Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור is going to be מסכת קידושין דף כ״ט. We will start 12 lines from the top of the עמוד, from the beginning of the משנה. משנה says, כל מצות הבן על האב, all the מצות of the son that are on the father, אנשים חייבים, men are obligated to do, ונשים פטורות, but women are not obligated, women are exempt. וכל מצות האב על הבן, and all the מצות of the father on the son, אחד אנשים ואחד נשים, men and women, both חייבין and מחוייב are obligated to do. And as the גמרא will explain later on, the פשט in this משנה is that all the מצות that a father is obligated to do to his son, for instance, the father is supposed to circumcise his son, the father is supposed to perform פדיון הבן with his son, and the rest of the מצות, so all these מצות are only on the father, but not on the mother. Men are obligated, but the women are פטור. But the מצות that a child is supposed to do to the father, so those, men and women are equally obligated. And that is the פשט in the משנה. כל מצות הבן על האב, all מצות that are supposed to be done to the son through the father, men are חייב, and women are פטור. But all those מצות that are supposed to be done to the father through the son, אחד אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין, men and women are equally obligated. Then the משנה continues: וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, all positive מצות that have a time limit, אנשים חייבים, men are obligated, ונשים פטורות, and women are exempt. וכל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, but any מצות עשה, any positive מצוה that the time doesn't have an effect, it is not limited to time, אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים חייבין. Men and women are both obligated, both are חייב to do. וכל מצות לא תעשה, any negative מצוה, anything that a person is not allowed to do, בין שהזמן גרמא בין שלא הזמן גרמא, whether the time has an effect, whether it is limited to time, whether it is not limited to time, אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים חייבין. Men and women are both equally obligated. חוץ, except מבל תקיף ובל תשחית ובל תטמא למתים, except the מצות לא תעשה of not cutting one's פיאות, בל תקיף means not to surround your head, which means not to cut off your פיאות, then the head is all around smooth, that עבירה only applies to men; or בל תשחית means a person should not cut his beard with a razor, that also only applies to men; and also בל תטמא למתים, the דין that a כהן is not allowed to become טמא to a dead body, that only applies to כהנים, זכרים, to males, but not to נקבות, not to females. And now we will learn the גמרא. גמרא asks, מאי כל מצות הבן על האב? What does the משנה mean with the words all the מצות of the son that are on the father? אילימא, if you're going to say כל מצות דמיחייב ברא דמיעבד לאבא, that it means all the מצות that a son is obligated to do to his father, how can we say that? Because according to this the פשט would be that all the מצות that a son is supposed to do to the father, which is the מצוה of כיבוד אב, נשים פטורות, women would be פטור. But how can we say that? והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא: איש, the פסוק says that a man is obligated to honor his father, אין לי אלא איש, so I would only think a man, אשה מניין? How do we know a woman too is obligated in the מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם? And the answer is, כשהוא אומר, when the פסוק says, איש אמו ואביו תיראו, a man, his mother and his father they shall fear. So it starts off with the word איש, which is single, and then he continues תיראו, they shall fear, which is plural. הרי כאן שנים, so here the תורה comes to tell us that two kinds of people have to fear their father and their mother, meaning a man and a woman. So according to that we see that women are obligated to כיבוד אב ואם, so how can we say that when the משנה says כל מצות הבן על האב אנשים חייבים ונשים פטורות, that women are פטור from those מצות, it refers to the מצות that a son is supposed to do to the father, because if that would be the פשט, women would not be פטור. אמר רב יהודה, so רב יהודה said, הכי קאמר, this is what it meant: כל מצות הבן המוטלות על האב לעשות לבנו, all the מצות that are supposed to be done to the son, that are on the father to do to his son, so on those מצות אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות, men are obligated and the women are exempt. And the גמרא continues, תנינא להא דתנו רבנן, really the משנה is telling us what we learn in a ברייתא. The ברייתא says, האב חייב בבנו, a father is obligated in his son, למולו, to be מל him, to circumcise him, ולפדותו, and to redeem him. The דין is that a first-born child is supposed to get a פדיון הבן, which means he's supposed to be redeemed, and five שקלים are to be given to the כהן as a redemption for this son. So this is a מצוה that the father is obligated to do to his son. וללמדו תורה, and he's supposed to teach him תורה, ולהשיאו אשה, he's supposed to marry him to a wife, וללמדו אומנות, and he's supposed to teach him a trade. ויש אומרים, and some say, אף להשיטו במים, he's also supposed to teach him how to swim in the water. And the reason for that is, as רש"י says, because sometimes he might be going on a ship and the ship might sink, so if he won't know how to swim, he will be in danger. Therefore, it is an obligation on the father to teach his son how to swim. