No community start suggestion yet.
What is the source of the mother's obligation in milah, and what is the scope of the bezdin's responsibility? The shiur argues that without a pasuk, both mother and father would be equally obligated—the Gemara (גמרא) needs "oso v'lo oso" to exempt the mother only when the father is present. This reading challenges the assumption that milah is automatically a time-bound mitzvah (מצוה) for women and explores when bezdin's obligation becomes active.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 29a's discussion of who bears the obligation of milah—father, mother, or bezdin (the Jewish community). Rabbi Zweig corrects his previous position: he now argues that Rashi (רש"י) understands the mother's obligation as stemming not from the general bezdin obligation but from the same parental obligation as the father. The Gemara (גמרא)'s need for a pasuk to exempt the mother implies that without the pasuk, if the father is obligated, the mother would be as well. This is not a case of deriving the mother's obligation from the bezdin category; rather, it reflects an original parental joint obligation. The shiur brings support from the Maha'rach Or Zarua, a Rishon who explicitly rules that if there is no father, the mother is obligated in milah. This position, previously considered marginal, now appears to be the straightforward reading of the Gemara. The pasuk "oso v'lo oso" does not exempt women categorically; it exempts the mother only in the presence of the father. This is akin to saying the father has precedence, not that the mother has no obligation at all.
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.
