A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the status of ambiguous vow language—is "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you) a neder or nidui? The shiur develops a framework for understanding yad she'ein mochich (unclear formulation) through the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם), arguing that phrases with dual connotations of neder and nidui become nedarim only when coupled with "shelo yoichol'ach" (that I may not eat from you), which clarifies intent.
This shiur on Nedarim 4b examines the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of ambiguous vow formulations and the principle of yad she'ein mochich (unclear language). The central question is whether expressions like "mudrani mimcha" (I am separated from you), "meforshani mimcha" (I am distanced from you), or "mechorkani mimcha" (I am far from you) constitute valid vow language or fall under the category of nidui (a form of excommunication or separation) rather than nedarim (formal vows). The shiur begins by analyzing the Gemara's difficulty with Shmuel's position. The Gemara initially assumes that according to Shmuel, such language is not a yad at all—it has no vow status whatsoever. However, the Ran explains that the maskana (conclusion) is that these formulations are indeed yad she'ein mochich: they are vow-like language but lack clarity about what is being prohibited. The fundamental question becomes: what determines whether something is "not a yad at all" versus "a yad she'ein mochich"?
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.
