No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna separate nedarim from shevu'os when discussing kinuyim (alternative formulations)? The shiur explores a fundamental machloket between the Ran and the Rosh about which pasuk teaches kinuyim, revealing that the Mishna's structure teaches that kinuyim can create an issur cheftza—not merely communicate intent, but constitute valid halachic speech.
The shiur opens by analyzing the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that all kinuyei nedarim function like regular nedarim, and questions why the Gemara needs to bring multiple sources for this principle. The discussion focuses on why both nedarim and shevu'os are mentioned together, and why the Gemara brings specific pesukim rather than simply stating the general principle that nedarim may be stated in any language. A fundamental machloket emerges between the Ran and the Rosh regarding which pasuk teaches the din of kinuyim. The Ran cites the earlier pasuk "Ish ki yidor neder laHashem lishvo'a shevu'ah" (the second pasuk in Parashas Matos), while the Rosh and Rashi (רש"י) cite the later pasuk "Kol neder v'chol shevu'as issar" (pasuk yud dalet). This disagreement is initially puzzling: the first pasuk explicitly mentions both neder and shevu'ah together, making it seemingly the more appropriate source. Why would the Rosh skip over it to cite a later pasuk?
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.
