No community start suggestion yet.
When is a safek in nedarim lakula versus lachuma? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: does a neder create a chalos (status-change) in the object, making it a safek mamon, or does it create a chiyuv (obligation) on the person to deliver, making it a safek issur? This distinction explains the Ran-Ramban (רמב"ן) dispute and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of hefker as non-neder yet still subject to bal yachel.
The shiur opens by examining the machlokes Rishonim regarding whether safeikos in nedarim are lakula or lachuma. The Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rashba hold safek lakula, while the Ran holds safek lachuma. The central question is: why should a safek in nedarim be treated as lakula when the general principle of safek issur is lachuma? Rabbi Zweig addresses this by proposing that the machlokes hinges on a fundamental understanding of how nedarim work. There are two possible models: (1) The neder creates a chalos—a status change in the object itself, making it belong to tzedakah or hekdesh. In this model, the safek is a safek mamon: whose money is it, mine or the ani's? Such a safek follows the rule of safek mamon lakula. (2) The neder creates a chiyuv—an obligation on the person to deliver the object. The obligation itself (mitzvas piv tishmar) effects the transfer. In this model, the safek is a safek issur: am I obligated to deliver or not? Such a safek is lachuma.
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 7a
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.
