No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes the essential formulation (ikar) of a neder? The Ran in Nedarim holds "davar zeh asur alai" is sufficient, while the Ran in Shavuos maintains you must say "kikorban." The shiur explores whether this reflects a disagreement about linguistic form or reveals two fundamentally different understandings of how nedarim work—creating an isur on an object versus transferring kedusha from a korban.
This shiur analyzes the Ran's apparent contradiction between his position in Masechta Nedarim and his position in Masechta Shavuos regarding what constitutes the ikar (essential formulation) of a neder. In Nedarim, the Ran states that saying "davar zeh asur alai" (this thing is forbidden to me) is sufficient to create a valid neder, even without adding "kikorban" (like a korban). However, in Shavuos, the Ran appears to hold that one must explicitly mention korban, treating "davar zeh asur alai" as merely a yad (incomplete formulation) that requires completion. The Mishne LaMelech presents a fundamental question: If someone says to his wife "you should be asur on me like my mother," what is the halachic status? The Mishne LaMelech argues this depends on which Ran you follow. According to the Ran in Shavuos, "davar zeh asur alai" is only a yad that we complete to mean "kikorban," so if you substitute "like my mother" for "kikorban," the statement is invalid because you've completed it incorrectly with a davar ha'asur (something already forbidden) rather than a davar ha'nadur (something involved in nedarim). According to the Ran in Nedarim, "davar zeh asur alai" is a complete formulation, so adding "like my mother" doesn't invalidate it—the neder remains effective.
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.
