No community start suggestion yet.
Can you make a valid shvua to fulfill a mitzvah (מצוה) you're already obligated to do? The shiur develops the Ran's approach that such a shvua creates a din of "bi'yachol divaro"—an obligation to keep one's word—distinct from the shvua itself. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position introduces a third category: the shvua creates zrizus (enthusiastic commitment), and failure to fulfill it constitutes a shvua shav, not shvua sheker.
This shiur delves into the fundamental question of whether one can make a valid shvua (oath) to fulfill a mitzvah (מצוה) that one is already obligated to perform. The Gemara (גמרא)'s difficulty centers on the principle of "mushba v'omed mei'Har Sinai" (already sworn from Mount Sinai)—since every Jew is already bound by oath to fulfill all mitzvos from the moment of Matan Torah (תורה), how can a subsequent personal oath on the same mitzvah take effect? The shiur examines the Ran's approach, which holds that while the shvua is indeed "chal" (takes effect), it operates through the mechanism of "bi'yachol divaro" (honoring one's word). According to the Ran, this creates a real obligation, though not in the classical sense of shvuas bitui (an oath of utterance). The Ran distinguishes between the formal structure of a shvua as an "official statement" and the practical obligation it creates through the requirement to keep one's word. This explains why the Ran uses the language "neder gadol" interchangeably with "shvua"—both create obligations to honor commitments, though through different legal mechanisms.
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.
