A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a partial vow expression (yad) valid? The Gemara (גמרא)'s position evolves dramatically—from accepting nearly any implied meaning (yad she'eino mochiyach klal) to requiring clear language of prohibition. The shiur traces how the expression "mudrani mimcha" shifts from being too vague to potentially binding, revealing whether yad operates through what the speaker meant or what he actually said.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 4a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s evolving definition of yad (partial expression) in vows. The central question is what constitutes a valid yad—does it depend on what the person meant (machshava) or what they actually said (dibbur)? The Gemara begins with the case of someone who says "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you). Initially, this appears to be a yad she'eino mochiyach klal—an expression so unclear it has no legal force. The Ran explains that it could mean multiple things, and anything with two meanings effectively means nothing. However, the discussion reveals layers of complexity: does this create an issur dibbur (prohibition on speech/interaction) or issur achilah (prohibition on benefit)? The Gemara's conclusion that it requires additional language ("shani ochel," "shani to'el") suggests it may be a yad she'eino mochiyach rather than completely invalid.
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 4a
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.
