No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule that a beis hakisei designated with uncertain status (yad) should not be used l'chatchila for Krias Shema, despite the principle of safek d'rabbanan l'kula? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: when the safek concerns whether a takanas chachamim exists at all—rather than how to apply a known takana—the din is not safek l'kula but l'chatchila d'gezah. The takana cannot be dismissed through ignorance, yet we don't impose full stringency either.
This shiur on Nedarim 7a examines a fundamental difficulty in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s psak regarding safek yad l'beis hakisei (uncertain designation of a bathroom). The Ran explains that the Rambam holds there is a safek regarding whether yad applies to beis hakisei, yet the Rambam rules "ein korin bo l'chatchila" (one should not read Krias Shema there initially), though b'dieved if one did read, it is valid. This presents multiple difficulties: If safek d'rabbanan l'kula applies, why can't one read there l'chatchila? And if we rule l'chumra that yad does apply, why isn't one required to read again if he already read there? Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental yesod to resolve this difficulty by distinguishing between two types of safek d'rabbanan. The first type involves a safek in the application of a known takanas chachamim—for example, whether a particular item is meat or soy, when we know that meat and cheese together is rabbinically prohibited. In such cases, safek d'rabbanan l'kula properly applies. However, the second type involves a safek in the very establishment of the takana itself—whether the chachamim instituted a particular gezeira or chumra at all.
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 7a
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.
