No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes the essential formulation (ikar) of a neder, and is chatfasa (comparison to a korban) a second dimension or merely an explanation? The Ran and Beis Yosef hold chatfasa is only a synonym for "asur," explaining why one who says "davar zeh asur alai ki imo" remains permitted—the explanation fails, so the entire neder fails. This approach challenges the Maram Chaviv's ruling and reconciles multiple Rishonim.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Nedarim 2b, focusing on the fundamental question of what constitutes ikar haneder (the essential formulation of a vow) and the nature of chatfasa (comparing something to a korban or prohibited item). The discussion centers on a debate between different approaches to understanding how nedarim work. The shiur begins with the Tur's language describing ikar haneder. The Tur states that one can create a neder either by saying "kikar zeh alai kikarbon" (this loaf is to me like a korban) or by saying "davar zeh asur alai" (this thing is forbidden to me), and both are considered ikar haneder. The Beis Yosef challenges the Tur's use of the word "nami" (also), arguing that the lashon is imprecise. The Beis Yosef maintains that the true ikar haneder is "davar zeh asur alai," while "kikar zeh alai kikarbon" is also ikar but not the "prime" ikar. His proof: when one is matfis (makes a comparison), one must be matfis bedovar hanoder (using the language of the thing being prohibited), not bedovar ha'asur (using prohibited language).
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.
