A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) introduce the concept of kinuyim differently in Hilchos Nedarim than in Hilchos Shevuos? The shiur analyzes the Rambam's structure, arguing that kinuyim in nedarim encompasses two separate halachos: substitute words for the chefetz (object) being forbidden work in any language, while substitute words for "korban" itself must point to lashon hakodesh because they create an objective halachic chalos, not merely a personal commitment.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of kinuyim (substitute language) in nedarim, addressing fundamental questions about why kinuyim are presented differently in Hilchos Shevuos versus Hilchos Nedarim, and why the Mishna gives specific examples rather than stating the general rule that nedarim can be expressed in any language. Rabbi Zweig begins by highlighting a structural puzzle in the Rambam. In Hilchos Shevuos (2:5), the Rambam immediately introduces kinuyei shevua (substitute words for oaths) without any preamble. However, in Hilchos Nedarim (1:16), he opens with a lengthy introduction: "Yesh b'kol mi she'ansheim al logim u'masidim es halashon u'mchanim al davar b'davar acher" — there are people who cannot pronounce words properly or who substitute one word for another, which is called a kinui. Why does the Rambam provide this explanation only in Hilchos Nedarim? Furthermore, the Rambam in Hilchos Nedarim mentions the limitation that kinuyim only work "b'oso makom b'oso zman" (in that place at that time), but this detail is omitted in Hilchos Shevuos. These inconsistencies demand explanation.
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.
