A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly must be said to create a valid neder, nazirus, korban, or shevuah? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s requirement of "kinidrei reshaim" and explores whether the din of yad (explicit language) requires specifying the object of the issur, or only the issur itself. A fundamental question emerges about the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on whether physical objects (nazir, behema, kikar) must be present for the vow to take effect.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Nedarim dealing with the language requirements for creating various types of vows. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the case of someone who says "kinidrei reshaim" (like the vows of wicked people) - stating that if he adds "hareini," he becomes a nazir (provided a nazir passes before him); if he says "alai," he is obligated in a korban; if he says "himenu," he makes a shevuah. The Gemara challenges each formulation, asking why we assume he means to create an actual obligation rather than merely referencing what wicked people do. Rabbi Zweig focuses intensively on a fundamental question: What constitutes sufficient "yad" (explicit language) to create a valid vow? The Gemara states that for nazirus, you need "nazir over lefanov" (a nazir passing before him). For shevuah, the Gemara says you need "shelo yochal" (that he won't eat it) rather than just "himenu" (from it). The shiur questions why these additional specifications are necessary and what this reveals about the nature of yad.
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 11a-11b
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.
