No community start suggestion yet.
Who violates the issur when a neder is made—the one who makes the vow (madir) or the recipient (mudor)? The shiur analyzes the Ran-Rambam (רמב"ם) dispute: the Ran holds me'ilah flows directly from the neder itself, while the Rambam distinguishes between forbidding an object (creating me'ilah for the mudor) and forbidding oneself from giving (creating a bal yachel violation for the madir).
This shiur on Nedarim 35 explores a fundamental machlokes between the Ran and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding who bears the issur when a neder is made: the madir (one who makes the vow) or the mudor (the one upon whom the prohibition falls). The Gemara (גמרא)'s language creates an apparent contradiction with the Rambam's psak, and the shiur works to reconcile these sources. The foundational question revolves around the relationship between nedarim and me'ilah. The Ran holds that me'ilah and neder are essentially one concept: when a person makes a neder restricting use of an object, the neder itself creates the din of me'ilah. According to this view, following the principle of "kol ha'nene al ma'aseh v'lo bracha ke'ilu ma," the neder returns the object to its original state of hekdesh. The issur flows directly from the reversion of the item to kedusha, not from a separate mechanism of hatfasa (connecting to a korban). Therefore, whether one asers oneself or asers an object on someone else, the result is the same: the mudor bears the issur of me'ilah.
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 35a
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.
