A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone designates one field as pe'ah and then says "hadein" about a second field, does that make the entire second field pe'ah or just the required amount? The Ran and Rashi (רש"י) offer fundamentally different readings of the Gemara (גמרא)'s question—the Ran understands it as rows within a field, Rashi as separate fields—leading to a broader dispute about whether pe'ah is a neder-based obligation or purely a monetary one.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 6b, focusing on a complex Gemara (גמרא) regarding the laws of pe'ah (the corner of the field left for the poor) and the principle of "yesh yad" (implied intent completes incomplete statements). The central question is: when someone says "hadein ugya havei pe'ah" (this row/field should be pe'ah) and then says "hadein" about a second area, what is included? The shiur presents a fundamental dispute between the Rishonim in understanding the Gemara's case. According to the Ran, "ugya" means a row within a field, and the question is whether saying "hadein" on the second row makes only that row pe'ah or extends to subsequent rows. According to Rashi (רש"י), "ugya" means an entire field, and the Gemara asks whether "hadein" on the second field means the entire second field becomes pe'ah or only the required amount (shi'ur) of pe'ah.
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.
