A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Are you obligated to honor a father who is ein oseh ma'aseh amcha? The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules yes — but with a crucial difference. The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: kibud av has two dimensions. One is the parent's right (bein adam l'chaveiro), the other is the child's obligation to himself (bein adam l'atzmo). Ein oseh ma'aseh amcha removes the parent's entitlement but not the child's responsibility.
This shiur addresses the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion on Kiddushin 32a regarding the obligation to honor a parent who is "ein oseh ma'aseh amcha" — one who does not act according to Torah (תורה) law. The Gemara states that when a child sees his father transgressing Torah law, he may not speak to him sarcastically but must frame his correction as a respectful question. The Rambam (רמב"ם), in Hilchos Mamrim Perek 6, codifies this as halacha (הלכה): even when the father is a rasha gamur (complete sinner), even if condemned to death, it is forbidden to strike or curse him — though if one does, there is no punishment. The kashe arises from a contradiction in the Gemara. One sugya states that if a father left money acquired through ribbis, the son is not obligated to return it when the father is ein oseh ma'aseh amcha — only if the father did teshuvah. This implies there is no chiyuv in kibud av when the father is ein oseh ma'aseh amcha. Yet the Rambam clearly rules there remains an obligation to show respect. The Kesef Mishneh and Radvaz struggle with this tension. The Radvaz suggests the exemption applies only during the father's lifetime because he might yet do teshuvah, which would retroactively restore his status. The Kesef Mishneh proposes the issue is not kibud av but whether the inherited ribbis is the son's property (in which case kibud av doesn't require spending one's own money).
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 32a
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.
