A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly must be said to create a valid neder, nazirus, korban, or shevuah? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s requirement of "kinidrei reshaim" and explores whether the din of yad (explicit language) requires specifying the object of the issur, or only the issur itself. A fundamental question emerges about the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on whether physical objects (nazir, behema, kikar) must be present for the vow to take effect.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Nedarim dealing with the language requirements for creating various types of vows. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the case of someone who says "kinidrei reshaim" (like the vows of wicked people) - stating that if he adds "hareini," he becomes a nazir (provided a nazir passes before him); if he says "alai," he is obligated in a korban; if he says "himenu," he makes a shevuah. The Gemara challenges each formulation, asking why we assume he means to create an actual obligation rather than merely referencing what wicked people do. Rabbi Zweig focuses intensively on a fundamental question: What constitutes sufficient "yad" (explicit language) to create a valid vow? The Gemara states that for nazirus, you need "nazir over lefanov" (a nazir passing before him). For shevuah, the Gemara says you need "shelo yochal" (that he won't eat it) rather than just "himenu" (from it). The shiur questions why these additional specifications are necessary and what this reveals about the nature of yad.
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 11a-11b
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.
