No community start suggestion yet.
Does yad (incomplete language) in nedarim create a chalos kedusha in the object, or is it merely a din to keep your word? The Ran's position that yad creates an issur of violated speech—not kedusha—explains why ain onshin min ha-din blocks extending yad from nedarim to nezirus. This yields a fundamental distinction: the onesh for nazir-by-yad would be for violating incomplete speech, making it ein onshin min ha-din to learn from a kal v'chomer.
This shiur explores a fundamental machloket Rishonim about the nature of yad (incomplete language) in nedarim and its extension to nezirus. The Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim 4b discusses whether we can learn the din of yad for nezirus from nedarim through a hekesh (textual comparison). The central question is: why can't we simply derive yad from a mamre tina (a fortiori inference) rather than requiring a hekesh? The Ran's position introduces a critical distinction. According to the Ran, the reason we cannot learn yad for nezirus from nedarim through a kal v'chomer is because of the principle of ein onshin min ha-din—we do not punish based on logical inference. This raises a fundamental question: what is the nature of the issur (prohibition) when someone violates a neder made with yad? Is it because they violated the kedusha (holiness) they placed on the object, or because they violated their spoken word?
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 4b
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.
