No community start suggestion yet.
Does the concept of "yad" (partial language) only apply to nedarim, or does it extend to other obligations like pe'ah and tzedakah? The shiur analyzes whether pe'ah and tzedakah are actual nedarim or merely financial obligations, exploring fundamental disagreements between the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) about the Gemara (גמרא)'s structure and the nature of verbal formulas in Torah (תורה) law.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question in Nedarim 7a: does the concept of "yesh yad" (accepting partial language as valid) apply only to nedarim, or can it extend to other types of obligations like pe'ah and tzedakah? The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether one can use indirect language ("yad") for these obligations just as one can for korbanot. The shiur begins by examining Riv Kivegar's question: if the Gemara asks whether there is yad for pe'ah and tzedakah, how is this reconcilable with the Ran's understanding that the underlying issue is whether pe'ah is comparable to nedarim? The Ran learns that yad only works when there is a chalos issur (creation of a prohibition), which exists by nedarim. Therefore, the question of yad for pe'ah depends on whether pe'ah has the status of a neder.
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.
