A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the mitzvah (מצוה) of honoring parents (kibud av) rooted in listening to them or in giving them pleasure? The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of hechsher mitzvah (preparation for a mitzvah) and the case of cooking on Shabbos (שבת) exposes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot: Rashi holds that the mitzvah is the act of listening itself, while Tosafot holds it is providing physical benefit.
This shiur explores Yevamos 5b-6a, focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding the nature of kibud av (honoring parents). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a father asks his son to cook on Shabbos (שבת), and rules that the son is not obligated because "ein esseh docheh lo ta'aseh she'yesh bekores" (a positive commandment does not override a prohibition punishable by kares). The question arises: why would we think kibud av should override Shabbos in the first place? Tosafot explains that the act of cooking is merely a hachana l'mitzvah (מצוה) (preparation for the mitzvah) — not the mitzvah itself. The actual mitzvah is bringing the father food and giving him pleasure. Since the son is only in the preparation stage when cooking, this is not considered a full-fledged mitzvah that could override Shabbos. The Ramban (רמב"ן) adopts this approach but asks: if the father explicitly commanded the son to cook, shouldn't that very act of listening constitute the mitzvah? The Ramban answers by citing a Braisa in Kiddushin that defines kibud av as "machileu u'mashkeu, malbisho" (feeding, giving drink, and clothing) — acts that provide physical benefit, not mere obedience. Thus, listening to the father is not itself kibud; it is only a hechsher for providing him pleasure.
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!
Yevamos 5b-6a
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.
