A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can there be ba'al tachar on nazirus if the nazirus is already chal? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod that nazirus has two aspects: neder issur (prohibiting wine, grapes, etc.) and neder hekdesh (the affirmative obligation to observe the laws of nazirus). By saying "lo efdom min ha'olam achei nazir," one creates the issur immediately but delays the affirmative commitment, generating ba'al tachar without bal yochel — an application of Reish Lakish's principle that issur nazirus without full nezirus carries no malkus.
This shiur analyzes Nedarim 4a and explores a foundational tension in the sugya: how can there be a din of ba'al tachar when the Gemara (גמרא) says "havlei nazir" — he is already a nazir? If someone says "lo efdom min ha'olam achei nazir" (I will not leave this world without being a nazir), the Gemara says he is a nazir immediately, yet he is also over ba'al tachar. But how can both be true? If nazirus is chal immediately, there should be bal yochel (immediate violation), not ba'al tachar (delay violation). Rabbi Zweig proposes that nazirus contains two distinct components: (1) neder issur — the prohibitions of nazirus (wine, grapes, tumah, cutting hair), and (2) neder hekdesh — the affirmative obligation to observe the status of nazir (kum va'aseh). When a person says "lo efdom min ha'olam achei nazir," he creates the neder issur immediately — he is asur in the items of nazirus — but does not yet undertake the affirmative kum va'aseh. This split creates a situation where he is a nazir in terms of issur, but not yet a full nazir in terms of din. Therefore, he is chayav to begin being nogei'ach in nazirus (affirmatively undertaking it), and if he delays, he violates ba'al tachar.
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 4a
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.
