No community start suggestion yet.
If someone pays your debt without being asked, are you obligated to reimburse him? The shiur develops two fundamentally different approaches in Tosafos (תוספות): the first views payment as creating a yored relationship where property value increased; the second argues that obligation depends on whether you would have hired him for the job. The analysis shows how this distinction impacts the issur of neheneh from a neder.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental machlokes in Masechta Nedarim regarding the case where one person pays off another's debt without being asked. The central question is: under what circumstances is the debtor obligated to reimburse the person who paid on his behalf? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Chanan and the Bnei Kohanim Gedolim regarding the concept of bari hazeka (a certain obligation) versus something that is not bari hazeka. Rabbi Zweig begins by highlighting an apparent difficulty: Chanan holds that where payment is not bari hazeka, you are patur (exempt from reimbursing), while the Chachamim hold there is pegam (an obligation). According to Tosafos (תוספות) and the Ran, Chanan's reasoning is that perhaps the creditor will be moichel (forgive) the debt. But this seems like an absurdly remote possibility—the shiur asks pointedly: what are the actual chances that someone holding a mashkon (collateral) will simply forgive the debt? If the likelihood is one in a thousand, how can this be called "not bari hazeka"? The Chachamim say you are chayav because it IS bari hazeka—but if even Chanan agrees it's extremely unlikely, what exactly are they arguing about?
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 33b-34a
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.
