No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "mudraim choshen" (I am separated from you), does he create an issur hana'ah, an issur dibur, or nothing at all? The shiur explores whether a yad (incomplete expression) creates an actual issur in the object, or merely describes a desired legal consequence. The Rosh's difficulty—that it should be muttar to speak if only hana'ah is forbidden—drives a fundamental re-examination of what yad accomplishes.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Nedarim 5a exploring the nature of yados (incomplete expressions) in nedarim. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone says "mudraim choshen" (I am separated from you). Initially, the Gemara suggests this means both parties are asur (forbidden) to each other. Then it proposes only one is asur mi'din hanachas (from the law of inference). Finally, it suggests the expression accomplishes nothing at all. Rabbi Zweig questions how the Gemara can shift so dramatically—from meaning both are asur, to only one, to nothing. What changed? The sugya becomes even more perplexing when the Gemara says that if it means nothing, then it should at least create an issur dibur (prohibition on speaking). But the speaker wanted to create an issur hana'ah (prohibition on benefit)—how can the Gemara impose a different issur than what he intended?
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 5a
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.
