A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If a father must redeem both himself and his firstborn son but has limited funds, whom does he redeem first? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim and explores Rav Yirmiyahu's principle of "mitzvah (מצוה) degufa adif" — a mitzvah affecting one's own body takes precedence. Rashi (רש"י)'s difficult approach and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s codification reveal that this principle applies even according to the Chachamim, reframing the entire sugya.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 29a-b presents a case where a father is obligated to redeem both himself (he was never redeemed from his own pidyon haben) and his newborn son. The Mishna states that if both need redemption, the father comes first. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, arguing that the son takes precedence because "this is a mitzvah (מצוה) on him (the father) and that is a mitzvah of his son upon him." The simple understanding seems to be that Rabbi Yehuda holds the son's redemption is more urgent, while the Chachamim hold the father's own redemption comes first. Rav Yirmiyahu introduces a critical principle: "kulam modim" — everyone agrees that when there are only five sela'im available (enough for one pidyon haben), the father redeems himself first, because "mitzvah degufa adif" — a mitzvah that affects one's own body takes precedence. This suggests that Rabbi Yehuda's position (son first) only applies when there are ten sela'im available (enough for both redemptions). When resources are limited, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the father's own redemption comes first.
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-b
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.