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, כל שאינו מלמד את בנו אומנות, anybody who doesn't teach his son a trade, מלמדו ליסטות, teaches him really how to steal. So the גמרא asks, ליסטות סלקא דעתך? How can you say, by not teaching him a trade he teaches him how to steal? By not teaching anything, he is not teaching him how to steal, he's just not teaching anything. So what do we mean when we say that it is as if he teaches him how to steal? אלא, so the פשט is, the גמרא says, כאילו מלמדו ליסטות, it's as if he teaches him how to steal, because since he won't have a trade, so therefore he won't have any money, so the only way he'll be able to support himself is by stealing. So by not teaching him a trade, you're really causing him later on to steal. And now the גמרא will go into the details of explaining, bringing proof to all the things that the ברייתא said before that a father is supposed to do to the son, where do we know that from? The גמרא starts off by saying למולו, one of the things we said was a father is obligated to circumcise his son. מנלן, how do we know that? Where does it say in the תורה? The answer is דכתיב, because the תורה says, וימל אברהם את יצחק בנו, that אברהם circumcised יצחק his son. So we see that there's an obligation on the father to circumcise his son. Then the גמרא continues, היכא דלא מהליה אבוה, whenever the father did not do this circumcision to his son, מחייבי בית דינא למימהליה, so then the בית דין is obligated to circumcise this person. דכתיב, because it says, המול לכם כל זכר, you shall circumcise to you all the males, and who is that talking to? To כלל ישראל, to the אידן as a whole. So that shows us that the בית דין has an obligation to circumcise the son if the father didn't do it. והיכא דלא מהלוה בית דינא, and in a case where the בית דין didn't do it either, מחייב איהו למימהל נפשיה, so then he himself, the person himself, the child himself is obligated to circumcise himself. דכתיב, because it says, וערל זכר אשר לא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה. An ערל is a person who didn't get a ברית מילה. So the תורה says a male, a זכר that did not do a circumcision to the skin of his ערלה, ונכרתה, he will get punished by כרת. So here we see that he himself is supposed to circumcise himself, because if he didn't, he will get כרת. Then the גמרא asks, we said before that this is one of the מצות that a father is supposed to do to the son, and we said in the משנה that all the מצות that a father is supposed to do to the son, the women, the mothers are not obligated, are exempt. So the question in the גמרא is now, איהי, she, מנלן דלא מיחייבא? How do we know that she is not obligated to do it to her son? The גמרא answers, דכתיב, because the תורה says, כאשר צוה אותו אלקים, as ה' commanded him, so we דרש'ן, אותו ולא אותה, commanded him, not her. So she is not commanded, not obligated to give a ברית מילה to her son. Then the גמרא asks, אשכחן מיד, we find this פסוק that was said to אברהם right then, so we know that in אברהם's time there was no obligation on a mother to circumcise her son. לדורות מנלן, how do we know that the same thing applies to all later generations? And the גמרא answers, תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, in the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל they learned, they gave a rule: כל מקום שנאמר צו, wherever the תורה uses the term צו, which means command, אינו אלא זירוז מיד ולדורות. So the word צו means first of all a זירוז, a זירוז means telling the person he should be fast and doing it, he should be ready to do it right away, and also, this זירוז itself is מיד, is for then, ולדורות, and is also for later generations. Brings ראיות to it: זירוז, how do we know that the word צו is a זירוז? דכתיב, because it says וצו את יהושע, השם said to משה רבינו, you should command יהושע, and He uses the word צו, וחזקהו ואמצהו, and you should strengthen him. So we see that the word צו comes to strengthen the person, to tell the person how important it is to do it. And how do we know that this זירוז is מיד ולדורות, is for then and also for later generations? דכתיב, because the פסוק says מן היום אשר צוה השם והלאה לדורותיכם, from the day that השם commanded you to do it, from then on, and later generations, too. So here the תורה uses the word אשר צוה השם, and the תורה says clearly that it is from then, all through later generations. So we see that the word צו is a זירוז, plus it is מיד and לדורות. So since in this פסוק it says כאשר צוה אותו אלקים, the פסוק that tells us that only the father is obligated to circumcise his son, but not the mother, in that פסוק it says כאשר צוה אותו אלקים. So that פסוק says the word צו, and since that פסוק says אותו, him, and we דרש'ן him and not her, so we know from there that מיד ולדורות, then and for later generations, the דין only applies to the father, but not to the mother. Then the גמרא continues: We said in the ברייתא that one of the things a father is obligated to do to the son is לפדותו, is to redeem him, to perform the מצוה of פדיון הבן. And the גמרא asks: מנלן, how do we know that? The גמרא answers: דכתיב, because it says in the תורה כל בכור בניך תפדה, that every בכור, every firstborn of your sons, you shall redeem. So here we see that the father is obligated to redeem his son. And the גמרא continues: והיכא דלא פרקיה אבוה, and whenever the father did not redeem his son, מחייב איהו למיפרקיה, so he is supposed to redeem himself. דכתיב, because the תורה says, this is a פסוק in פרשת קרח, it says פדה תפדה, you shall redeem. And here it doesn't