No community start suggestion yet.
How many times is a nazir over bal yachel when drinking wine repeatedly—once or every time? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) on Nedarim 2a, exploring whether bal yachel is a violation of a commitment (neder dikadedin) or a separate issur on each act, with major implications from the Rambam (רמב"ם), Ran, Miri, and Avnei Miluim.
This shiur analyzes the opening sugya of Masechta Nedarim (2a) focusing on the nature of bal yachel (the prohibition against breaking one's word) in the context of nazirus. The central question is whether a nazir who drinks wine multiple times violates bal yachel each time or only once. The Gemara (גמרא) raises a fundamental question: why isn't there a violation of bal yachel by nazirus in addition to the prohibition of lo yachol (not to eat forbidden items)? The shiur explores multiple approaches among the Rishonim. The Ran, Rosh, and Tosafos (תוספות) understand that the Gemara assumes there is a bal yachel, but the question is why it wouldn't apply independently. Rashi (רש"י), however, understands the Gemara's assumption (havamina) differently—that there is no bal yachel at all in nazirus, which raises the question of why Rashi would assume this.
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.
