No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "mudraim choshen" (I am separated from you), does he create an issur hana'ah, an issur dibur, or nothing at all? The shiur explores whether a yad (incomplete expression) creates an actual issur in the object, or merely describes a desired legal consequence. The Rosh's difficulty—that it should be muttar to speak if only hana'ah is forbidden—drives a fundamental re-examination of what yad accomplishes.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Nedarim 5a exploring the nature of yados (incomplete expressions) in nedarim. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone says "mudraim choshen" (I am separated from you). Initially, the Gemara suggests this means both parties are asur (forbidden) to each other. Then it proposes only one is asur mi'din hanachas (from the law of inference). Finally, it suggests the expression accomplishes nothing at all. Rabbi Zweig questions how the Gemara can shift so dramatically—from meaning both are asur, to only one, to nothing. What changed? The sugya becomes even more perplexing when the Gemara says that if it means nothing, then it should at least create an issur dibur (prohibition on speaking). But the speaker wanted to create an issur hana'ah (prohibition on benefit)—how can the Gemara impose a different issur than what he intended?
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 5a
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.
