A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a father owes pidyon haben for himself and his son but has limited resources, who gets precedence? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rabbi Yehuda (son takes priority) and the Chachamim (father takes priority), exploring the Gemara (גמרא)'s complex case involving karka meshubad versus metaltelin and what mitzvah (מצוה) degufah means when the mitzvah itself belongs to someone else.
The shiur examines Kiddushin 29a, which discusses the case where a firstborn (Reuven) who was never redeemed by his father (Yaakov) now has his own firstborn son (Chanoch). Reuven thus has two pidyon haben obligations: the mitzvah (מצוה) to redeem himself (technically his father's obligation that fell to him) and the mitzvah to redeem his son. The Mishna presents a machlokes: Rabbi Yehuda says beno kodem—the son takes precedence—because "this is a mitzvah on his father, and this is the mitzvah of his son upon him." The Chachamim say hu kodem libno—he (the father) takes precedence over his son. The initial understanding is straightforward: according to Rabbi Yehuda, the mitzvah of redeeming Chanoch is Reuven's own mitzvah, while the mitzvah of redeeming Reuven himself technically remains Yaakov's mitzvah. Since Reuven's personal mitzvah (his son) takes priority, beno kodem. According to the Chachamim, both are Reuven's obligations—he must redeem himself and his son—so whichever mitzvah was mechuyyav first takes precedence, which is his own redemption.
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.
