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.
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.
