A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why aren't women obligated in pidyon haben and bris milah? The shiur develops a fundamental Rashi (רש"י)-Tosfos dispute about what makes a mitzvah (מצוה) "time-bound." Rashi distinguishes between passage of time (not time-bound) and specific dates or day/night requirements (time-bound), explaining why pidyon haben—triggered by thirty days passing—is not zman gerama. The second half tackles a difficult Gemara (גמרא) about whose mitzvah pidyon haben is: the father's or the child's.
This shiur on Kiddushin 29a begins with a practical question: when do you make the seudah for a mitzvah (מצוה)—before or after? At a bris, the meal often comes first. At pidyon haben, the meal precedes the mitzvah. But at a siyum during the Nine Days, you do the siyum first, then eat. Rabbi Zweig uses this to introduce a fundamental principle: seudas mitzvah is not about celebrating the mitzvah itself, but about marking a life-cycle change. According to Rashi (רש"י), pidyon haben has a seudas mitzvah because it marks the child becoming a bar kayama—no longer a safek nefel. The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 80a records a dispute whether Rav Shimon and Rav Asi were going to a "shavu'i haben" (bris) or "yeshu'i haben." Rashi says yeshu'i haben is pidyon haben. Tosfos says it refers to shalom zachor, celebrating the child's escape from danger at birth. This dispute reflects a deeper machlokes: Rashi holds pidyon haben's thirty-day waiting period is to ensure the child is not a nefel. Tosfos (in Yevamos 11a) asks that if the child has kol chodashav (full development), there's no safek nefel, so why wait thirty days? Tosfos holds thirty days is simply a gezeiras hakasuv. The shiur explores when a seudah is permitted: wherever the life-cycle change happened before the mitzvah (like thirty days passing), you can eat first, then do the mitzvah to explain the change. But where the mitzvah itself creates the change (like at a bris), the seudah follows.
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.
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.
