A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you) followed by "shelo ochaloch" (I won't eat from you), is this a vow of nidui (excommunication) or nedarim (prohibition)? The shiur analyzes how the Rambam (רמב"ם) understands these combined expressions as transforming a shevua-like language into a full-fledged neder with malkus, while the Raavad maintains both the nidui and neder apply simultaneously.
This shiur explores a complex sugya in Nedarim 5b dealing with the halachic status of compound vow expressions. The fundamental question is how to classify statements like "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you), "meruchakani mimcha" (I distance myself from you), and "mefurshanim mimcha" (I am removed from you) when followed by prohibitions like "shelo ochaloch" (I won't eat from you). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental uncertainty: are these expressions creating an issur hanaa (prohibition of benefit) or merely prohibiting speech and interaction? The Rashba raises a critical question: if there's genuine uncertainty about the nature of the vow, why don't we apply the principle of "stam neder l'hachmir" (unspecified vows are treated stringently)? Furthermore, the Rashba questions why the word "mimcha" (from you) is necessary if we hold that a shem (divine name) makes something forbidden—the word "meruchakani" alone should suffice.
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 5b
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.
