A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When returning a lost object, are you the employee of the owner or of Hashem (ה׳)? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira in hashavas aveida: whether the Torah (תורה) obligates you to work for the baal aveida (making fringe benefits from him problematic) or for the Ribono Shel Olam (making mitzvah (מצוה) koveid the resolution). This yesod reconciles the Rambam (רמב"ם) and resolves a machloket in sugyos between Nedarim and Kesubos.
Rabbi Zweig delivers a comprehensive analysis of the sugya of hashavas aveida (returning lost objects), focusing on the fundamental question of whether one who returns a lost object is considered a shomer sachar (paid guardian) or shomer chinam (unpaid guardian). The shiur begins by presenting the basic sugya in Bava Kamma where Rav Yosef holds that a shomer aveida is a shomer sachar, while Rab holds he is a shomer chinam. The Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim (35b) discusses whether one may return a lost object when either the finder or the owner is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other (mudar hana'ah). The Ran presents a fundamental problem: if we rule like Rav Yosef that a shomer aveida is a shomer sachar due to the principle of oseik b'mitzvah (מצוה) patur min ha'mitzvah (one engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from other mitzvos), how can the Gemara permit returning the aveida in a case of mudar hana'ah based on "p'ruta d'Rav Yosef lo shachi'ach" (a small benefit that is unlikely to materialize)? If this benefit is significant enough to create the status of shomer sachar, it should be significant enough to constitute forbidden benefit in the mudar hana'ah 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 35b
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.
