A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone designates one field row as peah and then adds "and this one," does the second designation work despite incomplete language? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether yad (implied meaning) applies to peah. The Ran's innovative approach distinguishes between completing an incomplete first statement versus creating a second independent obligation—a fundamental distinction in how yad operates across different areas of halacha (הלכה).
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Nedarim 6b, examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether yad (implied meaning from incomplete language) applies to peah (the corner of the field left for the poor). The central question is: if someone says "this field is peah" (hadein ugi havi peah) and then adds "and this one" (vehadein), does the second designation work even though he didn't explicitly repeat the word "peah"? The shiur begins by contrasting two approaches in the Rishonim. Rashi (רש"י) understands the case as involving two separate fields, where someone gave ten times the required amount of peah on the first field and then said "vehadein" regarding a second field. The question is whether yad works to make the second field peah as well. The Ran, however, understands the case differently—as referring to rows within a single field rather than separate fields.
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.
