No community start suggestion yet.
Does a neder or shevua require Hebrew, or can it be said in any language? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s dual position that nedarim with the word "aser" work in any language, but using "korban" without "aser" requires Hebrew—because transferring kedusha requires lashon hakodesh. The Radvaz explains that mispronunciations by klal ha'am become accepted Hebrew.
Rabbi Zweig delivers an intricate analysis of Nedarim 2a, focusing on the language requirements for nedarim (vows) and shevuos (oaths), particularly examining the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position and the Radvaz's commentary. The central question is whether vows and oaths can be made in any language or require Hebrew specifically. The shiur begins by examining the Rambam in Perek Aleph Halacha (הלכה) Tes Zayin, which discusses kinuyim (substitute expressions) and the Radvaz's interpretation. The Radvaz is troubled by how Rabbi Yochanan could permit lashon nochrim (gentile languages) for vows when korban inherently seems to require Hebrew. The Rambam answers that when Jews who speak lashon hakodesh use words borrowed from other languages, these become acceptable Hebrew pronunciations. The principle of "klal ha'am b'oso makom b'osos man" (the general population in that place at that time) establishes that widespread mispronunciations by the Jewish community become legitimate forms of lashon hakodesh.
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.
