A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna call bris milah "mitzvat haben al ha'av" when it's the father's obligation? The shiur develops the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Tur on whether the father has his own independent mitzvah (מצוה) (saying "lamul") or only a responsibility for the son's benefit (saying "al hamilah"), and explores when Beis Din can step in to perform the milah.
The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 29a's statement that bris milah is "mitzvat haben al ha'av" — a mitzvah (מצוה) of the son upon the father. The Gemara (גמרא) initially suggests this means the son is obligated, but rejects this reading because women would also be obligated. Instead, the Gemara reinterprets it to mean a mitzvah that benefits the son, which the father is obligated to perform. Rabbi Zweig explains that "mitzvat haben" means the primary beneficiary is the son — the father has responsibility to ensure the son achieves an accomplishment. The Rivash uses this principle to explain why we say "al pidyon haben" (not "l'pidyon haben") even though the father performs the mitzvah: the main beneficiary is the son's redemption, not the father's action. The same logic should apply to bris milah.
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.
Up Next in this Series
Why does the Torah emphasize Rivka's Aramean ancestry when describing her marriage to Yitzchok? The shiur reveals that Arameans were master manipulators with extraordinary sensitivity to others' psychology. Rivka inherited this keen insight but channeled it into genuine chesed, which requires understanding what recipients actually need rather than what givers want to provide.
Why does the Torah separate Avrohom's eulogy for Sarah from his crying for her? The shiur shows that Sarah required a public eulogy focused on the communal loss of a leader, not Avrohom's private grief. This teaches that we must view Jewish tragedies through a national lens first, seeing attacks on Am Yisrael as collective losses that dwarf personal concerns.
Why does Rashi describe Avrohom and Ephron's land deal as happening "between friends" when they just met? The shiur develops the principle that overpaying transforms business transactions into expressions of friendship and respect. Great people habitually overpay to ensure no one feels exploited, creating "lekach tov" situations where both parties benefit with dignity.
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.
