A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does every shevuah require mentioning Hashem (ה׳)'s name explicitly? The Ran and Rabbeinu Tam fundamentally disagree: the Ran holds no shevuah needs a shem at all, while Rabbeinu Tam maintains every shevuah requires a shem—except where the principle of yad (partial statement) applies in shevuah mipi atzmo cases. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position introduces a third approach regarding shevuas bitui.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of a fundamental machlokes Rishonim regarding the requirement of mentioning Hashem (ה׳)'s name (shem) in various categories of shevuos (oaths). The core dispute centers on Rabbeinu Tam's innovative distinction between shevuah mipi atzmo (self-initiated oath) and shevuah mipi acher (oath initiated by another party). Rabbeinu Tam's position is that the requirement of shem varies based on who initiates the shevuah. When one is responding to another's shevuah initiation (mipi acher)—such as in shevuas eidus or shevuas hapikadon—a shem is required. However, when one initiates the shevuah oneself (mipi atzmo), no shem is technically needed because the principle of yad applies. The Ran raises a powerful challenge: the Gemara (גמרא) learns shevuas eidus from sotah, and by sotah, the woman's amen is considered as if she said the full shevuah herself (mipi atzmo). If so, why would shevuas eidus require a shem specifically in the mipi acher case, when the source (sotah) is mipi atzmo?
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
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.
