A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the fundamental difference between neder and shevua, and does shevua require God's name? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds that Parshas Matos introduces a unique category of commitment (neder and shevuat bitui without God's name), while shevua with God's name is a statement in the category of Kol HaTorah Kulah. The Raavad disagrees, holding there is overlap between the two categories and that shevuat bitui creates an obligation even without a Name.
This shiur analyzes the opening Mishna of Masechta Nedarim (daf 2a) and the fundamental dispute between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and the Raavad concerning the nature of nedarim and shevuot. The core question is whether shevua requires using Hashem (ה׳)'s name, and what the relationship is between the shevuot of Parshas Matos and those in Kol HaTorah Kulah. The Raavad's position is that shevuat bitui (an oath about the future) does not require God's name for there to be an issur and a korban shevua. According to the Raavad, there is an overlap between the parsha of Matos and the rest of Torah (תורה). While there is no malkus for violating bayachol dvoro (the prohibition derived from Parshas Matos), since it is a lav she'ein bo maaseh, there is still a korban shevua obligation. The malkus that does apply comes from lo sipu bishmi (not swearing falsely in My name), which requires using God's name. The Raavad holds that shevua creates an issur even without a Name, and this issur triggers the korban shevua obligation.
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.
