No community start suggestion yet.
Who violates the issur when a neder is made—the one who makes the vow (madir) or the recipient (mudor)? The shiur analyzes the Ran-Rambam (רמב"ם) dispute: the Ran holds me'ilah flows directly from the neder itself, while the Rambam distinguishes between forbidding an object (creating me'ilah for the mudor) and forbidding oneself from giving (creating a bal yachel violation for the madir).
This shiur on Nedarim 35 explores a fundamental machlokes between the Ran and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding who bears the issur when a neder is made: the madir (one who makes the vow) or the mudor (the one upon whom the prohibition falls). The Gemara (גמרא)'s language creates an apparent contradiction with the Rambam's psak, and the shiur works to reconcile these sources. The foundational question revolves around the relationship between nedarim and me'ilah. The Ran holds that me'ilah and neder are essentially one concept: when a person makes a neder restricting use of an object, the neder itself creates the din of me'ilah. According to this view, following the principle of "kol ha'nene al ma'aseh v'lo bracha ke'ilu ma," the neder returns the object to its original state of hekdesh. The issur flows directly from the reversion of the item to kedusha, not from a separate mechanism of hatfasa (connecting to a korban). Therefore, whether one asers oneself or asers an object on someone else, the result is the same: the mudor bears the issur of me'ilah.
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 35a
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.
