A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "kinidrei reshaim harei ni," does the language itself create a binding vow, or must we know his intent? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: ordinary yad requires knowing what the person meant (gomar belibo), but kinidrei reshaim is a lashon issur that creates obligation through the words themselves—even if the speaker claims he didn't intend nazirus. The analysis resolves the Ran's question and explains why the Gemara (גמרא) requires both "harei ni" and "kinidrei reshaim."
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Masechta Nedarim concerning the nature of language in creating halachic obligations. The discussion centers on the Mishna's formulation "kinidrei reshaim harei ni" and the Gemara (גמרא)'s analysis of whether "alai" means korban (a positive commitment to bring an offering) or konam (a prohibition from eating). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position establishes a critical yesod: In Hilchos Nazir, the Rambam rules that when someone says "aha" and there is a nazir standing before him, this works as a yad (indirect language) only if we know he was gomar belibo—he finalized the thought in his heart to become a nazir. The Rambam states explicitly that yad requires hotza'at sefasav combined with knowing what was in his heart. However, in Hilchos Nedarim, when discussing kinidrei reshaim harei ni, the Rambam does not require knowing that he was gomar belibo. This presents a fundamental question: why the difference?
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 12a-12b
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.
