No community start suggestion yet.
When someone pays off another's debt, does the debtor receive hana'ah that would violate a neder? The Gemara (גמרא)'s dispute between Chanan and the Chachamim hinges on whether benefit must be direct or can be indirect. The shiur analyzes Tosafot's position that proximity determines usage versus the Ran's view that intention defines for whom one is working.
The shiur analyzes Nedarim 33b, focusing on a fundamental machlokes between Chanan and the Chachamim regarding whether paying off someone's debt creates a hana'ah obligation. According to Chanan, if X pays off Y's debt to Z, Y does not owe X money. According to the Chachamim, Y does owe X. The core question is whether this constitutes hana'ah in hilchos nedarim, and if so, what defines hana'ah. Rabbi Zweig establishes a foundational principle: nedarim is not an issur of pleasure per se, but rather an issur of taking or using an object. Unlike chametz on Pesach (פסח) or ma'achalos assuros where the prohibition is on deriving benefit from forbidden items, nedarim operates like hekdesh—the object becomes restricted, and using it constitutes a form of "taking" what doesn't belong to you. The issur hana'ah in nedarim is measured by whether one has used or taken an object, not merely whether one experienced pleasure.
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 33b
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.
