No community start suggestion yet.
Is nezirus an isur chefetz (prohibition on the object) or an isur gavra (obligation on the person)? The shiur analyzes why the Gemara (גמרא) places nazir after shevuah in the Mishna, suggesting nezirus requires a commitment to observe its laws—a language of gavra—even though the Torah (תורה) creates an isur chefetz. This explains why Hashem (ה׳) yislach lah applies specifically to nazir rather than ordinary nedarim.
This shiur examines Nedarim 2b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s placement of nazir after shevuah in the Mishna and what this reveals about the nature of nezirus. According to the Rambam (רמב"ם), a neder creates an isur chefetz—a prohibition on the object itself—which serves as an external force to enforce one's commitment not to eat or do something. In contrast, a shevuah is an isur gavra, a commitment on the person without creating any prohibition in the object. The central question is: where does nazir fit? If nazir is an isur chefetz (since the wine becomes prohibited), why does the Mishna place it after shevuah rather than immediately after nedarim and hekdesh? The Rosh argues that nazir must be an isur gavra because of its placement in the Mishna. However, the Ran and other Rishonim hold that nazir is indeed an isur chefetz.
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 2b
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.
