No community start suggestion yet.
When a man says "harei at mekudeshes li" to one woman and then "v'at" (and you) to another, is the second woman married? The word "at" could mean "at nami" (you too) or "at chazoi" (you will see [this one married]). The shiur analyzes whether yad (intimation) applies to kiddushin, examining Rishonim who debate whether this is a question of language or law.
This shiur provides a rigorous analysis of Nedarim 6b, focusing on the fundamental question of whether there exists a parasha (legal category) of yad l'kedushin—whether intimation or indirect language can create a valid marriage. The case under discussion involves a man who says "harei at mekudeshes li" (you are betrothed to me) to one woman and then says "v'at" (and you) to a second woman. The central question is whether the second woman is married. The Gemara (גמרא)'s framing of the question is whether yad works for kiddushin. The word "at" has two possible meanings: "at nami" (you too, i.e., you also are betrothed) or "at chazoi" (you will see [this one married]). While "at nami" is more likely the intended meaning, the possibility that it means "at chazoi" creates ambiguity. This ambiguity defines the term yad—language that could mean two things, where one meaning creates a legal effect and the other does not.
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.
