No community start suggestion yet.
When does the prohibition of bal tachar (delaying fulfillment of vows) take effect—immediately or after three festivals? The shiur analyzes major disputes among Rishonim on bal tachar by nazirus, korbanos, and giluach. A key focus is the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s omission of bal tachar by taglachas, possibly because if giluach cannot be done late, there's no bal tachar—only bal yachel.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Nedarim 4a and the prohibition of bal tachar (delaying fulfillment of vows), examining when this issur applies across different types of nedarim. The discussion focuses on major disputes among the Rishonim regarding the timing and scope of bal tachar. The Ran holds that for the case of "lo yafter min ha-olam" (immediate fulfillment) you are over bal tachar immediately (miyad). Similarly, by "noder b'vesach paros" (vowing inside the courtyard) you're over bal tachar if you don't leave right away. However, by bal taglachas (the prohibition regarding shaving after nazirus), the Ran says nothing. By korbanos, he says the issur applies after gimor regel (three festivals). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position appears similar—he rules you're over bal tachar immediately by nazirus in certain cases, after gimor regel by korbanos. Yet the Rambam paskens in Hilchos Maaser that b'chol yom v'yom (every single day) you are over bal tachar, a ruling that does not appear in his discussion of nazirus. This raises fundamental questions about the Rambam's shita.
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 4a
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.
