No community start suggestion yet.
Is nezirus an isur chefetz (prohibition on the object) or an isur gavra (obligation on the person)? The shiur analyzes why the Gemara (גמרא) places nazir after shevuah in the Mishna, suggesting nezirus requires a commitment to observe its laws—a language of gavra—even though the Torah (תורה) creates an isur chefetz. This explains why Hashem (ה׳) yislach lah applies specifically to nazir rather than ordinary nedarim.
This shiur examines Nedarim 2b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s placement of nazir after shevuah in the Mishna and what this reveals about the nature of nezirus. According to the Rambam (רמב"ם), a neder creates an isur chefetz—a prohibition on the object itself—which serves as an external force to enforce one's commitment not to eat or do something. In contrast, a shevuah is an isur gavra, a commitment on the person without creating any prohibition in the object. The central question is: where does nazir fit? If nazir is an isur chefetz (since the wine becomes prohibited), why does the Mishna place it after shevuah rather than immediately after nedarim and hekdesh? The Rosh argues that nazir must be an isur gavra because of its placement in the Mishna. However, the Ran and other Rishonim hold that nazir is indeed an isur chefetz.
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.
