A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a neder (vow) be made using the language of a shevuah (oath), and vice versa? The Ran holds such formulations are invalid since one must create the proper chalos (halachic status change), while the Ramban (רמב"ן) permits them based on pi velibo shavin. The shiur develops a fundamental machloket about whether nedarim create obligations or transfer objects to hekdesh.
The shiur opens with the foundational question of whether a neder (vow) expressed in the language of a shevuah (oath) is valid, and whether a shevuah expressed in the language of a neder is valid. The Gemara (גמרא) on Nedarim 2b discusses why the Mishna organizes nedarim and shevuos according to their subject (cheftza vs. gavra) rather than grouping them together since they appear adjacent in the Torah (תורה). The Ran explains that the Mishna is teaching a fundamental halacha (הלכה) about how to formulate nedarim: a neder must be expressed as an issur on the cheftz (object), while a shevuah must reference the gavra (person). According to the Ran, using the wrong formulation invalidates the neder or shevuah entirely—neder b'lashon shevuah and shevuah b'lashon neder simply do not work. This is because one must actively create the proper chalos (halachic status change), and using the wrong linguistic formula fails to create that chalos.
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.
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.
