No community start suggestion yet.
Does a shevuah require God's name (shem)? The Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) disagree fundamentally on whether shevuah bituy le'habah (future oath) is a commitment (bal yachel d'varo) or a declaratory statement requiring God's name. The shiur explores their positions, resolving apparent contradictions and clarifying when kinuy shevuah (substitute language) works.
This shiur on Nedarim 2a analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Ran and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding whether a shevuah requires God's name (shem). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that kinuy shevuah (substitute language for oaths) is valid like actual oaths. The Ran raises a difficulty: if shevuah requires a shem, why does the Mishna need to teach kinuy shevuah works? The shem itself should suffice without the word "shevuah" at all. Conversely, if shevuah doesn't require shem, then kinuy shevuah is unnecessary—just use shem. The Ran quotes Rabbeinu Tam's resolution: the distinction lies between mashbi'a pi acheirim (one administered by others) and mashbi'a pi atzmo (self-administered). According to Rabbeinu Tam, mashbi'a pi acheirim requires shem, while mashbi'a pi atzmo does not. The Raavad's position is that malkus (lashes) requires shem, but issur (prohibition) exists even without shem—creating apparent contradictions in the Raavad's own rulings between Perek Beis and Perek Yud Beis.
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.
