A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a talmid chacham release himself from self-imposed nidui? The Rashba distinguishes between nidui as Torah (תורה)-imposed punishment (irrevocable) and self-imposed teshuvah discipline (revocable). The shiur then analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s allowance to swear to observe mitzvos despite mushba v'omed meHar Sinai, exploring the Ran's position that such oaths create zrizus and the profound hashivus of performing mitzvos with alacrity rather than resistance.
The shiur opens with a Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 7a presenting a straightforward ruling: a talmid chacham can place himself in nidui and release himself from that nidui. The Gemara challenges this with the principle ein choveis matar atzmo beis ha'sohar—a prisoner cannot release himself from jail. The shiur asks: what is the fundamental chiluk between nidui and a neder that allows self-release from nidui but not from nedarim? Rabbi Zweig explains that the Rashba draws a critical distinction based on the nature of the nidui. When the Torah (תורה) or beis din imposes nidui as an onesh (punishment) for an aveirah, it functions like a prison—ein choveis matar atzmo beis ha'sohar applies, and one cannot release oneself. However, when nidui is not Torah-mandated but rather self-imposed as a form of teshuvah or kapara, it is not an onesh at all but rather a derech in avodas Hashem (ה׳), a means of character refinement. In such cases, once the person has done teshuvah or feels he has achieved the intended tikkun, he may release himself. The Rashba's position is that where din requires nidui, you cannot self-release; where din does not require it, you may.
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.
