A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a person make a valid shevua on a mitzvah (מצוה) they're already obligated to fulfill? The Ran distinguishes between an imposed obligation and a personal commitment—arguing that mushba ve'omed me'Har Sinai creates not merely punishment for violation but an intrinsic obligation. The shiur develops the Gemara (גמרא)'s teretz of la'zaruza nafshe as establishing a din shevua for zrizus (enthusiastic fulfillment), not merely bal yachel or zahirus.
This advanced shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Nedarim 8a concerning the nature of vows made upon mitzvos. Rabbi Zweig explores the Ran's difficult approach to understanding the Gemara (גמרא)'s question "halo mushba ve'omed me'Har Sinai"—why can't one make a shevua on a mitzvah (מצוה) when we are already obligated from Sinai? The foundational question is why Rav Gidal Amar Rav brings a pasuk from Tehillim "nishbati va'akayma lishmore mishpetei tzidkecha" to teach that there is a mitzvah to make a vow on mitzvos. The Gemara's question "halo mushba ve'omed me'Har Sinai" seems to contradict this, suggesting that since we're already obligated, no additional vow can take effect. The Ran learns that the Gemara's havamina was that Rav Gidal held it to be a full-fledged shevua, which couldn't work due to mushba ve'omed, and the Gemara could have simply answered that it's only nogeia for bal yachel but not for korban.
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.
