A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) introduce the concept of kinuyim differently in Hilchos Nedarim than in Hilchos Shevuos? The shiur analyzes the Rambam's structure, arguing that kinuyim in nedarim encompasses two separate halachos: substitute words for the chefetz (object) being forbidden work in any language, while substitute words for "korban" itself must point to lashon hakodesh because they create an objective halachic chalos, not merely a personal commitment.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of kinuyim (substitute language) in nedarim, addressing fundamental questions about why kinuyim are presented differently in Hilchos Shevuos versus Hilchos Nedarim, and why the Mishna gives specific examples rather than stating the general rule that nedarim can be expressed in any language. Rabbi Zweig begins by highlighting a structural puzzle in the Rambam. In Hilchos Shevuos (2:5), the Rambam immediately introduces kinuyei shevua (substitute words for oaths) without any preamble. However, in Hilchos Nedarim (1:16), he opens with a lengthy introduction: "Yesh b'kol mi she'ansheim al logim u'masidim es halashon u'mchanim al davar b'davar acher" — there are people who cannot pronounce words properly or who substitute one word for another, which is called a kinui. Why does the Rambam provide this explanation only in Hilchos Nedarim? Furthermore, the Rambam in Hilchos Nedarim mentions the limitation that kinuyim only work "b'oso makom b'oso zman" (in that place at that time), but this detail is omitted in Hilchos Shevuos. These inconsistencies demand explanation.
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.
