A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא)'s opening question assume the Mishna should start with kinuyim? The shiur develops the fundamental tension: when Torah (תורה) SheBaal Peh is written down, should it be organized for memory (man desolik minei) or clarity (man depasach minei)? The Iboi Simar resolves the apparent contradiction by distinguishing between lists (where both are valid) and concepts (where clarity demands explanation of the harder topic first).
The Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 2b opens with the question "lifrush kinuyim bereishis" – why doesn't the Mishna start with kinuyim? Rabbi Zweig analyzes the structure of the Gemara's argument, noting that the Gemara begins with a premise rather than simply listing contradictory Mishnayos. A question must be based on a logical problem, not just a "why" – the Gemara assumes there's a principle that demands one ordering over another. The fundamental issue is how Torah (תורה) SheBaal Peh should be organized once it's been written down. Originally, Torah SheBaal Peh was transmitted orally and had to be known by heart, while Torah SheBeKsav was learned from a text. When Rebbe HaNasi wrote down the Mishna due to the exigencies of the generation (eis lasus laShem), a critical question arose: should the written Mishna be studied like Torah SheBeKsav (with text-based clarity) or should it maintain the character of Torah SheBaal Peh (optimized for memorization)?
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.
