A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does it mean for a father to teach his son Torah (תורה)? The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 29b, distinguishing between transmitting information and teaching learning skills. The Gemara (גמרא)'s drasha "limadetem ulimadetem" creates a hekesh showing that just as one must learn "how to learn," a father must teach his son those same skills—not merely facts.
This shiur explores the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 29b, which discusses the father's obligation to teach his son Torah (תורה). Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental distinction between giving a child information versus teaching him skills—how to learn independently. The analysis centers on understanding what the mitzvah (מצוה) of chinuch (education) truly demands. The Gemara states that if a father does not teach his son, the son must teach himself. Rabbi Zweig asks: why is a pasuk needed for this? Every Jew is obligated in Talmud (תלמוד) Torah regardless. The answer reveals the deeper nature of the father's obligation. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Talmud Torah (1:1) uses revealing language: "chayav lelamed atzmo" (obligated to teach himself), not simply "chayav lilmod" (obligated to learn). This word choice is deliberate and significant.
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.
