No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna distinguish between utensils for food preparation (napah v'kever) and other vessels (sak)? The shiur develops two distinct principles of hana'ah in nedarim: hana'ah from the object itself (requiring any benefit) versus hana'ah from the person (requiring food-related benefit). The Rambam (רמב"ם) and Shulchan Aruch disagree on when hana'ah is considered "from the person."
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 32b, focusing on the fundamental structure of prohibited benefit (hana'ah) in vows. Rabbi Zweig examines several difficulties in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s presentation of these laws and develops a novel framework to resolve them. The shiur begins with a structural question about the Rambam's organization. The Rambam discusses laws of lending objects in a place where rental is not customary (makom she'ein maskirin), then interrupts to discuss the opposite case (where rental is customary), before returning to discuss objects like sak lehavi peros (a sack to bring produce). This structure seems illogical—why interrupt the flow to discuss makom shemaskirin in the middle of discussing specific objects? Furthermore, how does Rav Papa's statement that "sak lehavi peros is forbidden" fit with the Mishna's framework, which seems to permit anything beyond food preparation vessels?
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.
