A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a person is magdish something, does he transfer ownership to hekdesh or impose a prohibitive status? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket between the Ran and the Rosh on the nature of nedarim and hekdesh: the Ran views it as a transfer of monetary ownership (magbiah le'chaveiro), while the Rosh holds it creates an issur on the object through speech. The analysis examines how each position resolves when hekdesh is chal and who violates the neder.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental disagreement between the Ran and the Rosh regarding the nature of hekdesh and nedarim, specifically addressing Nedarim daf 34. The central question is whether making something hekdesh constitutes a transfer of ownership (mamonistic transaction) or the imposition of a prohibitive status (issur) on an object. According to the Ran, hekdesh operates as a transfer of ownership similar to any other kinyan. When one is magdish an object, he is effectively transferring it to the reshus of hekdesh through an act of acquisition (magbiah tzel chaveiro, kones chaveiro). This means hekdesh receives the object in a monetary way, not merely through kedusha. The Ran applies this understanding to nedarim as well—when one makes a neder, he is transferring some ownership interest to hekdesh. The shiur explores the Ran's position that this transfer can occur even without physical possession (biyado), as long as the object is within one's control or jurisdiction (reshuso).
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.
