The Abby B-sit Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, has been sponsored by our good friend Mr. Chaimy Dana, may he be protected and live long, in honor of his wife Bina bat Rivka, that they should have many years of shalom bayis, Massekhet Kiddushin, and hatzlacha, parnasa, and all good things, health, happiness, nachas from the children, and all the berakhos, amen. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Mordechai Keney ben Sarah, Marat Keney Tifa bat Sarah, and Shalom ben Farha, and for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther. May their souls be bound in the bond of life in Gan Eden, amen. We also pray for a complete recovery for Moshe Medina, Sarah Ruachama bat Rachel, Sarah bat Rachel, Chaim Tzion Nevi ben Esther, and Avraham ben Sarah. May they all be healed swiftly, amen, and may it be God’s will.
We begin today’s daf on Chaf-Chet amud bet, starting from the new Mishna: Reshut hagavoha be-kesef. What does this refer to? Rashi explains that this is referring to the funds of hekdesh. Maot be-hekdesh konot means when you want to buy something for hekdesh, the kinyan is done with money. This is how hekdesh acquires things. An example is the gizbar in the Beis HaMikdash; he wants to buy something for the Beis HaMikdash, and the kinyan is money.
On the other hand, reshut ha-hedyot be-chazakah refers to a regular person who uses chazakah. What does chazakah mean? Rashi explains it as meshikha. How do you create a kinyan of metaltelin? Through meshikha, which means you must grab the item. The phrase Amirato la-gavoha ke-mesirato la-hedyot is a famous saying. By making a verbal declaration to hekdesh, it is as if it is transferred to hekdesh. This is considered as if you made a mesira by metaltelin, which can be done through meshikha or any of the kinyanim. The choice of mesira is simply because it is one of the kinyanim. Therefore, mesira la-hedyot is equivalent to amira la-gavoha. You do not need to physically transfer it; you just need to say it, and it is considered transferred.
The Gemara begins with Tanu Rabbanan: How is reshut hagavoha be-kesef exemplified? For instance, the gizbar who gives money for an animal for a korban. Even if the animal is at the ends of the earth, hekdesh owns the animal the moment the money is paid. However, a hedyot does not acquire it until he makes the meshikha.
Next, the Gemara discusses the phrase Keitzad amirato la-gavoha ke-mesirato la-hedyot. Give an example of how a verbal declaration to hekdesh is like a mesira for common items. The one who says, “This ox is a olah and this house is hekdesh,” even if it is at the ends of the earth, hekdesh acquires it immediately. However, for a hedyot, he does not acquire it until he makes the meshikha and holds onto it.
The Gemara presents two cases regarding hekdesh. If someone made a meshikha of an item that is hekdesh worth one hundred dollars and then it increased in value to two hundred before he redeemed it, he must pay two hundred. The reason is that until you give the money, the item remains hekdesh. Conversely, if he made a meshikha of an item worth two hundred but it decreased to one hundred before redemption, he still must pay two hundred. This demonstrates that hekdesh always prevails.
The reasoning behind this is that we do not want the power of a hedyot to be greater than that of hekdesh. Therefore, since the kinyan was made when the item was worth two hundred, he must pay that amount. The principle applies stringently both ways, favoring hekdesh.
Next, if he redeemed the item for two hundred but did not make the meshikha before it decreased to one hundred, he only pays one hundred. The Gemara questions why this should not apply to hedyot similarly, suggesting that if he did not make the meshikha, he should pay the higher price. The Gemara clarifies that even without a meshikha, there are ramifications of a mi shepara case, which indicates that he cannot change the agreed price after payment.
We then explore the Mishna: Kol mitzvot haben al ha-av. This means all commandments of the son upon the father. The Gemara questions its meaning, wondering if it refers to commandments the child must perform for the father, such as kibbud av va-em, which would exempt women. However, the Gemara refutes this, demonstrating that women are obligated in kibbud av.
The true interpretation of the Mishna is that it refers to commandments that the father must perform for his son. The father is obligated to fulfill certain commandments on behalf of the child, such as circumcision, pidyon haben, teaching Torah, and marrying him off. The Gemara elaborates on these obligations and their sources, emphasizing the father’s responsibilities.
Next, the Gemara discusses the obligation of a father to teach his son Torah, citing the verse velimadetem otam et beneichem. If the father does not teach, the son is required to learn for himself. The Gemara also addresses the mother’s obligation, concluding that she is not required to teach her son based on the same verse, which specifies teaching sons, not daughters.
In a situation where both father and son need to learn, the Gemara states that the father goes first unless the son is particularly talented and diligent. In that case, Rabbi Yehuda asserts that the son should take precedence. The narrative continues with a story illustrating this principle, highlighting the importance of recognizing potential in children.
Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the significance of fulfilling obligations to family members and the importance of education within the family structure. The Gemara concludes with reflections on the responsibilities of parents and the value of teaching and learning within the Jewish tradition.