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.
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.
