A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't we learn new punishments through logical derivation (ein onshin min hadin)? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: when Torah (תורה) explicitly charges us to use logic (gezeirah shavah), even fallible reasoning is valid. But when using binyan av to create an entirely new halachic entity that carries punishment, logic alone is insufficient—that limitation is what ein onshin min hadin restricts.
The shiur explores a fundamental question in the sugya of Nedarim 4b regarding the principle of ein onshin min hadin—that we don't impose punishments derived purely through logical inference. The Ran and Tosafos (תוספות) raise multiple challenges: Why didn't the Gemara (גמרא) ask earlier whether we can learn hafarat nedarim (nullification of vows) from a kal vachomer or binyan av from other sources? Why does the Gemara wait until discussing nazirus to invoke ein onshin min hadin? Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing a Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Nedarim (Perek 12, Halacha (הלכה) 14) regarding who can perform hafarah. The Rambam states that a shoteh (mentally incompetent person) cannot be meifer because he lacks da'as (understanding), but a katan (minor) cannot be meifer only because ein lo ishus (he has no wife). This implies that if a katan could have a wife, he would be capable of hafarah, even though normally a katan lacks the legal capacity of a bar da'as. The shiur explains this through the concept of mufla samuch l'ish—a minor approaching adulthood who can make certain commitments. The Rambam must hold that hafarah is not merely a judgment about whether a vow should stand, but rather a ma'aseh haflah—an act of creation similar to making a neder itself. The husband creates something that negates her vow.
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 4b
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.
