No community start suggestion yet.
Why are certain utensils forbidden entirely while others only when used for food? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: some nedarim create an issur on the object itself (requiring shiur perutah), while others forbid receiving benefit from the person (requiring toch shave perutah). This yesod explains Rav Papa's statement and resolves the apparent contradiction between the Mishna and the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of a sack for fruit.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental contradiction in the Gemara (גמרא) regarding which objects are forbidden under a neder of hana'as ma'achal (benefit from food). The Mishna lists items like a napa vekivra (sieve and basket) as forbidden, while Rav Papa states that a sack for bringing fruit is also forbidden. This appears to contradict the Mishna's enumeration—if the Mishna stops at gramah (direct food preparation), why would havah (indirect food use like a sack) be forbidden? The Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rashi (רש"י) offer different approaches to this question. The Rambam understands that the Mishna discusses giving objects to the mudar, while Rav Papa addresses using objects one already has. According to the Rambam, you may use a sack you already possess for fruit, but cannot borrow one specifically for that purpose. Rashi and the Shulchan Aruch, however, hold that even using an object you already have for food purposes is forbidden.
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 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.
