A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a kohen performs the Temple service, is he acting as the owner's agent (shlucho didan) or as God's agent (shlucho d'rachmana)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion on Nedarim 35 raises a fundamental question: if kohanim work on the owner's behalf, how can one forbidden from benefit use their service? The shiur explores multiple Rishonim approaches—the Ran, Tosafot, and Rashba—distinguishing between types of service, levels of agency, and what constitutes "working for someone" versus mere benefit.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Nedarim 35 concerning whether kohanim performing Temple service act as agents of the owner (shlucho didan) or agents of God (shlucho d'rachmana). The question becomes critical when a kohen is forbidden by vow (mudar) from deriving benefit from a specific individual (the madir) yet must perform service for that person's korban. The Rashba cites Tosafot's question: the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin already established that kohanim work as shlucho d'rachmana based on the principle of "mi she'ein yachol la'asot—what one cannot do himself, he cannot appoint an agent to do." Since a non-kohen (zar) cannot perform the Temple service, the kohen cannot be his agent. Yet the Gemara in Nedarim raises the question anew. The Rashba distinguishes: Kiddushin discusses the service from kabbalas hadam (receiving the blood) onward, which is inherently priestly service (mitzvas kehuna). Nedarim, however, discusses shechitah, which can be performed by a non-kohen. Therefore, by shechitah, there remains a possibility of shlucho didan—the kohen might be acting as the owner's agent because the owner himself could accomplish what shechitah accomplishes.
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.
