A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) say a katan cannot annul his wife's vows because he cannot be married, when he should simply lack the mental capacity (das) like a shoteh? The shiur develops a yesod that hafara is itself a form of neder-creation, not mere cancellation. A katan who reaches 12 has das to create nedarim (Perek 11), and therefore might have das for hafara—except he cannot marry.
This shiur on Nedarim 4b examines the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of who can annul vows (hafaras nedarim). The Rambam states that a shoteh (imbecile) cannot be meifer (annul) his wife's vows because he lacks das (mental capacity), while a katan (minor) cannot be meifer because he cannot be married (ain lo isha). Rabbi Zweig raises a fundamental question: why does the Rambam give two different reasons? Both a shoteh and a katan lack das—so why doesn't the Rambam simply say that a katan, like a shoteh, cannot annul vows due to lack of das? The shiur introduces a crucial Rambam in Perek 11, Halacha (הלכה) 1, which establishes that a katan aged twelve and one day (or a girl aged eleven and one day) has das to make a neder, provided they understand in whose name they vow. This creates a framework for understanding das in the context of nedarim: a katan at that age has the capacity to create a chalos (halachic reality) through a neder.
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.
