No community start suggestion yet.
Why should there be me'ilah—misappropriation of consecrated property—when someone makes a neder using the language of korban? The shiur develops two fundamental approaches: either the neder creates actual kedusha on the object through tafasta (linkage to korban), or it represents a reversion of ownership back to Hashem (ה׳) rather than a transfer to hekdesh. Each approach yields different practical implications for pidyon, keren v'chomesh, and whether the object becomes chullin after me'ilah.
This shiur explores one of the fundamental conceptual questions in the Gemara (גמרא)'s treatment of nedarim: how can there be a din of me'ilah (the prohibition against misappropriating consecrated property) when someone makes a neder using the language of hekdesh or korban? The Gemara in Nedarim 34b raises the question of whether yesh me'ilah b'konamot—whether the laws of me'ilah apply to objects forbidden through nedarim. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing that according to some Rishonim, every neder requires tafasta (attachment/linkage), meaning one must say "davar zeh asur alai k'korban" (this thing is forbidden to me like a korban). If one simply says "davar zeh asur alai" without mentioning korban, it only has the status of a yad (partial language), which we complete for him. This position, found in the Ran in Shevuot and other Rishonim, holds that the only way a neder can be created is by connecting it to the concept of korban. This provides a potential basis for understanding why there might be me'ilah in nedarim—because of the essential connection to the parsha of hekdesh.
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 34b
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.
