A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a get says "harei at muteres" without "lechim minai," does it work? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim, developing a fundamental distinction: the words needed to create the chalos of divorce versus evidence that the giver actually means to divorce this woman. This approach reconciles the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s apparent contradiction and addresses the Marit's question about meshudeches.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 5b, focusing on the complex sugya of yadayim shemochichos (indicative hands) in the context of gittin. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses Shmuel's position on whether yadayim shemochichos constitute valid yadayim, and attempts to prove from the Mishna that Shmuel holds they do not constitute valid yadayim. The Gemara's answer—that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda—raises multiple difficulties that form the core of the shiur. The first major problem concerns why the Gemara needed to answer both "ein" (that Shmuel indeed holds yadayim shemochichos lo havin yadayim) and "amara masnisa kashisa" (the Mishna is difficult). If we already know from Masechta Kiddushin that Shmuel holds yadayim shemochichos havin yadayim, why does our sugya need to establish this? The Ran explains that without the evidence from Kiddushin, our Mishna could be understood either way, but this answer still leaves difficulties.
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 5b
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.
