad (partial language), which we complete for him. This position, found in the Ran in Shevuot and other Rishonim, holds that the only way a neder can be created is by connecting it to the concept of korban. This provides a potential basis for understanding why there might be me'ilah in nedarim—because of the essential connection to the parsha of hekdesh.
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 34b
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.
