A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a get says "harei at muteres" without "lechim minai," does it work? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim, developing a fundamental distinction: the words needed to create the chalos of divorce versus evidence that the giver actually means to divorce this woman. This approach reconciles the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s apparent contradiction and addresses the Marit's question about meshudeches.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 5b, focusing on the complex sugya of yadayim shemochichos (indicative hands) in the context of gittin. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses Shmuel's position on whether yadayim shemochichos constitute valid yadayim, and attempts to prove from the Mishna that Shmuel holds they do not constitute valid yadayim. The Gemara's answer—that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda—raises multiple difficulties that form the core of the shiur. The first major problem concerns why the Gemara needed to answer both "ein" (that Shmuel indeed holds yadayim shemochichos lo havin yadayim) and "amara masnisa kashisa" (the Mishna is difficult). If we already know from Masechta Kiddushin that Shmuel holds yadayim shemochichos havin yadayim, why does our sugya need to establish this? The Ran explains that without the evidence from Kiddushin, our Mishna could be understood either way, but this answer still leaves difficulties.
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 5b
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.
