A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes forbidden benefit (hana'ah) in nedarim? The shiur analyzes whether the issur is measured by the maddir's deprivation or the mudar's benefit, exploring Rashi (רש"י)'s multiple categories (chatzer, bayis, lekatzar darko) and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on derisa serag. The analysis addresses the Tur Evan's question about shade and reconciles Rav Papa's extension beyond the Mishna's parameters.
This shiur on Nedarim 32b explores the fundamental question of what constitutes forbidden benefit (hana'ah) in the laws of vows. The Mishna distinguishes between one who is mudar maachal (forbidden only from food) and one who is mudar hana'ah (forbidden from all benefit), listing which vessels and uses are permitted in each case. The analysis focuses on understanding the parameters of derisa seragel (walking on someone's property). The shiur presents a fundamental machloket Rishonim regarding how to measure the issur of hana'ah. Rashi (רש"י) is understood to present multiple categories: (1) chatzer and bayis - where the mudar's entry deprives the maddir of use or privacy, creating an issur even without benefit to the mudar; (2) lekatzar darko - where the maddir loses nothing but the mudar gains real benefit by taking a shortcut; and (3) according to some Rishonim, even bimosachan (a valley) where there is no real benefit but the mudar is using the property. The Rambam (רמב"ם) appears to have a distinct position, defining derisa seragel as simply standing on land, creating a fourth category.
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 32b
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.
