No community start suggestion yet.
If everyone in your location uses the term "konam" for korban but you don't understand it, is your neder valid? The shiur analyzes whether neder-language is real communication requiring comprehension or technical terminology requiring only awareness of creating a binding result. The Beis Yosef and Rama's dispute turns on whether saying the neder (motzi besefasav) creates the chalos or voices the internal commitment.
This shiur examines a fundamental dispute regarding the language requirements for nedarim. The Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 2a discusses kinuyim—alternate terms for korban used in making vows. The central question is whether someone who uses a kinuy must personally understand its meaning, or whether it suffices that the term is recognized in that location, even if the individual speaker doesn't comprehend it. The Rama rules in Yoreh De'ah that if a person uses a term like "konam" in a place where everyone understands it means korban, but he himself doesn't know what it means, the neder is invalid. The Beis Yosef brings a different case: if someone uses a term that nobody in that location recognizes (even though he personally understands it), it's also invalid. The Chavos Yair (Rav Kiveger) asks a powerful question: these are two entirely different cases. How can the Rama prove his ruling (that personal understanding is required even when everyone else understands) from the Beis Yosef's case (where nobody in the location uses that language)?
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.
