No community start suggestion yet.
What happens when someone makes a neder (vow) using the language of shevuah (oath), or vice versa? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding that both nedarim and shevuos are fundamentally commitments in Parshas Matos—the key difference being that neder creates an issur cheftza (prohibition on the object) while shevuah creates only an issur gavra (prohibition on the person). This yesod resolves why neder b'lashon shevuah creates only an issur gavra, not a full neder.
This shiur explores the opening sugya of Masechta Nedarim (2a) focusing on the halachic mechanics of making a neder using the language of a shevuah, or making a shevuah using the language of a neder. Rabbi Zweig develops a foundational understanding of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s shita on the relationship between nedarim and shevuos. The shiur begins with a Rambam in Hilchos Nezirus that if someone says "I am a nazir only from the seeds or pits" or "from figs," he is forbidden in those things but is not a nazir. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding someone who says "I am a nazir from grapes" (something a nazir is not commanded about). Beis Shammai says he is a nazir; Beis Hillel says he is not. The Gemara states this Mishna is not like Rabbi Nosson, who holds that according to Beis Shammai he is both a nazir and a nadir on grapes, while according to Beis Hillel he is a nadir on grapes but not a nazir.
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.