mention the father. So obviously the תורה is telling us that there is a time when the person is supposed to redeem himself. And this is if the father did not redeem his son, then the son is supposed to redeem himself. Then the גמרא continues: ואיהי מנלן דלא מיפקדה, how do we know that she is not obligated to redeem her son? Since this is one of the מצות a father is obligated to do to his son, and we said before that all the מצות a father is obligated to do to his son the mother is exempt, so obviously the mother is not obligated to redeem her son. How do we know that? The גמרא answers: דכתיב תפדה תיפדה, the same פסוק that we just quoted, פדה תפדה. So really, we could read it not תפדה, we could also read it תיפדה. תפדה means you shall redeem. תיפדה means you shall be redeemed. And since there could be two meanings in the same word, so we דרש'ן them both. We compare the two and we say כל שמצווה לפדות את עצמו, that anybody who is obligated to redeem himself, מצווה לפדות את אחרים, is obligated to redeem others, which means the child. וכל שאינו מצווה לפדות את עצמו, and anyone who is not obligated to redeem himself, אינו מצווה לפדות אחרים, is not obligated to redeem others. So since the mother is not obligated to redeem herself, in other words, a woman is not obligated to fulfill the מצוה of פדיון הבן on herself, so therefore she is also not obligated to perform this מצוה on others, which means on her son. Since in the same words we have the meaning of redeem yourself and redeem others, תפדה and תיפדה, so we compare the two and we say that somebody who is not obligated to redeem himself is also not obligated to redeem others. But then the גמרא's question is: ואיהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא למיפרק נפשה, and she herself, how do we know that she is not obligated to redeem herself? Maybe she is obligated to redeem herself? The whole יסוד for the לימוד we said before was since she is not obligated to redeem herself, therefore she is not obligated to redeem her son. But who says, how do we know that she is not obligated to redeem herself? And the גמרא answers: דכתיב, because the תורה says תפדה תיפדה. And we דרש'ן the same דרש, but the other direction: that כל שאחרים מצווין לפדותו, מצווה לפדות את עצמו, that any person that others are obligated to redeem him, he is obligated to redeem himself if the others did not do it. וכל שאין אחרים מצווין לפדותו, and anybody that others are not obligated to redeem him, אין מצווה לפדות את עצמו. He is not obligated to redeem himself. So we דרשן the same word תפדה תיפדה, that it means you shall redeem, and you shall be redeemed, and that tells us that if you are not obligated to be redeemed by others, you are also not obligated to redeem yourself. But then the גמרא asks, ומניין שאין אחרים מצווין לפדותה? But how do we know that others are not obligated to redeem her? The whole יסוד that she is not obligated to redeem herself is because she is not obligated to be redeemed by others, by her father. But how do we know that she is not obligated to be redeemed by her father? And the גמרא answers, דאמר קרא, because the פסוק says, כל בכור בניך תפדה, all firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. So we דרשן from here, בניך ולא בנותיך, your sons, but not your daughters. So ממילא we know that a father is not obligated to redeem his daughter. And since she is not obligated to be redeemed by her father, automatically she is not obligated to redeem herself because of the דרש תפדה תיפדה. And also, because she is not obligated to redeem herself, she is not obligated to redeem her son because of the same דרש תפדה תיפדה. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, הוא לפדות ובנו לפדות, if a person is supposed to redeem himself, his father didn't redeem him, and now he is ready to fulfill the מצוה of פדיון הבן on himself, but at the same time he has a son that he is supposed to redeem, so the question is: who comes first? And obviously it's in a case where there is not enough money for both, so who comes first? So the גמרא says, הוא קודם לבנו. He comes before his son. He should redeem himself first, and then, if he has more money left or when he will get money, he will redeem his son. רבי יהודה אומר, but רבי יהודה says, בנו קודם. His son comes first. And the reason for that is, שזה מצוותו עליו, because he himself, his מצוה was on his father, וזה, but the מצוה of פדיון הבן that's on his son, מצוות בנו עליו, the מצוה of his son is on him. In other words, as far as a person is concerned, the מצוה that he is supposed to redeem his son comes before he should redeem himself, because there is no מצוה on him to redeem himself, it was a מצוה on his father to redeem him. But concerning his son, he is obligated to redeem his son. Therefore רבי יהודה says that first he should redeem his son, and then he will redeem himself. Then the גמרא says, אמר רבי ירמיה, רבי ירמיה said, הכל מודים, really everyone admits, דכל היכא דלית ליה אלא חמש סלעים הוא קודם לבנו, that if there is only five סלעים, he only has enough money to redeem one, definitely everyone agrees that he comes before his son. