A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a shevuah is made without uttering Hashem (ה׳)'s name, is it a full-fledged oath that creates an obligation, or merely a personal commitment? The shiur analyzes the Ran's position that a shevuah never needs Shem Hashem (not even as a yad), the Raavad's ruling that a shevuah without a shem obligates a korban but not malkus, and the Chasam Sofer's proof from Nedarim 10a regarding kinuyim.
This shiur explores a fundamental machlokes regarding the nature of a shevuah made without explicitly invoking Shem Hashem (ה׳). The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that a shevuah without a shem is subject to malkus and issur but not korban, while in Perek Yud Beis he says there is neither korban nor malkus—only shemayim v'aretz (Heavenly punishment). The Raavad in Perek Beis disputes the Rambam, holding that a shevuah without a shem obligates a korban and issur but not malkus. The Magen Avrohom's difficulty is understanding the Raavad's internal consistency: why does he say there's a korban in Perek Beis but not in Perek Yud Beis? The shiur introduces the Ran's position on Nedarim 2a. The Ran argues that a shevuah does not require Shem Hashem at all, based on the Mishna's teaching that "kol kinuy shevuos k'shevuos"—all substitute terms for oaths are like oaths. If a shevuah required a shem, there would be no need for the Mishna to teach this principle, because any oath would automatically work through the shem itself, making the word "shevuah" superfluous. The Ran concludes it is "muchrach" (logically necessary) that a shevuah does not require a shem. He then brings two proofs from the Gemara (גמרא) that a shem works independently without the word shevuah, reinforcing his argument that our Mishna proves a shevuah does not require a shem.
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.
