A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When ambiguous language is used in halachic speech-acts, how much clarity is required? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings reveal three distinct standards: by gittin 50/50 suffices mid'Oraysa, by kiddushin 51% is needed, and by nezirus even 40% works. The shiur explores why each domain demands a different threshold and whether the issue is the words themselves or the intention behind them.
This shiur presents a profound analysis of the principle of yadayim she'ein mochichos (ambiguous expressions) across four different areas of halacha (הלכה): nedarim (vows), nezirus (nazir vows), gittin (divorce), and kiddushin (marriage). Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that the Rambam (רמב"ם) rules differently in each domain regarding how much clarity is required when someone uses language that could have multiple meanings. The shiur begins by establishing the basic positions from Gemara (גמרא) Nedarim 5b, where Rava and Shmuel appear to disagree about whether yadayim she'ein mochichos—expressions that don't clearly prove intent—are considered valid expressions (havin yadayim) or not (lo havin yadayim). The expectation is that the Rambam should follow Shmuel's position that they are not valid. However, a careful reading of the Rambam's language across Hilchos Nezirus, Hilchos Ishus, and Hilchos Geirushim reveals a much more nuanced picture.
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 5b
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.