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? מצוה דגופיה עדיפא. A מצוה that's on his own body is better, stronger. And since this is a מצוה that is supposed to be done to him, to himself, and the other one is a מצוה he is supposed to do concerning somebody else, so a מצוה that's on a person's own body, that is stronger, that comes first. So that, everyone would agree. This is not the case of the מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the חכמים. כי פליגי, where do they argue? היכא דאיכא חמש משועבדים וחמש בני חורין. He has five סלעים משועבדים and five סלעים בני חורין. בני חורין means free, it means money that you actually have, that you actually own. משועבדים are things that you sold, but you sold them after it was already משועבד to somebody else. And the דין is that if something is משועבד to somebody and then later on it is sold to the לקוחות, it is sold to somebody who bought it, so then the one that it was משועבד to is able to go to the buyer and take it away from him because his שיעבוד came before that person bought it. There was a lien on that property, for instance, and therefore the one that had the lien is able to go to the buyer and take it away. So here is a case where the person has five סלעים that he owns right now בני חורין, but there are other five סלעים that he had sold to somebody else. So in a case like that, that's where we have the מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the חכמים. And the גמרא explains, רבי יהודה סבר, רבי יהודה holds, מלוה דכתיב בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא, that a מלוה, a loan, that is written in the תורה is as if it's written in a שטר. The דין is that if there is a loan that is written in a שטר, so then the property that the לוה, the borrower has, are automatically משועבד to the מלוה, to the lender. And therefore, if the לוה will sell the property to any after the loan took place, so then the מלוה, the lender is able to go to the buyer and take it away. But if it's a מלוה which is not written in a שטר, if it's a loan that was not written down in a document, so then the דין is that when the lender comes to collect his money, so he could only take property of the of the borrower if they are בני חורין, if they are free, which means if they are in the possession of the person himself, of the borrower himself. But if there were property that were sold to somebody else, so then the מלוה, the lender cannot go to them and take it away. Now the question is, what about a loan which was not written in a שטר, but nevertheless you are obligated to pay that loan because the תורה tells you to? And that is considered a מלוה הכתובה בתורה. It's a loan that's written in the תורה. So the גמרא will say here that this will be the מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the חכמים, whether we consider a מלוה that is written in the תורה as as if it's written in the שטר, and therefore you could collect that loan even from the משועבדים, even from those fields, that property that was sold to somebody else, or do we consider a מלוה that was written in the תורה as if it was not written in the שטר, and therefore you could only collect from the property that's in the possession of the person himself, but not if it was sold. And this is what the גמרא is going to explain. רבי יהודה סבר, רבי יהודה holds that מלוה דכתיבא באורייתא ככתובה בשטר דמיא, that a מלוה which is written in the תורה is as if it's written in a שטר, and therefore the מצוה of פדיון הבן is written in the תורה. So it's as if it's written in a שטר. So there is a שיעבוד, a lien right away on the five סלעים that the person owns, that it is משועבד to the כהן for the מצוה of פדיון הבן. And therefore, if the person sold the property that was worth five סלעים to somebody else, there is still a שיעבוד on it, and the כהן is able to go to that לקוח, to that buyer, and take away the property for the מצוה of פדיון הבן. But it's self-understood that this דין that the lender is able to go and take away the נכסים משועבדים from the buyer, is only if the נכסים, this property was sold after the שיעבוד took place, after the loan took place, so then the property is משועבד to the lender, so if the borrower sold them, the lender is able to take them away from the לקוחות. But if it was sold before the שיעבוד took place, so then it's self-understood that the lender is not able to go and take them away from the לקוח. So now, concerning this מצוה of פדיון הבן, if a person did not

perform the מצוה of פדיון הבן yet, so there is a שיעבוד on all his property for the מצוה of פדיון הבן. So whenever he sold this property was always sold after the שיעבוד took place. But when we talk about the מצוה of פדיון הבן that a person is supposed to do to his son, not always are the נכסים משועבד to the פדיון הבן of his son. It depends when his son was born. If his son was born before the נכסים were sold, so then the נכסים are משועבד to the פדיון הבן. But if the son was born after the נכסים were sold, so then these נכסים, this property is not משועבד for the פדיון הבן of the son, and therefore the כהן is not able to go to the לקוח and take it. And this is what רבי יהודה says, that in order to be able to fulfill both מצות of פדיון הבן, his own פדיון הבן and the פדיון הבן of his son, so in a case where he has five שקלים, five סלעים בני חורין, and five סלעים משועבדים, and let's say it would be in a case where they were sold before the son was born, so they are not משועבד for the פדיון הבן of the son, but they are משועבד for the פדיון הבן of the father. So רבי יהודה says, what you do is בהני חמש, with those five בני חורין that he has, פריק ליה לבריה, he should redeem his son, because there is a מצוה of פדיון הבן. Now, ואזיל כהן, the כהן will go, וטריף ליה לחמש משועבדים לדידיה, he will take away the five שקלים, the five סלעים which are משועבד