A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If konam-language creates hekdesh kedusha, what happens to the underlying issur neder when that kedusha is removed through pidyon or me'ilah? The shiur works through the Ran's radical position that lo ya'achel d'varo is inseparable from the kedusha—when the hekdesh status goes off, the neder issur disappears too—which conflicts with the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Mishneh Melech's understanding of nedarim as a separate parshah.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether there is me'ilah (misuse of consecrated property) in konamos (vow-language). The Gemara states that in a place where one benefits another through returning a lost object, the payment goes to hekdesh, implying there is me'ilah in konamos. Rabbi Zweig begins by challenging the basic mechanics of how this would work: if someone says "I won't have hana'ah from you" using konam language, how does that create me'ilah? The person himself is not hekdesh, so how can there be a violation of me'ilah when accepting benefit from him? The shiur examines two Tannaitic positions on pidyon (redemption) in the case of konam. The first case involves konam klali (a general vow affecting everyone), where if someone says "this loaf is hekdesh" and eats it—whether he or another person—there is pidyon. The second involves konam prati (a specific vow affecting only certain individuals), where Rabbi Meir holds there is pidyon when he eats it but not when another does, while the Chachamim hold there is no me'ilah at all in either case.
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 33a-33b
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.
