No community start suggestion yet.
When someone pays off another's debt, does the debtor receive hana'ah that would violate a neder? The Gemara (גמרא)'s dispute between Chanan and the Chachamim hinges on whether benefit must be direct or can be indirect. The shiur analyzes Tosafot's position that proximity determines usage versus the Ran's view that intention defines for whom one is working.
The shiur analyzes Nedarim 33b, focusing on a fundamental machlokes between Chanan and the Chachamim regarding whether paying off someone's debt creates a hana'ah obligation. According to Chanan, if X pays off Y's debt to Z, Y does not owe X money. According to the Chachamim, Y does owe X. The core question is whether this constitutes hana'ah in hilchos nedarim, and if so, what defines hana'ah. Rabbi Zweig establishes a foundational principle: nedarim is not an issur of pleasure per se, but rather an issur of taking or using an object. Unlike chametz on Pesach (פסח) or ma'achalos assuros where the prohibition is on deriving benefit from forbidden items, nedarim operates like hekdesh—the object becomes restricted, and using it constitutes a form of "taking" what doesn't belong to you. The issur hana'ah in nedarim is measured by whether one has used or taken an object, not merely whether one experienced pleasure.
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 33b
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.
