A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can you make a neder in French if you're in America? The Mishnah (משנה) Berurah says no, bringing proof from the Ritva that kinuyim only work where they're understood. The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: some b'chol lashon means the experience itself (like Shema—understand and you're yotzei anywhere); other times b'chol lashon means "pointing" to Hebrew (like nedarim—only valid where that language connects to Lashon HaKodesh).
The shiur opens with a striking shailah from the Mishnah (משנה) Berurah in Siman 62: if an American is in France and says Krias Shema in French, he is yotzei. But if that same American says Krias Shema in French while in America, the Mishnah Berurah rules he is not yotzei. The Beer HaGolah brings a proof from the Ritva in Nedarim that kinuyim (substitute terms) only work in the place where they are used and understood. According to the Ritva, kinuyim function only b'oso makom—in that particular locale. Most remarkably, the Ritva explicitly states that other languages (lashon la'az v'arev) work just like kinuyim—meaning they too are limited to the places where they are spoken and understood. This appears to be a tremendous proof for the Mishnah Berurah's position. However, the shiur notes two major difficulties with the Ritva's formulation. First, it seems backwards: the Ran holds exactly the opposite—that regular languages (shar lashonot) work universally, and kinuyim are the chiddush that they also work. Second, it's unclear why the Ritva learns shar lashonot from kinuyim at all. If anything, one would expect to learn kinuyim from shar lashonot, since actual languages are clearly valid modes of expression.
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.
