A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a shevuah require God's name, or just the word "shevuah"? The Gemara (גמרא)'s opening mishna on kinuyei shevuos (substitutes for oaths) reveals a fundamental debate between Rambam (רמב"ם) and Raavad on whether shevuos bitui (promissory oaths) are commitments or declaratory statements, and whether they differ from nedarim (vows).
This shiur analyzes the opening sugya of Maseches Nedarim (2a), focusing on the Mishna's statement that "kol kinuyei shevuos k'shevuos" — all substitute language for oaths has the force of oaths. The Ran raises a fundamental question: if every shevuah requires using God's name (shem), then the name alone should suffice, making the word "shevuah" or its substitute unnecessary. Why then does the Mishna need to validate kinuyei shevuos (substitutes for the word shevuah)? Rabbi Zweig develops the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Raavad through several key dimensions. The Rambam holds that every shevuah requires a shem (God's name), while the Ran and Rabbeinu Tam distinguish between different types of oaths. Rabbeinu Tam differentiates between shevuah mi'pi acheirim (an oath imposed by others) which requires a shem, and shevuah mi'pi atzmo (a self-imposed oath) which does not. The Raavad holds that malkus (lashes) requires a shem, but the basic issur (prohibition) exists even without one.
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.
