A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can someone make a shevuah or neder to fulfill a mitzvah (מצוה) they're already commanded to do? The Ran distinguishes between the two sugyos—the first addressing lechaim lehaitiv (optional actions), the second addressing ein shevuah chal al shevuah (one oath on another). The shiur also explores the Rosh's novel approach that a neder can be giving one's word as a chefetz, not merely personal commitment.
This shiur analyzes two related sugyos in Masechta Nedarim dealing with vows and oaths made to perform mitzvos. The central tension is whether such declarations can take effect given that one is already commanded from Har Sinai (mushba v'omeid mehar Sinai). The Gemara (גמרא) presents two cases. The first involves someone who makes an oath to eat matzah—clearly a mitzvah (מצוה) obligation. The Gemara questions whether this violates the principle of lechaim lehaitiv (that an oath must affect optional action). The second case involves someone who says "I will get up and learn this perek" or "I will learn this mesechta"—which appears optional in its specifics (when to learn, which mesechta) but still involves fulfilling the mitzvah of Torah (תורה) study.
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 8a
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
