A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the conceptual difference between a shevuah (oath) and a neder (vow)? The shiur develops the thesis that a shevuah with Hashem (ה׳)'s name is not a commitment but a declarative statement of truth in God's name, while a shevuah without Hashem's name (like in Parshas Matos) is a promise—a commitment that falls under the halachos of nedarim. This framework explains why the Rambam (רמב"ם) places certain issurim in Hilchos Nedarim rather than Hilchos Shevuos.
The shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Maseches Nedarim 2a, focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of shevuos and nedarim and developing a fundamental conceptual distinction between them. The central thesis challenges the conventional understanding that all shevuos are commitments or promises. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining a difficulty in the Ran's approach to understanding whether a shevuah requires the word "shem" (God's name). The Ran argues that if saying "shem" alone creates an issur, then there would be no need for the chiddush of kinuyim (substitute terms for oaths). The kashya is why the Ran needs to bring a proof from Reish Lakish when this should already be clear from logic.
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.
