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.
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.
