No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) state that neder and shvuah are written together, yet the Mishna teaches kinui neder but not kinui shvuah? The shiur examines how the Rambam (רמב"ם) understands this Gemara—arguing it cannot refer to shvuah with a shem—and explores why the Ran and Rosh cite different pesukim to prove neder and shvuah are linked.
This shiur on Nedarim 2a analyzes a fundamental sugya concerning kinui (substitute language) for nedarim and shvuos. The Gemara (גמרא) teaches that all kinui neder are like neder, and the Mishna regarding nazir does not mention kinui, while the Mishna regarding neder does. The Gemara explains this is because neder and shvuah are written together in the Torah (תורה), so what is taught regarding one applies to both—hence two Mishnayos are needed. Rabbi Zweig develops a major chiddush regarding the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of this Gemara. According to the Rambam, all shvuos require a shem (God's name), and the only shvuah that does not require a shem is one where the shem itself is sufficient. The shiur argues that if we accept the Ran's premise that any shvuah requiring a shem does not need kinui (because the shem is effective by itself), then the Gemara's statement that neder and shvuah are written together becomes problematic. Why would we need kinui for shvuah at all?
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.
