A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the underlying mechanism of neder—a personal commitment that triggers Torah (תורה)'s isur, or actively creating a chalos on the object itself? The shiur works through multiple Ran texts (Nedarim 2a, Shevuos 20a, Nedarim 14a) that appear contradictory regarding ikar haneder and hatfasa. Rabbi Zweig resolves the Ran by distinguishing two Parshas: asuring on oneself (Parshas Matos) vs. creating an objective chefetz neder with me'ilah (Parshas Ki Seitzei).
This shiur presents a complex analysis of the Ran's approach to nedarim, particularly focusing on the Mishna Lamelech's treatment of an apparent contradiction in the Ran. The fundamental question is: what is ikar haneder—is it achieved through hatfasa (transferring kedusha from a korban) or without hatfasa (simply saying "davar zeh asur alai")? The Ran in Nedarim 2a states that ikar haneder is without hatfasa, whereas the Ran in Shevuos 20a appears to say that ikar haneder requires hatfasa, and without hatfasa it only works midin yad. Rabbi Zweig identifies multiple textual problems with the Ran. First, why does the Ran cite the Gemara (גמרא) in Shevuos to prove that you must be matfas in davar hanoder (the object being forbidden) rather than davar oser (a forbidden object), when this principle is explicit in the Gemara in Nedarim 14a, which is the primary masechta on nedarim and comes before Shevuos? Second, the Ran on 14a says "davar oser kikorban" works like gar miyodes (close to certain), yet on 2a he says it's kikorban (definite). These contradictions require resolution.
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.
