A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone says "mechukani mimcha" (distance yourself from me), is it a neder (vow) or nidui (excommunication)? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that the phrase has dual meanings, and only when combined with "shelo yochel lach" (I won't eat from you) does it become a neder with malkus. The analysis resolves multiple kashas on the Gemara (גמרא), Ran, and Rambam.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Nedarim 4b-5a, focusing on the Mishna's treatment of ambiguous language in nedarim (vows). The central question is whether phrases like "mechukani mimcha" (distance yourself from me), "mudrani mimcha" (separate from me), and "mufreshani mimcha" (I am separated from me) constitute valid nedarim or are expressions of nidui (excommunication). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental dispute between Shmuel and Rav Hisda. According to Shmuel, "yedai shem achichas chav" – ambiguous language (yadayim) requires clear proof (mochiyach) that the person intended a neder. "Mechukani mimcha" by itself is not a yad (incomplete vow language) at all; only when combined with "shelo yochel lach" does it become prohibited. Rav Hisda disagrees, holding that "yedai shem achichas lo chav" – even ambiguous language can create a neder. The shiur explores multiple difficulties with understanding the Gemara's sugya according to both positions.
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-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.
