A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does returning a lost object create issur hanah? The shiur contrasts the Ran's view that hanah in nedarim requires present value (not just potential) while shomer sachar requires only potential, with Tosafos (תוספות) who says taking the object removes it from ma'avir chari entirely. The debate hinges on whether schar batalah is payment for the service or just for idle time.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion in Nedarim 33b regarding the machlokes between Rabbis on whether a person may return a lost object (aveidah) when there is an issur hanah (prohibition of benefit) between him and the owner. The central issue revolves around prutas Rav Yosef—whether saving someone from having to pay an ani (poor person) who finds the object creates sufficient hanah to violate the neder. The Ran's fundamental position is that in hilchos nedarim (laws of vows), there must be actual present hanah of a perutah's value, not merely potential hanah. By contrast, for the din of shomer sachar (paid guardian), potential hanah is sufficient. According to the Ran, when one picks up an aveidah, he becomes a shomer sachar because there is potential to receive a perutah, even though lo shachi (it is not common) for someone to actually pay for that service. However, for the issur hanah in nedarim, since no one would presently pay a perutah for the right to return the aveidah, there is no present hanah, and therefore it is permitted.
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.
