No community start suggestion yet.
Why can a husband annul his wife's vow of nazirus when nazirus has a Torah (תורה)-imposed minimum of 30 days? The Gemara (גמרא)'s principle that "neder ein lo kitzvah" (a vow has no fixed limit) enables hafara, but nazirus *does* have a limit. The shiur explores whether hafara is a veto power or itself an act of koach hadibur that negates the woman's words, and how the Rambam (רמב"ם) reads the hekesh uniquely.
The shiur analyzes Nedarim 4b, focusing on a Gemara (גמרא) that extends the husband's or father's power of hafara (annulment) from nedarim to nazirus through a hekesh (juxtaposition). The opening question is immediate and sharp: if the halacha (הלכה) of hafara is derived from nedarim, where a vow has "ein lo kitzvah" (no fixed limit set by the Torah (תורה)), how can hafara apply to nazirus, which by Torah law is "yeish lo kitzvah" (has a fixed 30-day minimum)? Even if a woman declares nazirus for one day, the Torah imposes a 30-day term. This seems to undercut the whole basis for hafara, which rests on the premise that the woman herself controls the scope of the prohibition. Rabbi Zweig presents the approaches of the Rishonim. Tosafos (תוספות) and the Ran appear to understand that the Gemara's answer—"min hadar"—means that nazirus, despite its Torah minimum, is still rooted in the woman's dibur (speech) and therefore subject to hafara. The Ran suggests that the very fact that one *can* accept nazirus for a day (even though the Torah extends it to 30) shows it retains the character of a neder. The Rosh adds that since stam neder is forever and kovei'a zman makes it limited, the Torah gave hafara power specifically where the scope is in the speaker's control. But the difficulty remains: once we admit that nazirus has a Torah-imposed extension beyond the woman's words, why should her husband's words override it?
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 4b
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.