for the פדיון הבן of the father himself. And in this way, he will perform both מצות. But if he will first give the five סלעים בני חורין for the פדיון הבן of the father, then the son would not be able to get a פדיון הבן, because the five סלעים which are sold to the לקוח were not משועבד for the פדיון הבן of the son, and therefore the son will remain without a פדיון הבן. So in order to perform both מצות, רבי יהודה holds, first do the מצוה of פדיון הבן for the son, and then with the five משועבדים, they will do the מצוה of פדיון הבן for the father. But that's the opinion only of רבי יהודה. רבנן סברי, the רבנן holds, מלוה דכתיבא באורייתא לאו ככתו- בשטרא דמיא. A מלוה which that says in the תורה is not as if it's written in a שטר. And therefore the כהן cannot collect the five סלעים from the נכסים משועבדים. Just like any מלוה which was not written in a שטר, you could only collect from the בני חורין, but not from the משועבדים. So therefore he says the הלכך, therefore, מצוה דגופיה עדיף. The מצוה of himself is first. In other words, you couldn't do both מצוות anyway. Because even for the פדיון הבן of the father, you could not collect from the משועבדים because it is not like a מלוה which is written in a שטר. So therefore we're only left with the five סלעים בני חורין, and the question is for which פדיון הבן should it go. But here the רבנן say, as we said before, that whenever we only have five סלעים, everyone agrees that it goes first for himself because מצוה of himself is better. But according to רבי יהודה, as we said before, he holds that in this case, we have more than five סלעים if we're going to do it the way he said. But one might ask, we know that the דין that a person is allowed to go to the נכסים משועבדים to collect is only if there are no נכסים בני חורין available. If the borrower has נכסים בני חורין in his possession, so then the lender cannot go to the לקוחות, to the buyer, and collect the נכסים משועבדים. So here too, according to רבי יהודה, how are we allowed to collect from נכסים משועבדים for the פדיון הבן of the father? Why isn't it considered cheating? Why can't the לוקח say, "I don't want to give you from the with this נכסים that I bought when there are five סלעים available by the person himself?" And by us using those five סלעים בני חורין for the פדיון הבן of the son seems to be אונאה, seems to be like you're cheating, because normally we say the מצוה דגופיה עדיפא. The מצוה on the person himself is better. So really, what comes first, it seems, the מצוה for the father to redeem himself. So really he should go first, and then take from the נכסים בני חורין. Then when it will come time to redeem the son, he will not be able to collect from the נכסים משועבדים, because they are not משועבד for the פדיון הבן of the son. So it seems that by us changing the order and first redeeming the son with the five סלעים בני חורין, we are cheating the לוקח. And רש"י says this is not really called cheating, because essentially, as we said before, the מצוה of the father to redeem his son is a מצוה that he is supposed to do, while the מצוה of him redeeming himself is really a מצוה on his father. So by redeeming the son first, we're not cheating the לוקח, because essentially, this is a מצוה on him. So what we do is, we first perform the מצוה that's on him, and we use the five סלעים בני חורין, and now he has the obligation left to redeem himself, and for his פדיון the נכסים are משועבד, and therefore the כהן is able to go to the לוקח, to the buyer, and take away those five סלעים from the נכסים משועבדים. Then the

גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, if a person has an obligation לפדות את בנו, to redeem his son, to perform the מצוה of פדיון הבן on his son, ולעלות לרגל, and he also is obligated to perform the מצוה of עלייה לרגל, which means the מצוה that every איד is supposed to go up to ירושלים for the שלש רגלים, for פסח and שבועות and סוכות. And he only has enough money to do one of the two, so which one of the two מצוות comes first? So the ברייתא says, פודה את בנו, first he redeems his son, ואחר כך עולה לרגל, then he will go up לרגל, then he will perform the מצוה of עלייה לרגל. רבי יהודה אומר, but רבי יהודה says, עולה לרגל ואחר כך פודה את בנו, first he should perform the מצוה of עלייה לרגל, go up to ירושלים, and then he will perform the מצוה of פדיון הבן. And he gives the reason why, שזו מצוה עוברת, because the מצוה of עלייה לרגל is a מצוה that will pass. If he won't perform it now, he missed it, because the next יום טוב will be a separate מצוה, but if he doesn't go up for this יום טוב, he has missed the מצוה of עלייה לרגל for this יום טוב. וזו מצוה שאינה עוברת, but this, the מצוה of פדיון הבן, is a מצוה that will not pass, and if he doesn't perform it now, he could perform it later. So therefore he holds that first you should do the מצוה of עלייה לרגל, and when you get your chance, you will do the מצוה of פדיון הבן. Then the גמרא asks, בשלמא לרבי יהודה כדקאמר טעמא, well, according to רבי יהודה that holds first comes עלייה לרגל then פדיון הבן, as he himself gave the reason. אלא רבנן מאי טעמייהו, but the רבנן who hold that first comes פדיון הבן then עלייה לרגל, what is their reason? And the גמרא answers, דאמר קרא, because the פסוק says, כל בכור בניך תפדה, תורה says every firstborn of your sons you should redeem, והדר, and afterwards the תורה says, ולא יראו פני ריקם, you should not see my face empty. And this refers to the מצוה of עלייה לרגל, that when you go up to ירושלים for יום טוב, you must bring a קרבן, not to go into the בית המקדש empty-handed. But this פסוק that speaks about עלייה לרגל comes after the פסוק that says that you should redeem your sons. So from here he learns out that the מצוה of פדיון הבן comes before the מצוה of עלייה לרגל. Then the גמרא

continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מניין, how do we know, שיהיו לו חמשה בנים מחמש נשים, if a person has five sons from five wives, שחייב לפדות כולן, that he is obligated to redeem them all? תלמוד לומר, so we quote the פסוק it says, כל בכור בניך תפדה, that every son that's your firstborn you should redeem. So here we see that as long as he is a firstborn, you have to redeem him. So even though you might have five firstborns from five wives, you must redeem them all. Then the גמרא asks: פשיטא, isn't that very simple? Why do we need a special פסוק to tell us that? We know that ourselves! דפטר רחם תלא רחמנא. Didn't the תורה make this dependent on the opening of the womb of the mother? When the תורה speaks about פדיון הבן, the תורה says that every firstborn child that opened the womb of his mother, which means he is the first child that came out of the womb of the mother, you are obligated to redeem him. So since the תורה says it depends on the opening of the womb of the mother, so we understand ourselves, and if a person has five wives, and each one is a בכור to his mother, which means each one is the first one that opened the womb of his mother, so you have to redeem him. So why do we need a special פסוק that the case where you have five בכורים from five wives, you must redeem them all? And the גמרא answers: מהו דתימא, I could have thought, ניליף בכור בכור מנחלה, that I should learn out a גזירה שוה, בכור from the דין בכור by נחלה. We find a דין of בכור by the דין of inheritance, that when a person dies and the children inherit, the דין is that the firstborn, the בכור, gets פי שנים, gets a double portion. So there we have a special דין of בכור, so we would think that we should learn out the דין of פדיון הבן, the דין of בכור by פדיון הבן from the דין of בכור by נחלה. And we would say: מה להלן ראשית אונו, just like over there by נחלה, by inheritance, the case of בכור is if he is ראשית אונו, ראשית אונו means the beginning of his strength, which means he is the first child to the father. אף כאן, so here too by the דין of פדיון הבן we would think it means ראשית אונו, it is the first strength of the father, and therefore we would think that a בכור by פדיון הבן is also a בכור of the father. קא משמע לן, that's why we have the פסוק כל בכור בניך תפדה to teach us that by the דין of פדיון הבן, it doesn't depend on the father, but it depends on the mother, and therefore, if you have five בכורים from five wives, you have to redeem them all. Then the גמרא continues to explain the ברייתא.

One of the things a father is supposed to do to the son is ללמדו תורה, to teach him תורה. The גמרא asks: מנלן, how do we know that a father is obligated to teach his son תורה? And the גמרא answers: דכתיב, because the תורה says, ולמדתם אותם את בניכם, that you should teach them the words of תורה to your sons. So here's a clear פסוק that you are obligated to teach your son תורה. And the גמרא continues: והיכא דלא אגמריה אבוה, and whenever the father did not teach him, מחייב איהו למיגמר נפשיה, so he is supposed to teach himself, he's supposed to learn תורה himself. דכתיב, because there's a פסוק that says ולמדתם. And that רש״י says, this is not the same פסוק that we quoted before that ולמדתם אותם את בניכם, this is a פסוק in פרשת ואתחנן, where it says ולמדתם אותם ושמרתם לעשותם, you should learn them and you should be careful to keep them, to do them. So here the תורה is not speaking about a father and a son, the תורה just says you shall learn תורה, you shall learn them, the words of תורה. So from here we see that a person himself is obligated to learn תורה. So therefore the גמרא says that if the father did not teach the son, so then the son himself is obligated to learn תורה. But this is one of the things as we said before, that the mother is not obligated to do. She is not obligated to teach her son תורה. So the גמרא asks: איהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא? She, the mother, how do we know that she is not obligated? And the גמרא answers: דכתיב, ולימדתם, ולמדתם. We could read the word ולמדתם, and we could read the word ולימדתם. לימדתם means you shall teach others, ולמדתם means you shall learn yourself. And since we have these two meanings in the same word, so we compare the two, the learning himself to the teaching others, and we דארשן: כל שמצווה ללמוד, the one that's obligated to learn himself, מצווה ללמד, is obligated to teach others, in this case it means to teach the son, וכל שאינו מצווה ללמוד, and the one that's not obligated to learn himself No, אינו מצווה ללמד, is not obligated to teach others. And therefore, since a woman is not obligated to learn תורה herself, she is not obligated to teach her son. But then the גמרא asks: ואיהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא למיליף נפשה? How do we know that she herself is not supposed to learn, not to teach herself? דכתיב, the גמרא answers, because it says the same לימוד as we said before: ולמדתם ולמדתם, which means to teach others and to learn yourself. The two meanings in the same word, and we דרשן the דרש the same way as we said before: כל שאחרים מצווין ללמדו מצווה ללמד את עצמו, anybody that others are supposed to teach him, he is supposed