No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of isur hana'ah in nedarim—is it about receiving pleasure, or about a transfer of value? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira between Tosafos (תוספות) (who holds the issur is subjective pleasure/use) and the Rosh/Rambam (רמב"ם) (who hold it's an objective transfer of monetary value). This yesod explains why tipa hana'ah lehekdesh works in hashavas aveidah but not in other cases.
The shiur opens by reviewing the previous day's analysis—whether the prohibition in nedarim concerns hana'ah (benefit) the recipient takes versus hana'ah intended for him. Rabbi Zweig now introduces a fundamentally different approach to understanding isur hana'ah in nedarim, one that shifts the focus from subjective pleasure to objective monetary transfer. The Beis Meir raises the question of whether mavri achari (indirect benefit) is permitted in isur hana'ah cases other than nedarim, such as avodah zarah. The shiur suggests that isur hana'ah in nedarim may operate differently than in other areas of halacha (הלכה)—nedarim may require actual taking of an object, while other issurim may forbid even indirect pleasure that doesn't involve taking.
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
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.
