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.
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.
