No community start suggestion yet.
How does declaring an object hekdesh work when it's not yet in your possession? The Ran requires kinyan dalet amos plus kedushas peh, creating a dual mechanism where you acquire ownership to transfer it while sanctifying it. The Rosh disagrees, holding that hekdesh creates an issur directly without requiring prior kinyan, making the ownership follow the sanctification rather than the reverse.
This shiur presents an intricate analysis of Nedarim 34b, exploring the fundamental mechanics of declaring an object hekdesh (consecrated property) and the din of being a gizbar (treasurer of hekdesh). The central question addressed is: when a person declares an object hekdesh that is within his dalet amos but not yet in his physical possession, what makes him or prevents him from becoming a gizbar? The Ran's position is developed at length. According to the Ran, there is a critical distinction between declaring hekdesh an object that is already in one's house (chatzer) versus declaring hekdesh an object that is merely within one's dalet amos. When an object is in one's house and one declares it hekdesh, the person becomes a gizbar—responsible for the hekdesh property. However, when declaring hekdesh an object in one's dalet amos but not in one's physical possession, there is no din of me'ilah if one picks it up and moves it (without eating it), because the person does not become a gizbar.
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 34b
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.
