A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the fundamental nature of nedarim—creating an isur in the object itself, or binding oneself to keep one's word? The shiur contrasts two competing frameworks: the Ran's position that neder creates objective kedusha in the chefetz (requiring hatfasa), versus the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that neder is fundamentally about keeping one's word (akin to shevu'ot but attached to an object). The implications extend to every aspect of hilchos nedarim.
This shiur presents a fundamental machloket regarding the essential nature of nedarim, contrasting the Ran with the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rashi (רש"י). The core question is: What happens when a person declares "davar zeh asur alai"—is he creating an objective isur in the chefetz itself, or is he binding himself to keep his word not to eat it? The Ran's position, developed through his commentary in Nedarim and Shevuos, is that the yesod of neder is the creation of kedusha or isur in the chefetz. When one says "davar zeh asur alai," he means to put an isur into the object itself—to create a chefetz of isur. This is parallel to nidrei hekdesh, where one makes something kodesh. The classical case of neder according to the Ran is making one's own object into a chefetz of isur, similar to saying "harei zu olah" regarding a behema. The Ran requires that the person understand he is creating a chefetz of isur; if he merely means "I won't eat it" without intending to create objective isur, that would only be a yad, not ikar haneder.
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-2b, 14a
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.
