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.
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.
