A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does "lo efter min ha'olam ad she'ehye nazir" create a valid nezirus obligation? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds that a neder requires actual chalus — something must be chal (take effect) for the commitment to be real. The shiur shows that this nezirus becomes chal specifically for the moment before death, creating an immediate sofek obligation to observe nezirus dinim now, and explaining the unique relationship between the neder to accept nezirus and the formal kabalas nezirus itself.
This shiur analyzes Masechta Nedarim 3b-4a, focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of the case where someone says "lo efter min ha'olam ad she'ehye nazir" (I will not leave this world without being a nazir). The central question is understanding how this creates a valid nezirus obligation and when bal tachar (the prohibition against delaying fulfillment of vows) applies. The shiur begins by examining an apparent contradiction in the Rambam. In Hilchos Nezirus (Perek Alef, Halacha (הלכה) Daled), the Rambam states "harei ze nazir miyad" — he is a nazir immediately. Yet the Rambam also says that if he delays his nezirus, he violates bal tachar. This seems contradictory: the Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when nezirus is chal (takes effect) immediately, there cannot be bal tachar, since there is nothing to delay. The only way bal tachar applies is when there is nazirus d'tirta (a future nezirus that one must actively accept). How can the Rambam hold both that the person is a nazir immediately AND that there is bal 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 3b-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.