to learn himself. וכל שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדו, and anybody that others are not obligated to teach him, אין מצווה ללמד את עצמו, is not obligated to teach himself. So here we see that since a woman is there is no obligation on others to teach her, ממילא she has no obligation to learn herself, as we learn out from here from ולמדתם ולמדתם. And now that we know that she is not obligated to learn herself, we know that she is also not obligated to teach others from the same לימוד of ולמדתם ולמדתם. But now the גמרא asks: ומנלן, how do we know, שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדו, that others are not obligated to teach her? And the גמרא answers: דאמר קרא, because the פסוק says: ולמדתם אותם את בניכם, that you shall teach them the words of תורה to your sons, so we דרשן: ולא בנותיכם, and not to your daughters. So here we see that a father is not obligated to teach his daughters תורה. ממילא we learn out that she is not obligated to learn herself, and ממילא we learn out that she is also not obligated to teach her son. Then the גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, הוא ללמוד ובנו ללמוד, if he has to learn himself and he has to teach his son תורה, and he's only able to perform one of the two, הוא קודם לבנו, he comes before his son. That was he should learn himself, and then if he's able to, he will also see that his son will learn. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says: אם בנו זריז וממולח, if his son is better and his son will catch on faster, his son has a better head, ותלמודו מתקיים בידו, and his learning will stay with him, his son has a better memory, so then בנו קודמו, his son comes first. The גמרא brings a story:

כהא דרב יעקב בריה דרב אחא בר יעקב, like a story of רב יעקב, who was the son of רב אחא בר יעקב. שדריה אבוה לקמיה דאביי, his father sent him to learn by אביי. כי אתא, when he came, חזייה, he saw, דלא הוה מחדדין שמעתיה, that the learning was not sharp by him. The father saw that his son was not learning that well. אמר ליה, so he said to him, so רב אחא בר יעקב who was the father said to his son רב יעקב: אנא עדיפנא מינך, I am better than you. תוב את, you should return, ואיזיל אנא, and I will go. שמע אביי דקא אתי, אביי heard that he was coming, that רב אחא בר יעקב was coming. So אביי thought that he will take advantage of the fact that such a great צדיק, רב אחא בר יעקב, was coming to him, because they had a problem, and they wanted to use this that this would solve the problem. What was the problem? הוה ההוא מזיק בי רבנן דאביי. In the ישיבה of אביי, there was this מזיק. There was, it seems like, this one of the מזיקים, one of the שדים that were there. דכי הוו עיילי בתרין אפילו ביממא, that if people would walk in two, even during the day, הוו מיתזקי, they would get damaged. And they wanted to get rid of this מזיק. So they thought that now that רב אחא בר יעקב was coming, they will take advantage of it, and through him they will get rid of this מזיק. אמר להו, so אביי said to them, to the תלמידים: לא לותיב ליה איניש אושפיזא, no one should allow רב אחא בר יעקב to sleep over in his house, אפשר דמתרחיש ניסא, maybe this will be a reason for a נס, for a miracle to happen. על, he came, בת בההוא בי רבנן, he slept over in the בית מדרש of the רבנן. Since no one allowed him to the house, so he had no choice, but he went back to the ישיבה, and he slept over in the ישיבה. אידמי ליה כתנינא דשבעה רישוותיה, so he saw that מזיק, and it looked like a snake with seven heads. כל כריעה דכרע, every time he bent down, he was מתפלל to השם to get rid of this מזיק. And while he was מתפלל, he was כורע, he bent down. So for every כריעה, every bending, דכרע that he bent down, נתר חד רישא, one head fell down. So after seven times, he got rid of this מזיק. אמר להו למחר, the next day רב אחא בר יעקב said to them: אי לא איתרחיש ניסא, if a נס wouldn't happen, סכינתין, you would put me in danger, you would bring a סכנה upon me. But at least we see from this story, the גמרא wants to bring out from here that if one is better than the other, then he comes first in the מצוה of learning תורה. As we see here that first he sent his son to learn, but when he saw that he would be more מצליח than his son, he himself went to learn תורה. Then the גמרא continues,

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, ללמוד תורה ולישא אשה, if a person has these two obligations, to learn תורה and to marry a wife, which one comes first? יילמוד תורה ואחר כך יישא אשה. First let him learn תורה, and then he will marry a wife. ואם אי אפשר לו בלא אשה, but if it is impossible for him to stay without a wife, there are too many bad thoughts going into his mind because he is not married, so then, יישא אשה, let him first marry a wife, ואחר כך יילמוד תורה, then he will learn תורה. