A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) brings multiple pesukim for the father's obligation to teach his son Torah (תורה)—why are all these sources necessary? The shiur analyzes the distinctions between ve'limadtem (teaching sons), ve'shinantam (learning Torah generally), and other sources, exploring whether they establish separate mitzvos or aspects of one mitzvah (מצוה). Critical questions emerge about women's exemption, the scope of the father's obligation, and whether the chiyuv stems from the father's duty or the son's need to learn.
The Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 29b brings multiple biblical sources for the mitzvah (מצוה) of teaching Torah (תורה), raising fundamental questions about the relationship between these pesukim. The Gemara cites "ve'limadtem osam es b'neichem" (you shall teach them to your sons) for the father's obligation to teach his son, and derives from "ve'limadtem" (written as ve'limadetem, "you shall learn") the requirement for a person to teach himself if his father did not teach him. The shiur opens with a fundamental question: Why doesn't the Gemara cite "ve'shinantam l'vanecha" from Shema, which is universally recognized (including by the Rambam (רמב"ם) in Sefer HaMitzvos and the Chinuch) as the primary source for the mitzvah of Talmud (תלמוד) Torah? Two primary answers are suggested. First, the Gemara later establishes that the father's obligation is limited to teaching Mikra (Chumash) specifically, not all of Torah. The pasuk "ve'shinantam l'vanecha" cannot refer to this limited obligation because "banim" in that context means talmidim (students), not literal sons—as demonstrated by the requirement that Torah knowledge be "mechudad b'fikcha" (sharp in your mouth), which applies to all Torah, not just Mikra. Second, "ve'shinantam" establishes the general mitzvah of Talmud Torah that applies to everyone, whereas "ve'limadtem osam es b'neichem" creates the specific obligation of the father to teach his son.
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 29b
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.
