A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone prohibits benefit related to food preparation, does the prohibition attach to the vessels themselves or to the benefit derived? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that the issur is on lending specific vessels (keilim), not on the benefit (hana'ah) of food preparation. This resolves the Tur Even's difficulty and explains why vessels rented for other purposes remain prohibited even when borrowed for non-rental uses.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Masechta Nedarim regarding the nature of prohibiting benefit (issur hana'ah) in the context of food preparation. The Mishna discusses which vessels may or may not be lent when one has made a vow prohibiting hana'as ma'achal (benefit from food). The Tur Even poses two difficulties: First, why does the sale of an Asherah remain prohibited even though people are not makpid (particular) about the shade, yet by vessels used for food preparation (like a sieve or sifter), being not makpid makes them permissible? Second, Tosfos says that vessels directly used for food preparation are prohibited even if the benefit is worth less than a shaveh perutah, whereas vessels not used for food preparation (like a tabas or nezem) are only prohibited in a place where they are rented out (makom shemaschirin), where there must be a shaveh perutah value. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Nedarim (6:1-3) rules that if one prohibits hana'as ma'achal, then lending vessels directly used in food preparation (napa, kevara, tanur) is prohibited, while lending vessels not used in food preparation (tabas, nezem) is permitted. The Rambam also brings Rav Papa's case: lending a sack to carry fruit in it is prohibited. In the next halacha (הלכה), the Rambam rules that in a place where vessels are normally rented out for payment, it is prohibited to lend even vessels not used for food preparation. The Kesef Mishneh asks why the Rambam omits the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of a horse to ride on (sus lirkove alav).
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 20b-21a
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.
