A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "harei hu alai" (it is upon me), why is "alai" necessary for the neder to take effect? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether "alai" itself creates the connection to korban-language or merely clarifies the already korban-related phrase "harei hu." Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), the Ran, and the Rosh offer four distinct explanations of the Gemara's reasoning.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Nedarim 6b focusing on the mechanics of yad (indirect language) in nedarim and the specific role of the word "alai" (upon me). The central question is: when someone holding a loaf says "harei hu alai" or "harei ze alai," why is the word "alai" required for the neder to be valid? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a braisa stating that "harei hu alai" is assur—the expression works as a neder—because the person said "alai." Without "alai," the expression could mean tzedakah or hefker, and therefore would not be binding. Abaye's position is challenged: the Gemara asks that even without "alai," the phrase "harei hu" should still function as a yad (indirect formulation) for korban, since it is language people use when dedicating korbanos.
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 6b
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.
