No community start suggestion yet.
What is the fundamental difference between a neder (vow) and a shevuah (oath)? The shiur analyzes the Ran's position that a neder creates an issur chefetz (prohibition on an object) while a shevuah creates an issur gavra (prohibition on the person), contrasted with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s view that both stem from the principle of keeping one's word. The Ramban (רמב"ן)'s concept of yad (partial formulation) is examined in depth.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Nedarim 2b, exploring the fundamental nature of nedarim (vows) and shevuos (oaths) according to different Rishonim. The central question is whether these are fundamentally different mechanisms or variations of the same obligation to keep one's word. The Ran's position is that a neder operates through creating an issur chefetz—a prohibition that attaches to the object itself. When someone makes a neder prohibiting bread, the bread becomes forbidden to him. A shevuah, by contrast, creates an issur gavra—a prohibition that rests on the person. This fundamental distinction means that switching the language between nedarim and shevuos cannot work, because they operate in completely different realms.
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.
