No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of a neder of hekdesh — is it a transfer of property rights to hekdesh, or a commitment to deliver something? The shiur analyzes the two interpretations in the Ramban (רמב"ן) and shows how the Rashba and Ran's debate over safek yad (uncertainty in vows) hinges on which understanding you adopt. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that hefker is built on the foundation of nedarim — a commitment without an issur chefetz — emerges as a third model.
The shiur explores a fundamental machloket regarding the nature of nedarim, particularly nedarim of hekdesh (consecration). The Ramban (רמב"ן) offers two possible explanations for how a neder of hekdesh works. The first pshat is that a neder of hekdesh creates a shibud nechasim — an immediate lien or property interest that hekdesh acquires. According to this understanding, the neder itself is not primarily a commitment to keep one's word, but rather an actual transfer of property rights. The mechanism relies on the principle of amirat Yisrael k'mesirat hedyot — that by hekdesh, verbal commitment creates an actual transfer, unlike transactions between ordinary people which require a kinyan. The second pshat in the Ramban is that a neder of hekdesh is fundamentally a commitment — a promise to deliver something to hekdesh in the future. The shiur notes that this is closer to the conventional understanding of nedarim as obligations to fulfill one's word. The difference between these two approaches affects how we understand the issur of bal te'acher (delay in fulfilling vows). According to the first pshat, bal te'acher is a separate obligation that arises after the property transfer has already occurred. According to the second pshat, bal te'acher might be intrinsic to the neder itself, defining the time parameters of the commitment.
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 7a
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.
