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 shiur develops a fundamental yesod: pidyon haben is not merely redeeming the bechor from kedusha, but a father's active commitment of "bechor bonecha titein li" — dedicating the child to avodas Hashem (ה׳). Women are exempt because they are not subject to this hischayvus, explaining the Gemara (גמרא)'s otherwise difficult logic and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s enigmatic formulation.
The shiur on Kiddushin 29a begins by examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s complex chain of reasoning for why a woman is exempt from pidyon haben. The Gemara states: whoever is not obligated to redeem themselves cannot redeem others; whoever others are not obligated to redeem cannot redeem themselves; and since "bonecha v'lo b'nosecha" (your sons, not your daughters), women are exempt. The Maharsha raises a fundamental difficulty: why does the Gemara go through unnecessary steps? It should simply say that since others are not obligated to redeem her, she is not obligated to redeem her son. Why insert the intermediate step that she's not obligated to redeem herself? Tosafos (תוספות) asks an even more basic question: why do we need a pasuk to teach that if others aren't obligated to redeem her, she doesn't redeem herself? Isn't that obvious — she has no kedushas bechor! Tosafos answers that perhaps she does have kedushas bechor, but the father is simply exempt from his daughter, while she herself would be obligated when grown. This answer itself requires explanation: if she has kedushas bechor, why would the father be exempt?
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.
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.
