No community start suggestion yet.
What creates the prohibition of baal te'acher (delaying fulfillment)? The shiur contrasts two approaches: is it purely monetary (delaying payment to hekdesh), or does a separate prohibition apply to delaying one's word? The Ran's position that "lefater min ha'olam" creates immediate liability is analyzed through this chakira.
This shiur on Nedarim 3b develops a fundamental distinction in understanding the prohibition of baal te'acher (delaying fulfillment of vows). Rabbi Zweig explores whether nazirus operates through a neder (vow) creating a shibud haguf (obligation on the body) similar to neder hekdesh, where one commits to deliver oneself to the laws of nazirus, with kedusha following as a consequence of that commitment. The core discussion centers on a machlokes between the Ran and the Rosh regarding the nature of baal te'acher. The classical understanding, presented as the Rosh's position, is that when someone says "harei alai korban," they immediately owe hekdesh, but the Torah (תורה) grants a grace period of shalosh regalim (three festivals). This creates a chakira: does baal te'acher mean you owe immediately but have time to pay, or does the obligation itself not come due until three regalim pass?
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 3b
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.
