No community start suggestion yet.
Does a nazir who becomes tamei receive malkos for the prohibition of bal tachol (delaying fulfillment of a vow), even though no active deed prevents him from completing nezirus? The shiur examines the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on malkos for a lav she'ein bo maaseh (prohibition without a positive act), comparing it to the cases of koneh chametz on Pesach (פסח) and entering the Beis Hamikdash empty-handed. The analysis distinguishes between acts that create the prohibited state versus acts that merely create circumstances preventing fulfillment.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Nedarim 4b, focusing on the fundamental question of when malkos (lashes) is administered for violations that lack an active deed (lav she'ein bo maaseh). The central case is that of a nazir tahor (ritually pure nazir) who becomes tamei (ritually impure), thereby delaying the completion of his nezirus period and potentially violating bal tachol—the prohibition against delaying the fulfillment of vows. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement "hayo b'chein"—if so—which introduces a novelty regarding malkos. The question is: what exactly is the chiddush? The Ran and Rosh appear to hold that there is malkos in the case of a nazir who enters a beis hakevoros (cemetery), while the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position is examined regarding when one leaves the Beis Hamikdash.
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 4b
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.
