A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the fundamental difference between neder and shevua, and does shevua require God's name? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds that Parshas Matos introduces a unique category of commitment (neder and shevuat bitui without God's name), while shevua with God's name is a statement in the category of Kol HaTorah Kulah. The Raavad disagrees, holding there is overlap between the two categories and that shevuat bitui creates an obligation even without a Name.
This shiur analyzes the opening Mishna of Masechta Nedarim (daf 2a) and the fundamental dispute between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and the Raavad concerning the nature of nedarim and shevuot. The core question is whether shevua requires using Hashem (ה׳)'s name, and what the relationship is between the shevuot of Parshas Matos and those in Kol HaTorah Kulah. The Raavad's position is that shevuat bitui (an oath about the future) does not require God's name for there to be an issur and a korban shevua. According to the Raavad, there is an overlap between the parsha of Matos and the rest of Torah (תורה). While there is no malkus for violating bayachol dvoro (the prohibition derived from Parshas Matos), since it is a lav she'ein bo maaseh, there is still a korban shevua obligation. The malkus that does apply comes from lo sipu bishmi (not swearing falsely in My name), which requires using God's name. The Raavad holds that shevua creates an issur even without a Name, and this issur triggers the korban shevua obligation.
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.
