No community start suggestion yet.
Can partial speech (yad) create kiddushin, and what is the source for this din? The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute: the Ran holds we cannot derive yad for kiddushin from mamatzeir because "ein onshin min hadin," while Tosafos (תוספות) and the Rosh argue that yad works by kiddushin based on the parallel to hekdesh. The analysis explores complex cases of implied agency and partial commitments in kiddushin.
This shiur examines Nedarim 6b and the fundamental question of whether yad (partial or implied speech) creates valid kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא)'s central inquiry is whether we can learn yad bekiddushin from other areas of halacha (הלכה), particularly from mamatzeir (one who donates property to the Beis Hamikdash) or from nazirus. The Ran takes the position that ein onshin min hadin from a mamatzeir—we cannot derive halachic principles from that case—and therefore we cannot learn yad for nedarim from mamatzeir or nazirus. The Ran holds that by mamatzeir itself, the principle of ein onshin min hadin applies. This creates a fundamental problem: if the Gemara is trying to learn yad bekiddushin from mamatzeir, how can this be reconciled with the ein onshin min hadin principle?
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 6b
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.
