A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a father and adult son both need pidyon haben but only have enough for one, who goes first? The shiur examines Rishonim's starkly different readings: the Rif sees commitment as the core obligation, the Rosh separates commitment from money, and the Rambam (רמב"ם) limits commitment to the father's obligation for his son—each yielding a different understanding of mitzvah (מצוה) degufo adif and the machlokes Tannaim.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 29a-b, focusing on the Mishna's discussion of pidyon haben when both a father (who was never redeemed) and his son need redemption. The Mishna presents a dispute: the Chachamim say the father comes first ("hu kodem livno"), while Rabbi Yehuda holds that the son takes precedence ("bno kodem"). The Gemara (גמרא) introduces a critical case through Rabbi Yirmiyahu: when there is only enough money for one redemption (five sela'im), the father must redeem himself first because "mitzvah (מצוה) degufo adif"—a person's own mitzvah takes precedence. Rabbi Zweig explores how the major Rishonim understand this sugya in fundamentally different ways. The Geonim rule like Rabbi Yehuda that the son comes first when there is sufficient money for both, which seems to contradict the general principle of halacha (הלכה) k'Rabbim. The Rif paskens that when both are possible, the father comes first, giving the reason "mitzvah degufo adif"—but the Gemara only stated this principle for the case of limited funds, not for the general case. The Rambam (רמב"ם) brings two separate halachos: first, that the father comes before the son, and second, that when there is only five sela'im, the father still comes first—implying these are independent principles.
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-b
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.
