A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a father did not redeem his firstborn son, does the grown son have a mitzvah (מצוה) to redeem himself, or merely a benefit (tikun ha'gufo)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of malveh kisuva b'Torah (תורה) and ona'ah l'lekuchos proves there is no independent mitzvah on the son. The Rambam (רמב"ם) paskens that mitzvah d'gufo takes precedence in kadimah—but not enough to uproot the son's actual mitzvah when both can be fulfilled.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 29a concerning the laws of pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn son) when the father has limited resources. The central question is whether a grown son who was not redeemed by his father has an independent mitzvah (מצוה) to redeem himself, or whether pidyon haben remains exclusively the father's mitzvah. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim. When a father and his son both need to be redeemed and there are only enough resources for one, Rabbi Yehuda holds the son takes precedence because "this is the father's mitzvah on his son, while that (the father's own redemption) is the mitzvah of his father upon him." The Chachamim hold the father comes first. Rav Yirmiyahu adds that even according to Rabbi Yehuda, if there are only five sela'im available (enough for just one redemption), the father precedes his son because "mitzvah d'gufo adif" (a mitzvah affecting one's own person takes precedence).
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
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.
