No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a neder require specific language? The shiur explores whether nazir is an issur chefetz or issur gavra, examining the Rosh's position. A new framework is proposed: issur chefetz means the Torah (תורה) protects the object, issur gavra means protecting the person. This redefines the machlokes Ran-Ramban (רמב"ן) on whether improper neder language (konam sh'lo yaachol) constitutes a valid yad.
The shiur opens with the Rosh's fundamental question: if the Mishna discusses nedarim before shevuos because nedarim involve issur chefetz while shevuos involve issur gavra, why isn't nazir, which the Gemara (גמרא) implies is also issur chefetz, discussed first? The Rosh answers that nazir is not issur chefetz, raising the question of whether this means nazir is issur gavra or something else entirely. Two approaches are presented from the Rishonim. The first suggests nazir creates kedushas nazir on the person's body, making it neither a classical issur chefetz nor issur gavra. The second compares it to making one's mouth, hair, and body parts forbidden through multiple nedarim—treating the person's guf as the chefetz. Both explanations avoid categorizing nazir as a standard shevuah-type issur gavra.
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.
