A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא)'s opening question assume the Mishna should start with kinuyim? The shiur develops the fundamental tension: when Torah (תורה) SheBaal Peh is written down, should it be organized for memory (man desolik minei) or clarity (man depasach minei)? The Iboi Simar resolves the apparent contradiction by distinguishing between lists (where both are valid) and concepts (where clarity demands explanation of the harder topic first).
The Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 2b opens with the question "lifrush kinuyim bereishis" – why doesn't the Mishna start with kinuyim? Rabbi Zweig analyzes the structure of the Gemara's argument, noting that the Gemara begins with a premise rather than simply listing contradictory Mishnayos. A question must be based on a logical problem, not just a "why" – the Gemara assumes there's a principle that demands one ordering over another. The fundamental issue is how Torah (תורה) SheBaal Peh should be organized once it's been written down. Originally, Torah SheBaal Peh was transmitted orally and had to be known by heart, while Torah SheBeKsav was learned from a text. When Rebbe HaNasi wrote down the Mishna due to the exigencies of the generation (eis lasus laShem), a critical question arose: should the written Mishna be studied like Torah SheBeKsav (with text-based clarity) or should it maintain the character of Torah SheBaal Peh (optimized for memorization)?
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.
