A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a shevuah (oath) require using God's Name, or can it work through kinui (euphemism) and yad (allusion)? The shiur develops the fundamental machlokes Rishonim between Rabbeinu Tam and the Raavad, tracing two distinct parshiyos of oaths—Parshas Vayikra (declaratory statements requiring a shem) and Parshas Matos (commitments parallel to nedarim that don't require a shem)—and works through multiple difficulties in Tosafos (תוספות) and the Gemara (גמרא)'s development.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Nedarim 2b and the fundamental dispute among Rishonim regarding whether a shevuah requires using Hashem (ה׳)'s Name. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion centers on why the Mishna teaches "kol kinuyei shevu'os k'shevu'os" when shevu'os work through kinuyim and yados, creating an apparent redundancy. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting several kashas on Tosafos (תוספות). Tosafos's first difficulty is why the Mishna mentions kinuyei shevu'os at all if shevu'ah has no yad—yet Tosafos itself later (daf tes zayin) states that "yeshiva sukkah alai shevu'ah" works as a yad l'shevu'ah. Second, Tosafos elsewhere permits an issur chefetz created through shevu'ah (e.g., "yeshiva sukkah alai shevu'ah"), which contradicts the claim that shevu'ah doesn't work without explicit language. Third, Tosafos's formulation of Rabbeinu Tam's position uses peculiar language: "motzi issur nafsho" rather than simply stating the distinction between mushmim pi acherim and mushmim pi atzmo.
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.
