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.
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.
