No community start suggestion yet.
When someone vows not to benefit from Jews, how does this affect buying and selling? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes when market transactions are considered the seller's benefit versus the buyer's, drawing on the rule that a borrower is liable for osin. A crucial distinction emerges between easily sold items and hard-to-sell merchandise (tavra d'farcha).
This shiur on Nedarim 30a-31b covers a Mishna addressing the technical language used in vows (nedarim) and their halachic implications for commercial transactions. The Mishna begins by discussing various categories of people one might include or exclude in a neder: bald people (korchim), black-haired people (shchorim), those who rest on Shabbos (שבת), those who eat garlic on Friday night, and those who go up to Yerushalayim for the festivals. The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes whether these terms are defined by action (those who actually do something) or by obligation (those commanded to do something), leading to the question of whether non-Jews who happen to rest on Shabbos would be included. The discussion then turns to vows using genealogical language—"children of Noach" (Bnei Noach) versus "seed of Avrohom" (zera Avrohom). The Gemara establishes that Jews are no longer called Bnei Noach but rather descendants of Avrohom. It further refines this by citing the pesukim "b'Yitzchok yikarei lecha zera" (through Yitzchok your seed will be called) and "v'lo kol Yitzchok" (not all of Yitzchok), showing that only Yaakov's descendants—not Eisav's—are considered the true zera Avrohom.
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 30a-31b
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.
