A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't a woman obligated in pidyon haben for her son? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kidushin 29a learns from the double language "tifdeh tifdeh" that whoever is obligated to redeem themselves must redeem others. The analysis explores why the son's obligation when the father fails isn't considered a time-bound mitzvah (מצוה), distinguishing between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות).
This shiur analyzes Kidushin 29a, continuing from the Mishna's statement that the father is obligated in his son's mitzvos. After discussing milah, the Gemara (גמרא) addresses pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn). The central question is: from where do we know that if the father doesn't redeem his son, the son must redeem himself when he grows up? The Gemara brings the pasuk "tifdeh tifdeh" (you shall surely redeem) to teach that whoever is obligated to redeem themselves is obligated to redeem others, and conversely, whoever is not obligated to redeem themselves is not obligated to redeem others. This excludes women from the obligation to redeem their sons, since women themselves are not obligated in pidyon haben.
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!
Kidushin 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.
