A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the status of ambiguous vow language—is "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you) a neder or nidui? The shiur develops a framework for understanding yad she'ein mochich (unclear formulation) through the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם), arguing that phrases with dual connotations of neder and nidui become nedarim only when coupled with "shelo yoichol'ach" (that I may not eat from you), which clarifies intent.
This shiur on Nedarim 4b examines the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of ambiguous vow formulations and the principle of yad she'ein mochich (unclear language). The central question is whether expressions like "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you), "meforshani mimcha" (I am distanced from you), or "mechorkani mimcha" (I am far from you) constitute valid vow language or fall under the category of nidui (a form of excommunication or separation) rather than nedarim (formal vows). The shiur begins by analyzing the Gemara's difficulty with Shmuel's position. The Gemara initially assumes that according to Shmuel, such language is not a yad at all—it has no vow status whatsoever. However, the Ran explains that the maskana (conclusion) is that these formulations are indeed yad she'ein mochich: they are vow-like language but lack clarity about what is being prohibited. The fundamental question becomes: what determines whether something is "not a yad at all" versus "a yad she'ein mochich"?
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 4b
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.
