A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a shevuah (oath) require using God's Name, or can it work through kinui (euphemism) and yad (allusion)? The shiur develops the fundamental machlokes Rishonim between Rabbeinu Tam and the Raavad, tracing two distinct parshiyos of oaths—Parshas Vayikra (declaratory statements requiring a shem) and Parshas Matos (commitments parallel to nedarim that don't require a shem)—and works through multiple difficulties in Tosafos (תוספות) and the Gemara (גמרא)'s development.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Nedarim 2b and the fundamental dispute among Rishonim regarding whether a shevuah requires using Hashem (ה׳)'s Name. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion centers on why the Mishna teaches "kol kinuyei shevu'os k'shevu'os" when shevu'os work through kinuyim and yados, creating an apparent redundancy. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting several kashas on Tosafos (תוספות). Tosafos's first difficulty is why the Mishna mentions kinuyei shevu'os at all if shevu'ah has no yad—yet Tosafos itself later (daf tes zayin) states that "yeshiva sukkah alai shevu'ah" works as a yad l'shevu'ah. Second, Tosafos elsewhere permits an issur chefetz created through shevu'ah (e.g., "yeshiva sukkah alai shevu'ah"), which contradicts the claim that shevu'ah doesn't work without explicit language. Third, Tosafos's formulation of Rabbeinu Tam's position uses peculiar language: "motzi issur nafsho" rather than simply stating the distinction between mushmim pi acherim and mushmim pi 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 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.
