A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a neder be made using slang or a mispronunciation? The Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes two types: nedarim using "asur" work in any language or dialect, but nedarim using "korban" require a proper Hebrew pronunciation—unless that mispronunciation becomes socially accepted within a specific place and time, transforming it into a valid Hebrew variant.
This shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of kinuyim (substitutions or mispronunciations) in nedarim and shevuos, exploring how language variations affect the validity of vows. The primary sources are Hilchos Nedarim Perek 1 Halacha (הלכה) 13-14 and Hilchos Shevuos Perek 2 Halacha 5, along with the Gemara (גמרא) on Nedarim 2a and 10a. The Rambam in Hilchos Nedarim begins by stating that there are places where people mispronounce language ("yesh makomos shehem alogim masnim es halashon") and use kinuyim—alternative or incomplete pronunciations. The critical question is: when does such variant language create a valid neder? The Rambam concludes with a rule: "chochan achar lashon klal ha'am be'oso makom be'oso zman"—it must be the language of the majority of people in that specific place and time. Yet the Radbaz notes that this comprehensive rule appears only in Hilchos Nedarim, not in Hilchos Shevuos, raising the question of why the Rambam didn't state it clearly in both places.
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.
