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.
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.
