A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does halachic yad (implied language) work for kiddushin, and what must be explicitly stated versus understood? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) on Nedarim 6b regarding whether one can marry two women when only explicitly mentioning one. Rabbi Zweig demonstrates how each rishon constructs a different understanding of intention, shlichut, and the nature of kiddushin itself.
This shiur delivers an intensive analysis of Nedarim 6b, focusing on the fundamental question of whether yad (implied language) is effective for kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where someone says "harei at mekudeshes li" to one woman with another present, then adds "ve'at" (and you) – does this create kiddushin with the second woman? The Ran's position is examined first. The Ran argues that there is no yad for kiddushin because kiddushin requires a ma'aseh (action), similar to nedarim where even dibur (speech) alone creates an obligation. Rabbi Zweig finds this reasoning problematic: if a ma'aseh is required, shouldn't that make yad MORE effective, not less? The act is already present; only the verbal component is implied. The Ran's logic seems inverted.
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
