No community start suggestion yet.
When a kohen performs the Temple service, is he acting as the Israelite's agent (shlichus didon) or Heaven's agent (shlichus d'shmaya)? Rabbi Zweig develops a two-tier framework: the avoda itself (the ritual acts) comes from Heaven's appointment, while kapara (atonement) is achieved for the Israelite. This distinction reconciles contradictory Gemaras and explains why the mudur hano (one who is forbidden to derive benefit) remains forbidden even when his korban is brought by others.
This advanced shiur on Nedarim 35 tackles the complex sugya of shlichus (agency) in the context of korbanos. The central question is whether the kohen performing the Temple service is considered a shliach didon (agent of the Israelite) or a shlichus d'shmaya/d'Rachmana (agent of Heaven). Rabbi Zweig opens by reviewing several difficulties (kashas) raised by Tosfos. The Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin discusses whether the baalim (owners of the sacrifice) have the right to transfer the service from one mishmar (priestly watch) to another. If it's shlichus didon, they should have that right; if shlichus d'shmaya, they don't. The Gemara in Nedarim, however, addresses a different question: whether a mudur hano from someone can benefit from a korban brought on his behalf. Tosfos observes that the Gemara in Kiddushin concludes shlichus d'shmaya (Heaven's agency), yet the Gemara in Nedarim seems to hold that it's shlichus didon to some extent, since the mudur hano is forbidden to benefit. This creates multiple kashas: (1) What does it mean to be shlichus didon if you still can't take the service out of the mishmar? (2) If it's shlichus didon, why can't the baalim transfer the service? (3) If the baalim didn't appoint the shliach (since ilo motzi ovid shlicho lo motzi meva — one cannot appoint an agent for something he himself cannot do), how can the Gemara say tikuni shadarticha v'lo l'avisi (I sent you for good, not for harm), which implies the Israelite did appoint him? (4) How can the Gemara in Yuma say the kohen is "shlucheinu" (our agent) if he's really Heaven's agent?
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 35a
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.
