A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) rules that if one has only five silver pieces, he must redeem himself before his son. Why not give the money conditionally, get it back, and redeem both? The shiur explores whether a kohen may accept pidyon haben money al menas lehachzir (on condition to return it), contrasting it with terumah, where such a condition violates shichas bris Levi. Two approaches emerge: the arrangement either gives one kohen unfair advantage over others, or it treats sacred gifts as if they belong to the Israelite rather than the kohanim.
The shiur opens with a Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 29a that discusses a case where a man was not redeemed as a firstborn and now has his own firstborn son to redeem. If he has only five silver pieces (the amount required for pidyon haben), the Tana Kama and Rabbi Yehuda dispute whose redemption takes precedence. The Gemara concludes that everyone agrees: mitzvas degufo kodem—he must redeem himself first because his own personal mitzvah (מצוה) takes precedence. Rav Tzvi Pesach (פסח) Frank raises a fundamental difficulty. The Gemara seems to assume he can only redeem one person with five pieces of silver, yet halacha (הלכה) permits matana al menas lehachzir—a gift given on condition it be returned. If you give a kohen five silver pieces for pidyon haben with the explicit stipulation that he return the money to you, your son is still considered redeemed. Why, then, doesn't the Gemara suggest giving the kohen the money conditionally, receiving it back, and using the same five pieces for the second redemption? This way, one could redeem both himself and his son with a single five-piece payment.
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.
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.
