A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone makes a neder forbidding his object to another person and then sells the object to a third party, can the original recipient still not benefit from it? The Ran holds that the neder creates a restriction on the object itself that transfers with ownership. The Rambam (רמב"ם) disagrees fundamentally: nedarim are personal promises, not restrictions on objects, so nothing ever "transfers" — the only question is whether the madir himself is delivering the benefit.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Ran and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the conceptual nature of nedarim (vows) and how they operate when property changes hands. The Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 34b discusses the case where someone makes a neder forbidding his object to another person (the mudar) and then transfers ownership of that object to a third party. The question is whether the original mudar can now benefit from the object. According to the Ran's understanding, when someone says "bay zeh" (this object is forbidden to you) and then sells the object to a third party, the mudar still cannot use it. This is because the neder creates an issur that attaches to the object itself — a kind of restrictive covenant that travels with the property. Even though the madir (the one who made the vow) no longer owns the object, the restriction remains attached to it. This raised a conceptual problem discussed in the previous shiur: how can an issur remain on an object after the madir has sold it and no longer owns it? The Ran was forced to say that there must be some aspect of hekdesh or spiritual ownership that enables the restriction to attach to the physical object itself and transfer with it.
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 34b
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.
