No community start suggestion yet.
Why does yad (an incomplete verbal formulation) work for nedarim but not for kiddushin, even though both involve verbal declarations? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: nedarim require only a personal statement — clarity to the speaker himself — while kiddushin require bilateral communication and agreement. The analysis explores whether a ma'aseh (action) changes this calculus and what gittin teach about unilateral vs. mutual obligations.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Nedarim 6a raises a fundamental question: why does yad — an incomplete verbal formulation — work for nedarim (vows) but not for kiddushin (marriage), even though both involve verbal declarations? The shiur begins by noting that the Ran suggests a distinction based on whether a ma'aseh (physical action) accompanies the words: nedarim work through speech alone, while kiddushin require a ma'aseh. This raises the question of gittin (divorce), which also require a ma'aseh — why would yad work there? Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental yesod to resolve this difficulty. Nedarim are fundamentally different from kiddushin in their very nature. A neder is a personal, unilateral statement. When someone makes a neder, it affects only himself and his property. Even when a neder prohibits one's property to another person, it remains the speaker's action on his own property — not a bilateral transaction. Therefore, for nedarim, what matters is only that the speaker himself knows clearly what he means. The requirement is internal clarity and personal conviction, not external communication. Yad works for nedarim because as long as the person making the vow knows what he intended, that suffices — even if an outside observer wouldn't necessarily understand from the words alone.
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 6a
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
