A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What are kinuyim—substitute terms for vows? Are they real dictionary words, or merely technical jargon that triggers the legal mechanics of a neder? Rabbi Zweig unpacks the Ran's framework distinguishing kinuyim as perversions of Hebrew from standard foreign-language equivalents, and traces a fundamental debate between the Rama and the Beis Yosef about whether commitment demands linguistic understanding or simply halachic consequence.
This shiur delivers a deep analysis of Nedarim 2a, focusing on the nature of kinuyim—substitute terms for making vows. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting the Ran's understanding of the machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish. According to Rav Yochanan, kinuyim are "loshon nachrum"—words the gentiles use that are corruptions or slang versions of the Hebrew word "korban." According to Reish Lakish, kinuyim are "loshon shebadu chachamim"—technical terms the Sages instituted, which derive their power not from linguistic meaning but from rabbinic enactment as the designated language for vow-making. The Ran's approach raises several difficulties. If kinuyim are merely slang or perversions of Hebrew, why would Reish Lakish's position—that they work through rabbinic authority—be considered more obvious (pashut) than Rav Yochanan's view that they work as real language? The Gemara (גמרא) on daf 3a treats Rav Yochanan's position as more straightforward, yet according to the Ran's interpretation, it should be the reverse. Additionally, if loshon shebadu chachamim means the Sages have the power to create authoritative language through consensus, why would the Ran need to bring proof from Nazir that this works on a Torah (תורה) level?
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.
