No community start suggestion yet.
Why is it permitted for the mudar to pay the mudur's debt, and how does this not constitute giving benefit? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Chanan and the Chachamim over whether paying a debt is mavri achari (giving to the creditor) or giving directly to the debtor, and explores Rashi (רש"י)'s position that the mudur owes the mudar the money back—raising the question of why this doesn't itself constitute forbidden hana'ah.
This shiur on Masechta Nedarim examines the fundamental principles behind the hetter (permission) for a mudar (one who made the vow) to pay the chov (debt) of a mudur (the one restricted from benefiting). The Mishna establishes that the mudar may pay the mudur's debts, pay off his shekalim obligation, and return his lost object in certain circumstances. The shiur focuses on understanding the dual requirements for this hetter: the payment must be mavri achari (considered as giving to another party, not directly to the mudur) and it must be muttar (permitted). The Gemara (גמרא) brings the machlokes between Chanan and the Bnei Kohanim Gedolim regarding a husband who went overseas and another person supported his wife. According to Chanan, when the husband returns, the supporter cannot collect from him—the payment was mavri achari, given to the wife, not to the husband. The Bnei Kohanim Gedolim disagree, holding that the supporter can collect because paying off someone's debt is like giving them money directly, creating an obligation of repayment.
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.
