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.
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.
