A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is a neder primarily a chalos—a new halakhic status created in an object—or is it a personal commitment? The shiur contrasts the Ran and Ramban (רמב"ן)'s view that nedarim create a chalos isur or transfer property to hekdesh with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that all nedarim, including nidrei hekdesh, are fundamentally personal commitments. Numerous nafka minos emerge, including hatfasa, baal yachel versus baal ta'acher, and the scope of asering property on others.
This shiur on the opening Mishna of Masechta Nedarim analyzes the foundational machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) on one hand and the Ran and Ramban (רמב"ן) on the other regarding the essential nature of nedarim. The Mishna states, "Kol kinui nedarim ke'nedarim," and the Ran explains that there are two kinds of nedarim: nidrei hekdesh (consecrations to the Beis Hamikdash or mizbe'ach) and nidrei issur (prohibitions a person imposes on himself regarding permitted things). The Ran states that in nidrei hekdesh one can only be makdish what belongs to him and the issur applies universally, while in nidrei issur one can prohibit even someone else's property on himself but the issur is limited to the person making the neder. The Ran's language raises several difficulties. First, the Ran says that nidrei issur allow one to prohibit "even" someone else's property on himself, implying that prohibiting one's own property is simpler—yet this is puzzling. The Rambam defines nidrei issur as prohibiting items from another place (medina plonis) without emphasizing "even" someone else's property, suggesting there is no fundamental distinction between prohibiting one's own property versus another's. Second, the Ran includes bedek habayis in nidrei hekdesh, which the Rambam omits. Third, the Ran's formulation emphasizes the act of magdish (hareizu), seemingly leaving out harei alai (the commitment to bring a korban), whereas the Rambam centers his discussion on harei alai. Additionally, the Ran's phrase "ein issur shav al hakol" (the prohibition does not apply to everyone) in the context of nidrei issur seems unnecessary—if one is prohibiting someone else's property on oneself, of course the issur is limited to oneself.
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 2a
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.
