A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can a father be mefar a ten-day neder but not a thirty-day nezirus? The Ran explains that the distinction is not duration but psychological reality: neder imposes deprivation (issur cheftza), while nezirus ideally elevates a person above ta'avah. The shiur develops this reading through the Mordechai's framework and explores its implications for shevuos.
The shiur analyzes the Ran's approach to the Gemara (גמרא)'s question regarding why hafaras nedarim can be derived from nedarim to nezirus. The basic question is profound: if the reason a father can be mefar is because of tzara (distress), how can a ten-day neder be more distressing than a thirty-day nezirus? The Ran explains that the distinction is "less leketzusa" – a neder is not bound by a specific time limit in its essential nature. Rabbi Zweig develops a psychological reading of this principle, drawing on the Mordechai in Shevuos (Tof Shin Peh Ches). The key insight is that neder is an issur cheftza (prohibition on the object) while nezirus is an issur gavra (prohibition on the person). This distinction is not merely technical but reflects two fundamentally different psychological states.
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 4b
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.
