No community start suggestion yet.
What is the fundamental difference between a neder (vow) and a shevuah (oath)? The shiur analyzes the Ran's position that a neder creates an issur chefetz (prohibition on an object) while a shevuah creates an issur gavra (prohibition on the person), contrasted with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s view that both stem from the principle of keeping one's word. The Ramban (רמב"ן)'s concept of yad (partial formulation) is examined in depth.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Nedarim 2b, exploring the fundamental nature of nedarim (vows) and shevuos (oaths) according to different Rishonim. The central question is whether these are fundamentally different mechanisms or variations of the same obligation to keep one's word. The Ran's position is that a neder operates through creating an issur chefetz—a prohibition that attaches to the object itself. When someone makes a neder prohibiting bread, the bread becomes forbidden to him. A shevuah, by contrast, creates an issur gavra—a prohibition that rests on the person. This fundamental distinction means that switching the language between nedarim and shevuos cannot work, because they operate in completely different realms.
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 2b
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.
