A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can there be ba'al tachar on nazirus if the nazirus is already chal? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod that nazirus has two aspects: neder issur (prohibiting wine, grapes, etc.) and neder hekdesh (the affirmative obligation to observe the laws of nazirus). By saying "lo efdom min ha'olam achei nazir," one creates the issur immediately but delays the affirmative commitment, generating ba'al tachar without bal yochel — an application of Reish Lakish's principle that issur nazirus without full nezirus carries no malkus.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 4a and explores a foundational tension in the sugya: how can there be a din of ba'al tachar when the Gemara (גמרא) says "havlei nazir" — he is already a nazir? If someone says "lo efdom min ha'olam achei nazir" (I will not leave this world without being a nazir), the Gemara says he is a nazir immediately, yet he is also over ba'al tachar. But how can both be true? If nazirus is chal immediately, there should be bal yochel (immediate violation), not ba'al tachar (delay violation). Rabbi Zweig proposes that nazirus contains two distinct components: (1) neder issur — the prohibitions of nazirus (wine, grapes, tumah, cutting hair), and (2) neder hekdesh — the affirmative obligation to observe the status of nazir (kum va'aseh). When a person says "lo efdom min ha'olam achei nazir," he creates the neder issur immediately — he is asur in the items of nazirus — but does not yet undertake the affirmative kum va'aseh. This split creates a situation where he is a nazir in terms of issur, but not yet a full nazir in terms of din. Therefore, he is chayav to begin being nogei'ach in nazirus (affirmatively undertaking it), and if he delays, he violates ba'al tachar.
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 4a
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.
