A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does accepting nezirus in a cemetery trigger bal ta'achar and malkus? The shiur analyzes Nedarim 4a, proposing that bal ta'achar means "don't be a procrastinator" rather than mere failure to pay—an active prohibition punishable even through dibur alone. This reframes the machlokes between the Ran and Rosh regarding nezirus and Kona Chametz on Pesach (פסח).
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 4a addressing the question of why one who accepts nezirus while standing in a cemetery (Beis HaKfaros) is liable for bal ta'achar (the prohibition against delaying fulfillment of vows) and receives malkus (lashes). The central difficulty is understanding how this could be considered a lav she'yesh bo ma'aseh (a prohibition involving an action) when the person hasn't actively done anything wrong—they simply cannot begin their nezirus immediately due to their state of tumah. The shiur begins by reviewing the positions of the Rambam (רמב"ם), the Ran, and the Rosh on this sugya. The Rambam holds that one receives malkus in this case, which is difficult to understand because bal ta'achar appears to be a lav she'ein bo ma'aseh (a prohibition without an action). The classic understanding would make this similar to failing to bring a korban on the regel—a mere omission that doesn't warrant malkus.
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 4a
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.
