No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "mudarni mimcha" (I am separated from you) without specifying "she'lo ochal lecha," is it a valid neder? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between yedayim shemochichos (clear indications) and yedayim she'einan mochichos (ambiguous indications), analyzing whether partial neder language requires explicit specification to take effect.
The shiur explores a complex sugya in Nedarim 4b dealing with the status of partial or incomplete neder language. The central question is whether saying "mudarni mimcha" (I am separated from you), "meforshani mimcha" (I am removed from you), or "mechurchak ani mimcha" (I am distanced from you) creates a valid prohibition without adding explicit language like "she'lo ochal lecha" (that I will not eat from you). The Gemara (גמרא) initially suggests that these partial phrases might be considered yedayim she'einan mochichos—indications that are not sufficiently clear to establish what is prohibited. Shmuel's position is analyzed: according to one interpretation in the Ran, these phrases create no prohibition at all unless combined with explicit language specifying what is forbidden. According to a second interpretation, the phrases themselves do create a prohibition, but only for the specific activity mentioned (such as speech for "mudarni" or business for "meforshani").
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.
