No community start suggestion yet.
Does a husband's or father's hafara (nullification) work retroactively or only prospectively? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: by ordinary nedarim, hafara only cancels the unused portion going forward (mekan l'haba), but by nazirus, which is a unified 30-day entity (ish leketzusa), hafara must work retroactively (l'mafrei'a). This reading of the Rambam (רמב"ם) resolves why the Torah (תורה) needed a hekesh to teach hafara by nazirus and explains Rashi (רש"י)'s selection of nazirus for "Hashem (ה׳) yislach lah."
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on hafara (nullification of vows) and develops a novel approach to resolving an apparent contradiction between the Rambam and other Rishonim. The central question is whether hafara works retroactively (oker l'mafrei'a) or only prospectively (mekan l'haba), and whether there is a fundamental difference between a chacham's hataras nedarim and a husband's or father's hafara. The standard understanding among Rishonim (Ramban (רמב"ן), Rosh, and Tosafos (תוספות)) is that when a chacham is matir a neder, it works retroactively—the neder is uprooted from its inception. However, when a husband or father is meifar a neder, it only cancels the neder going forward. The classic case: a woman makes a neder not to eat tomatoes for 30 days, eats tomatoes on day 15, and then on day 25 either a chacham is matir or her husband is meifar. According to the standard view, if a chacham was matir, she receives no malkus even for day 15, because the neder never existed. But if her husband was meifar, she does receive malkus for day 15, because hafara only works from that point forward.
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 6b
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.
