A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the father fulfilling his own mitzvah (מצוה) or helping his son fulfill the son's mitzvah when performing milah and pidyon haben? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s language "mitzvos haben al ha'av" and uncovers a fundamental contradiction in the Rambam (רמב"ם): by milah the berachah is "lamos" (indicating the father's personal mitzvah), while by pidyon haben it's "al pidyon haben" (indicating the son's mitzvah) — yet the Rambam requires shehecheyanu by pidyon, which should only be made on one's own mitzvah.
The shiur opens with a textual analysis of the Mishna's formulation "kol mitzvos haben al ha'av" (all mitzvos of the son upon the father). The straightforward reading suggests these are obligations the son has toward the father (kibud av), but the Gemara (גמרא) rejects this because both men and women are obligated in honoring parents, contradicting the Mishna's statement that only men are obligated. Rav Yehuda therefore reinterprets it: these are mitzvos that fall upon the father to perform for his son. The Tosafos (תוספות) Yom Tov addresses a difficulty with this explanation. If "mitzvos haben" in the reisha means the father must help the son fulfill the son's mitzvah (מצוה), then in the seifa, "mitzvos ha'av al haben" should mean the son helps the father fulfill the father's mitzvah (kibud av). But this makes no sense — there is no "mitzvah of the father" that requires the son's assistance. The shiur proposes a novel resolution: kibud av is not merely the son's obligation; it is equally a commandment to the father to conduct himself in a way deserving of honor and awe. The father must be a "demus deyukno shel aviv" — an awe-inspiring figure. This reading transforms kibud av into a mutual mitzvah framework.
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!
Kiddushin 29a
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.
