A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the father's obligation in bris milah—a unique mitzvah (מצוה) of his own, or just priority in fulfilling the son's tikun? The shiur analyzes the machlokes Rambam (רמב"ם)-Tur through the lenses of who makes the bracha "lamul" vs. "al hamilah," whether beis din can override a father who refuses, and whether shlichus applies. The Rosh's ruling on stolen mitzvos reveals whether the father's role is kedimah (priority) or a separate mitzvos ha'av alongside mitzvos haben.
This Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Kiddushin 29a explores the fundamental structure of the mitzvah (מצוה) of bris milah, focusing on the dual concepts of mitzvos haben (the son's obligation/tikun) and mitzvos ha'av (the father's obligation). The Gemara asks: from where do we know there is a mitzvos haben in milah? The proof is brought from Yitzchok rather than Yishmael, because Yishmael was circumcised under the father's obligation alone (mitzvos ha'av), while only Yitzchok represents the concept of mitzvos haben—where the son himself has a status requiring the tikun of bris. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and the Tur regarding the nature of the father's role. According to the Rambam, the father has two distinct obligations: (1) mitzvos haben—to ensure his son receives the tikun of milah, similar to pidyon haben, and (2) mitzvos ha'av—a separate mitzvah obligation of his own to perform milah, reflected in the bracha "lamul" that only the father recites. According to the Tur, however, there is only mitzvos haben; the father has no independent mitzvah but rather has kedimah (priority) over others in fulfilling the communal obligation to circumcise the child. When the father performs milah himself, he makes the bracha "al hamilah," treating it like any other person's obligation.
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.
