A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is a neder primarily a chalos—a new halakhic status created in an object—or is it a personal commitment? The shiur contrasts the Ran and Ramban (רמב"ן)'s view that nedarim create a chalos isur or transfer property to hekdesh with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that all nedarim, including nidrei hekdesh, are fundamentally personal commitments. Numerous nafka minos emerge, including hatfasa, baal yachel versus baal ta'acher, and the scope of asering property on others.
This shiur on the opening Mishna of Masechta Nedarim analyzes the foundational machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) on one hand and the Ran and Ramban (רמב"ן) on the other regarding the essential nature of nedarim. The Mishna states, "Kol kinui nedarim ke'nedarim," and the Ran explains that there are two kinds of nedarim: nidrei hekdesh (consecrations to the Beis Hamikdash or mizbe'ach) and nidrei issur (prohibitions a person imposes on himself regarding permitted things). The Ran states that in nidrei hekdesh one can only be makdish what belongs to him and the issur applies universally, while in nidrei issur one can prohibit even someone else's property on himself but the issur is limited to the person making the neder. The Ran's language raises several difficulties. First, the Ran says that nidrei issur allow one to prohibit "even" someone else's property on himself, implying that prohibiting one's own property is simpler—yet this is puzzling. The Rambam defines nidrei issur as prohibiting items from another place (medina plonis) without emphasizing "even" someone else's property, suggesting there is no fundamental distinction between prohibiting one's own property versus another's. Second, the Ran includes bedek habayis in nidrei hekdesh, which the Rambam omits. Third, the Ran's formulation emphasizes the act of magdish (hareizu), seemingly leaving out harei alai (the commitment to bring a korban), whereas the Rambam centers his discussion on harei alai. Additionally, the Ran's phrase "ein issur shav al hakol" (the prohibition does not apply to everyone) in the context of nidrei issur seems unnecessary—if one is prohibiting someone else's property on oneself, of course the issur is limited to oneself.
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.
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.
