No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna separate nedarim from shevu'os when discussing kinuyim (alternative formulations)? The shiur explores a fundamental machloket between the Ran and the Rosh about which pasuk teaches kinuyim, revealing that the Mishna's structure teaches that kinuyim can create an issur cheftza—not merely communicate intent, but constitute valid halachic speech.
The shiur opens by analyzing the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that all kinuyei nedarim function like regular nedarim, and questions why the Gemara needs to bring multiple sources for this principle. The discussion focuses on why both nedarim and shevu'os are mentioned together, and why the Gemara brings specific pesukim rather than simply stating the general principle that nedarim may be stated in any language. A fundamental machloket emerges between the Ran and the Rosh regarding which pasuk teaches the din of kinuyim. The Ran cites the earlier pasuk "Ish ki yidor neder laHashem lishvo'a shevu'ah" (the second pasuk in Parashas Matos), while the Rosh and Rashi (רש"י) cite the later pasuk "Kol neder v'chol shevu'as issar" (pasuk yud dalet). This disagreement is initially puzzling: the first pasuk explicitly mentions both neder and shevu'ah together, making it seemingly the more appropriate source. Why would the Rosh skip over it to cite a later pasuk?
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 2b
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.
