No community start suggestion yet.
What creates a valid neder when only partial language is used? The shiur explores the Ran's two-part structure of neder hedish—kabbalah (commitment) creates shibud nechasim (lien on property)—and contrasts it with the Rosh and Rambam (רמב"ם). The focus shifts to yad (incomplete expression): must the Torah (תורה) "complete" your words, or does context alone establish meaning?
This shiur on Nedarim 9a presents a deep analysis of the mechanics of nedarim (vows), focusing on the Ran's approach to kabbalah and the conceptual structure of yad (incomplete vow language). Rabbi Zweig begins by addressing an apparent contradiction in the Ran: earlier, the Ran stated that there cannot be a neder without an issur chefetz (prohibition on an object), yet later he seems to validate neder hedish (sanctification vows) based on kabbalah (commitment). The resolution is that every neder hedish contains two elements: the kabbalah itself and the resulting shibud nechasim (monetary lien). The commitment creates certainty, and that certainty generates the issur chefetz—the lien on property that tzedakah acquires. Thus, the Ran is consistent: a neder always requires an issur chefetz, but in neder hedish, that chefetz arises from the kabbalah. Rabbi Zweig contrasts this with the approaches of the Rosh and the Rambam (רמב"ם). According to the Rosh, a neder of issur directly changes an object (making it forbidden), while a neder of hedish is built on one's word—a commitment to perform an action. The Ran adds nuance: kabbalah alone, without resulting in an issur chefetz, is not a full neder but still creates a binding commitment recognized by the Torah (תורה). This is learned from the concept of tzedakah, where saying "I will give" creates a lien on one's property in favor of the poor. The pasuk of "bal yachel devaro" (he shall not violate his word) applies to the issur chefetz, but the commitment aspect itself is rooted in the obligation of befichah (what comes from one's mouth). The shiur explores whether this kabbalah element, standing alone, constitutes a Torah-level obligation, and what the name of that issur would be—possibly an issur befichah, though not explicitly a neder in the classic sense.
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 9a
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.
