No community start suggestion yet.
Can someone accept nezirus while tamei, when nezirus cannot take effect until after purification? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether kabbalas nezirus b'tumah creates an immediate obligation or merely a commitment to begin counting after becoming tahor. The discussion turns on whether one can be mechabel only nezirus taharah (the laws applicable during purity) or whether every acceptance of nezirus includes both tumah and taharah components.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 3a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of accepting nezirus while in a state of tumah. The fundamental question is whether someone who is tamei can meaningfully accept nezirus when the nezirus cannot take effect until after purification through the seven-day taharah process. The Gemara presents the position of Rabbeinu Bachya and explores whether kabbalas nezirus in a state of tumah creates an immediate obligation or constitutes a commitment to begin nezirus later. A key issue is whether one can be mechabel (accept upon oneself) specifically nezirus taharah—the laws of nezirus that apply during the state of purity—without accepting the tumah component, or whether every kabbalas nezirus necessarily includes both dimensions.
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 3a
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.
