No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a neder require specific language? The shiur explores whether nazir is an issur chefetz or issur gavra, examining the Rosh's position. A new framework is proposed: issur chefetz means the Torah (תורה) protects the object, issur gavra means protecting the person. This redefines the machlokes Ran-Ramban (רמב"ן) on whether improper neder language (konam sh'lo yaachol) constitutes a valid yad.
The shiur opens with the Rosh's fundamental question: if the Mishna discusses nedarim before shevuos because nedarim involve issur chefetz while shevuos involve issur gavra, why isn't nazir, which the Gemara (גמרא) implies is also issur chefetz, discussed first? The Rosh answers that nazir is not issur chefetz, raising the question of whether this means nazir is issur gavra or something else entirely. Two approaches are presented from the Rishonim. The first suggests nazir creates kedushas nazir on the person's body, making it neither a classical issur chefetz nor issur gavra. The second compares it to making one's mouth, hair, and body parts forbidden through multiple nedarim—treating the person's guf as the chefetz. Both explanations avoid categorizing nazir as a standard shevuah-type issur gavra.
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.
