A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What drives the prohibition of bal tacher (do not delay)—the vow itself or the monetary obligation? The shiur distinguishes between two types of bal tacher: the monetary obligation in korbanos (operative after three festivals) and the personal neder obligation in nazirus (operative immediately). This framework resolves contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם) and explains why bal ye'achel and bal tacher apply differently across contexts.
This advanced shiur on Nedarim 4a analyzes the complex relationship between bal tacher (the prohibition against delaying fulfillment of vows) and bal ye'achel (the prohibition against violating vows). The Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) present apparently contradictory positions about when these prohibitions take effect, particularly regarding korbanos, nazirus, and tzedakah. The shiur opens by presenting fundamental questions: Why does the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos indicate that bal tacher by korbanos is effective immediately (like by tzedakah), yet in other places suggests it takes effect only after three festivals (shalosh regalim)? The Chasam Sofer attempts to resolve this by arguing that when one accepts a neder upon oneself, the intention is to fulfill it immediately, thus triggering bal tacher right away. However, Rabbi Zweig identifies serious problems with this approach, particularly why tzedakah would not similarly trigger bal ye'achel immediately.
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.
