No community start suggestion yet.
When a father has only enough money for either pidyon haben or aliyah la'regel, which takes precedence? The shiur builds a fundamental distinction: mitzvah (מצוה) overes (aliyah la'regel) takes priority only when you can do just one, but when both are possible, pidyon haben comes first. The analysis reveals that this reflects a din kadima (sequencing) rather than dechiya (displacement)—obligating maximum effort for both mitzvos.
The shiur examines a complex sugya in Kiddushin 29b concerning the conflict between pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn son) and aliyah la'regel (the pilgrimage obligation). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim about which mitzvah (מצוה) takes precedence when a father has only enough money (five sela'im) to fulfill one obligation but not both. Rabbi Yehuda argues that mitzvah overes (a time-limited mitzvah) has precedence, while the Chachamim derive from the pasuk "kol bechor banecha tifteh v'lo yera'eh panecha reikam" that pidyon haben comes first. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental chakira to explain the Rishonim's approach: the question is whether this is a din kadima (precedence in order) or a din dechiya (one mitzvah displacing the other). The Miri and Rambam (רמב"ם) both rule that if you can definitely do both mitzvos, pidyon haben comes first. If you can only do one, aliyah la'regel takes precedence. The difficult case is when you can do one for certain but might be able to do both—here the halacha (הלכה) is to do pidyon haben first and make every effort (hishtadlus) to fulfill aliyah la'regel afterward.
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.
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.
