No community start suggestion yet.
When are you over bal tachar versus bal yachel for violating a neder? The shiur analyzes the machlokes Ran/Rosh on when bal tachar applies, whether neder violations create both issurim simultaneously, and why nazir who becomes tamei receives malkus—developing a fundamental chakira whether bal tachar means delaying payment to hekdesh or delaying fulfillment of the neder itself.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Nedarim 3b-4a, focusing on the fundamental nature of bal tachar (the prohibition against delaying fulfillment of vows) and bal yachel (the prohibition against violating one's word). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses when someone who says "lo yafte mino olam atcha hei nazir" violates bal tachar, with a major machlokes between the Ran and Rosh: the Ran holds you're chayav bal tachar miyad (immediately), while the Rosh says after shalosh regalim (three festivals). Rabbi Zweig raises several fundamental questions: How can there be bal tachar shalosh regalim when the Gemara implies there's a chiyuv to fulfill it now? Why doesn't the Gemara simply discuss bal yachel the nazirus—where someone promises to accept nazirus within a specific time and fails to do so? If someone says he'll be a nazir in six months and doesn't fulfill it, that should be a straightforward case of both bal yachel and bal tachar.
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 3b-4a
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.
