No community start suggestion yet.
Why can a husband annul his wife's vow of nezirus when nezirus involves Torah (תורה)-imposed obligations beyond her verbal commitment? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question reveals two fundamentally different understandings of hafar: the Ran views it as the husband's sovereign right to negate anything affecting him, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) sees it as one verbal commitment (hafar) canceling another (neder), which only works when the entire obligation stems from her words alone.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 4b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s question about why we need a hekesh (textual analogy) to learn the laws of hafar (annulment of vows) for nezirus from nedarim. The Gemara asks: if hafar applies to nedarim, why not simply derive it through a kal vachomer (logical inference) for nezirus? The Gemara answers that one might have thought hafar only applies to nedarim because standard nedarim last forever (le'olam), creating significant burdens on the husband, whereas standard nezirus lasts only thirty days. The Rishonim struggle with this answer. Tosafos (תוספות) and the Ran note that nedarim can also be made for limited durations (like a week), yet hafar still applies. How do we know hafar works for short-term nedarim without the hekesh? They are forced into a difficult position: perhaps we only know about hafar for limited-duration nedarim after we learn it from nezirus through the hekesh, creating a circular dependency.
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.
