A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a shevuah require God's name, or is the word "shevuah" sufficient? The shiur analyzes Rabbeinu Tam's fundamental distinction between mushba mi-pi acher (oath imposed by others) and mushba mi-pi atzmo (self-imposed oath), examining how this framework addresses the Mishna's teaching that kinuy shevuah is like shevuah itself and reconciling conflicting sources about when Hashem (ה׳)'s name is required.
This intensive Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Nedarim 2a explores one of the fundamental questions in hilchos shevuos: whether a shevuah requires the explicit mention of Hashem (ה׳)'s name or whether the word "shevuah" alone suffices. The discussion centers on understanding the Mishna's statement that "kinuy shevuah ka-shevuah" (substitutes for the word shevuah are like shevuah itself) and how this relates to the requirement of using God's name. The shiur begins by establishing a fundamental tension. If the Mishna teaches that kinuy shevuah is effective without God's name, this suggests that the word "shevuah" itself works without Hashem's name. The first raya (proof) brought is from the Gemara in Shevuos that discusses shevuah with just Hashem's name, suggesting that the name alone is sufficient. If Hashem's name alone suffices, what is the chiddush of kinuy shevuah? This indicates that even without God's name, the word shevuah must be effective.
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.
