A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes forbidden benefit (hana'ah) in nedarim? The shiur analyzes whether the issur is measured by the maddir's deprivation or the mudar's benefit, exploring Rashi (רש"י)'s multiple categories (chatzer, bayis, lekatzar darko) and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on derisa serag. The analysis addresses the Tur Evan's question about shade and reconciles Rav Papa's extension beyond the Mishna's parameters.
This shiur on Nedarim 32b explores the fundamental question of what constitutes forbidden benefit (hana'ah) in the laws of vows. The Mishna distinguishes between one who is mudar maachal (forbidden only from food) and one who is mudar hana'ah (forbidden from all benefit), listing which vessels and uses are permitted in each case. The analysis focuses on understanding the parameters of derisa seragel (walking on someone's property). The shiur presents a fundamental machloket Rishonim regarding how to measure the issur of hana'ah. Rashi (רש"י) is understood to present multiple categories: (1) chatzer and bayis - where the mudar's entry deprives the maddir of use or privacy, creating an issur even without benefit to the mudar; (2) lekatzar darko - where the maddir loses nothing but the mudar gains real benefit by taking a shortcut; and (3) according to some Rishonim, even bimosachan (a valley) where there is no real benefit but the mudar is using the property. The Rambam (רמב"ם) appears to have a distinct position, defining derisa seragel as simply standing on land, creating a fourth category.
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 32b
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.
