A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a kohen performs Temple service, is he acting as an agent of Heaven (shlucha d'Rachmana) or as the owner's agent (shlucha d'didan)? The Gemara (גמרא) explores this through the lens of nedarim—may a kohen who has vowed not to benefit the owner still perform his service? The Ran and Tosafot disagree on whether partial agency for the owner creates a prohibition.
This shiur presents a deep analysis of Nedarim 35a regarding the status of kohanim performing Temple service. The fundamental question is whether kohanim are considered agents of Heaven (shlucha d'Rachmana) or agents of the korban owner (shlucha d'didan), and what that means for the laws of nedarim. The Ran connects this sugya to the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin, where the principle "im lo matzi ovid, shlucho lo matzi mevid" (if the sender cannot perform the act himself, his agent cannot perform it either) proves that kohanim must be shlucha d'Rachmana—since a non-kohen cannot perform the Temple service, he cannot appoint an agent to do so. The question then becomes: if it's shlucha d'Rachmana, can a kohen who made a neder not to benefit someone (mudar) still bring that person's korban?
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 35a
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.
