A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a father lacks money, is the son obligated from kibud av or from tzedakah? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question about giving maaser ani to one's father suggests it's pare chov only if mishel haben, yet both Tosafos (תוספות) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) imply the obligation persists even when the father is poor. The shiur explores whether this creates a contradiction and examines the Rambam's position on kfiyah (compulsion) for tzedakah.
This shiur examines Kiddushin 32b and the complex interplay between the mitzvah (מצוה) of kibud av v'eim (honoring parents) and the laws of tzedakah (charity), focusing on the question of financial obligation when a father lacks resources. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that kibud av is mishel av (the father's expense) when the father has money. Tosafos (תוספות) raises the question: what happens when the father has no money but the son does? The Rif and other Rishonim learn from the Yerushalmi that this becomes a din of tzedakah—the son is obligated to support his father based on his tzedakah obligation, with the father receiving priority (kadimah) over other poor people. However, the Chinuch and other sources cite the Yerushalmi differently, suggesting that even when the father is poor, the son's obligation stems from kibud av itself. The Yerushalmi's language—requiring one to go begging (l'chazer acharei hapsachim) for his father—indicates this cannot be a mere tzedakah obligation, since one is never required to beg for tzedakah recipients.
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 32b
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.
