A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is kibbud av unique among mitzvos regarding financial expenditure? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether supporting a father is mishel av (the father's obligation) or mishel ben (the son's obligation). Rabbi Zweig develops the fundamental principle that kibbud av cannot entail the son acting as benefactor—the father, as an adam chashuv, is always the giver even when receiving, which transforms the entire halachic structure of the mitzvah (מצוה).
The shiur explores a fundamental debate in Kiddushin 32b regarding the financial obligations of kibbud av: whether supporting a father is mishel av (the father's obligation to pay) or mishel ben (the son must bear the cost). Rabbi Zweig opens with a fundamental question: every mitzvah (מצוה) requires expenditure up to a certain limit, so why does kibbud av have a special din regarding who pays? Tosafos (תוספות) explains that even according to mishel ben, if a son has an aveida (lost object) he could retrieve instead of honoring his father, he is exempt from kibbud av—even though we would normally require spending money for a mitzvah rather than retrieving a twenty-dollar loss. This defies standard Torah (תורה) logic and demands explanation.
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 32b
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.
