A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can hefker be revoked? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that hefker functions like a neder—the owner forfeits control through a self-imposed prohibition, but technically retains ownership. When someone acquires a hefker object, they gain control, which then transfers ownership; the original owner can reacquire through kinyan but not by simply retracting the hefker declaration.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of hefker (ownerless property) in Hilchos Nedarim, particularly the principle that "hefker, even though it is not a neder, is like a neder." The central question is: if hefker creates an issur (prohibition) against retracting, how does this work legally? If the owner truly cannot retract, there's no issur to violate (ein hochi nami). But if retraction is possible yet forbidden, the object isn't really ownerless. The shiur develops a fundamental chiddush based on the Beis Yosef's girsa: when one declares property hefker, he doesn't transfer ownership outright; rather, he places a neder on himself forbidding him from preventing others from taking the property. This self-imposed prohibition means he has forfeited legal control (reshus) over the object while technically remaining the owner. The object is "out of his control" but still categorized as his until someone else acquires it.
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
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.
