No community start suggestion yet.
Does a neder or shevua require Hebrew, or can it be said in any language? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s dual position that nedarim with the word "aser" work in any language, but using "korban" without "aser" requires Hebrew—because transferring kedusha requires lashon hakodesh. The Radvaz explains that mispronunciations by klal ha'am become accepted Hebrew.
Rabbi Zweig delivers an intricate analysis of Nedarim 2a, focusing on the language requirements for nedarim (vows) and shevuos (oaths), particularly examining the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position and the Radvaz's commentary. The central question is whether vows and oaths can be made in any language or require Hebrew specifically. The shiur begins by examining the Rambam in Perek Aleph Halacha (הלכה) Tes Zayin, which discusses kinuyim (substitute expressions) and the Radvaz's interpretation. The Radvaz is troubled by how Rabbi Yochanan could permit lashon nochrim (gentile languages) for vows when korban inherently seems to require Hebrew. The Rambam answers that when Jews who speak lashon hakodesh use words borrowed from other languages, these become acceptable Hebrew pronunciations. The principle of "klal ha'am b'oso makom b'osos man" (the general population in that place at that time) establishes that widespread mispronunciations by the Jewish community become legitimate forms of lashon hakodesh.
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.
