No community start suggestion yet.
Is honoring parents funded from the child's pocket or the parent's? The Gemara (גמרא) debates mishel ben versus mishel av—whether kibbud av requires the child to spend money or only effort. Tosfos extends this: even on mishel ben, when the father gains no direct benefit from the son's expense (e.g., the son loses an aveida while serving the father), there's no obligation to absorb the loss.
This shiur explores the fundamental financial obligation underlying kibbud av (honoring parents). The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 32b presents a machloket between Rav Yehuda and Rav Nosson bar Oshaya: mishel ben (the son pays) versus mishel av (the father pays). Rashi (רש"י) explains that mishel ben obligates the child to fund the parent's food, drink, and clothing—basic needs that constitute kavod. Yet this raises a profound difficulty: every mitzvah (מצוה) in the Torah (תורה) requires expenditure up to a third of one's assets; why would kibbud av, a mitzvah rooted in honoring God Himself, be exempt? The Gemara answers that even if mishel av, the child still bears the cost of bittul melachah—lost work time. But Tosfos challenges this resolution with a remarkable chiddush: even according to mishel ben, if the child's aveida (lost item) is at risk while serving the father, the child is patur from spending or losing money. This seems incomprehensible—lulav or tefillin require financial sacrifice; why not kibbud av?
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 32b
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.
