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.
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.
