A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly are nidrei issur and nidrei hegdish, and what language creates them? The Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) offer fundamentally different definitions: the Ran centers on hatfasa language creating kedushas haguf (harei zu), while the Rambam emphasizes personal obligation (harei alai). The Ramban (רמב"ן) challenges the Rambam's decision to combine both types under one mitzvah (מצוה) in Sefer HaMitzvos.
This shiur opens Masechta Nedarim by analyzing the foundational Mishna's teaching that kinuyei nedarim (synonyms for vows) are treated like actual nedarim. Rabbi Zweig focuses on a fundamental machloket between the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the very definitions of nidrei issur (prohibitory vows) and nidrei hegdish (consecration vows). Rashi (רש"י) establishes that the Mishna's chiddush about kinuyim requires hatfasa—connecting the vow to the language of korban. This raises the question: why is hatfasa necessary for nedarim but seemingly obvious for korban itself? Rashi treats korban language as straightforward ("k'mo she'asar ga bekorban"), making neder the chiddush. This creates a difficulty: if hatfasa is fundamental to the din, why would korban be more "poshet" than neder?
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.
