A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a shevuah require God's name, or is the word "shevuah" sufficient? The shiur analyzes Rabbeinu Tam's fundamental distinction between mushba mi-pi acher (oath imposed by others) and mushba mi-pi atzmo (self-imposed oath), examining how this framework addresses the Mishna's teaching that kinuy shevuah is like shevuah itself and reconciling conflicting sources about when Hashem (ה׳)'s name is required.
This intensive Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Nedarim 2a explores one of the fundamental questions in hilchos shevuos: whether a shevuah requires the explicit mention of Hashem (ה׳)'s name or whether the word "shevuah" alone suffices. The discussion centers on understanding the Mishna's statement that "kinuy shevuah ka-shevuah" (substitutes for the word shevuah are like shevuah itself) and how this relates to the requirement of using God's name. The shiur begins by establishing a fundamental tension. If the Mishna teaches that kinuy shevuah is effective without God's name, this suggests that the word "shevuah" itself works without Hashem's name. The first raya (proof) brought is from the Gemara in Shevuos that discusses shevuah with just Hashem's name, suggesting that the name alone is sufficient. If Hashem's name alone suffices, what is the chiddush of kinuy shevuah? This indicates that even without God's name, the word shevuah must be effective.
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.
