A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What drives the prohibition of bal tacher (do not delay)—the vow itself or the monetary obligation? The shiur distinguishes between two types of bal tacher: the monetary obligation in korbanos (operative after three festivals) and the personal neder obligation in nazirus (operative immediately). This framework resolves contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם) and explains why bal ye'achel and bal tacher apply differently across contexts.
This advanced shiur on Nedarim 4a analyzes the complex relationship between bal tacher (the prohibition against delaying fulfillment of vows) and bal ye'achel (the prohibition against violating vows). The Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) present apparently contradictory positions about when these prohibitions take effect, particularly regarding korbanos, nazirus, and tzedakah. The shiur opens by presenting fundamental questions: Why does the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos indicate that bal tacher by korbanos is effective immediately (like by tzedakah), yet in other places suggests it takes effect only after three festivals (shalosh regalim)? The Chasam Sofer attempts to resolve this by arguing that when one accepts a neder upon oneself, the intention is to fulfill it immediately, thus triggering bal tacher right away. However, Rabbi Zweig identifies serious problems with this approach, particularly why tzedakah would not similarly trigger bal ye'achel immediately.
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.
