No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule that a beis hakisei designated with uncertain status (yad) should not be used l'chatchila for Krias Shema, despite the principle of safek d'rabbanan l'kula? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: when the safek concerns whether a takanas chachamim exists at all—rather than how to apply a known takana—the din is not safek l'kula but l'chatchila d'gezah. The takana cannot be dismissed through ignorance, yet we don't impose full stringency either.
This shiur on Nedarim 7a examines a fundamental difficulty in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s psak regarding safek yad l'beis hakisei (uncertain designation of a bathroom). The Ran explains that the Rambam holds there is a safek regarding whether yad applies to beis hakisei, yet the Rambam rules "ein korin bo l'chatchila" (one should not read Krias Shema there initially), though b'dieved if one did read, it is valid. This presents multiple difficulties: If safek d'rabbanan l'kula applies, why can't one read there l'chatchila? And if we rule l'chumra that yad does apply, why isn't one required to read again if he already read there? Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental yesod to resolve this difficulty by distinguishing between two types of safek d'rabbanan. The first type involves a safek in the application of a known takanas chachamim—for example, whether a particular item is meat or soy, when we know that meat and cheese together is rabbinically prohibited. In such cases, safek d'rabbanan l'kula properly applies. However, the second type involves a safek in the very establishment of the takana itself—whether the chachamim instituted a particular gezeira or chumra at all.
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.