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, הלכה, the הלכה is that נושא אשה ואחר כך יילמוד תורה, that he should first marry and then he learn תורה. But רבי יוחנן, אמר רבי יוחנן says, ריחיים בצוארו ויעסוק בתורה? He will have a ריחיים, a mill, on his shoulder, and he will learn תורה? In other words, after he marries and he has the obligation of supporting a family, how can you expect him to learn תורה? So therefore he says first you learn תורה and then you marry. But then the גמרא says, ולא פליגי, there is really no מחלוקת. הא לן, הא להו. This is for us and this is for them. And this means that one is for the people of בבל and one is for the people of ארץ ישראל. And as רש״י explains, the people of בבל used to travel to ארץ ישראל to learn תורה. But רש״י says that since they traveled to ארץ ישראל, so they didn't have this whole obligation of supporting a family because they were away from home anyway, so by them we say first marry and then you will learn תורה. Because the problem of marrying first, that you'll have an obligation of supporting your family upon your head, this doesn't apply in this case because they leave their family anyway. But in ארץ ישראל, where they stayed home and learned תורה, so there they would constantly have the trouble of the family, so there the דין is that first you should learn תורה and then you should marry. This is the way רש״י learns the פשט, but תוספות learns the פשט just opposite, that the people from בבל, since they have to leave home in order to learn תורה, so there we say first learn תורה and then marry. Because you can't marry first and then learn תורה because you will have to leave your home, and since you married, you took upon yourself the obligation of supporting a family, so how can you learn תורה after you marry, which means leaving home after you marry? So therefore the people of בבל should rather first learn תורה and then they should marry. But the people of ארץ ישראל, since they didn't have to go anyplace, plus they were rich and they had enough money to support themselves, so they could marry first and then they would learn תורה, because they would not have the problem of the family on their head anyway, because they were rich, and they were able to support their family, so therefore they could first marry and then learn תורה. Then the גמרא continues,

משתבח ליה רב חסדא לרב הונא בדרב המנונא דאדם גדול הוא. רב חסדא was praising to רב הונא, רב המנונא. He was saying how great רב המנונא is, that רב המנונא, the אדם גדול, is a great man. אמר ליה, so he said to him, לכשיבא לידך, when he will come to you, הביאהו לידי, bring him to me. כי אתא, when he came, חזייה, he saw דלא פריס סודרא, he wasn't wearing this סודר. The סודר was this head covering that people used to wear yet at that time, so he saw that he wasn't wearing this סודר. אמר ליה, so he said to him, מאי טעמא לא פריסת סודרא? Why aren't you wearing this סודר, this covering? אמר ליה, he said to him, דלא נסיבנא, because I am not married. אהדרינהו לאפיה מיניה, he turned his face away from him. ואמר ליה, and he said to him, חזי, I see דלא חזית להו לאפי, that you do not want to look into my face עד דנסבת, till I marry. And by the way, some ספרים say that this is the מקור to the מנהג of the אשכנזים that they do not wear a טלית till after the חתונה. As we see from here that because he wasn't married, he didn't wear that סודר. And the גמרא continues, רב הונא לטעמיה, רב הונא, who did not want to look at him because he wasn't married, goes according to his own reasoning, because he holds, דאמר, he said, בן עשרים שנה ולא נשא אשה, if a person is 20 years old already and he didn't marry a wife yet, כל ימיו בעבירה, so all his life he is with an עבירה. But the גמרא asks, בעבירה סלקא דעתך? How could you say that if a person didn't marry up to 20, all his life he will be actually doing an עבירה? אלא אימא, so the גמרא says, but say, כל ימיו בהרהור עבירה, all his life he will have thoughts of an עבירה. Then the

גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא says, וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, and so did the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל learn, עד עשרים שנה, up to 20 years, יושב הקדוש ברוך הוא, השם sits ומצפה לאדם, and He is waiting ing for the person, מתי ישא אשה, when will he marry a wife? כיון שהגיע כף ולא נשא, as soon as he becomes 20 and he still didn't marry, אומר, השם says, תיפח עצמותיו, let his bones blow up. אמר רב חסדא, רב חסדא said, האי דעדיפנא מחבראי, the reason I am better than my friends, דנסיבנא בשיבסר, because I got married when I was 16 years old. ואי הוה נסיבנא בארביסר, if I would have been married by 14, הוה אמינא, I would be able to say, לסטן, to the שטן, to the יצר הרע, גירא בעינך, that I am teasing you, I could tease in your eyes, which means that he would not be ever afraid of the יצר הרע, he could even tease the יצר הרע, because the earlier you get married, the less thoughts of an עבירה you have, and therefore he would be even stronger to fight the יצר הרע. And the גמרא continues, אמר ליה רבא לרב נתן בר אמי, רבא said to רב נתן בר אמי, עד ידך על צוארי דבריך, as long as your hand is still on the neck of your son, you're still in control of your son, so make sure that he marries. And how much is that? משיבסר ועד עשרין ותרתין, from 16 up to 22. ואמרי לה, and some say, מתמני סרי ועד עשרין וארבע, from 18 up to 24. This is the way רש״י learns in the first פשט, that this גמרא is talking about marrying your son, and the גמרא is saying that from when he becomes 16, that's really the time when you're obligated to see he gets married, up to 22, or according to the second opinion, from 18 up to 24. But then there's another פשט in רש״י, and רש״י says that that is the better פשט, that it's not talking about seeing that your son gets married, but it's generally talking about giving תוכחה, giving מוסר to your son. And what he's saying is that the best time a child is ready to accept מוסר, and that will form his דרך in his life, is from 16 up to 22, because under 16 he's too young yet, after 22 it's already too late. So between 16 and 22, that's the best time you should give תוכחה and מוסר to your son. According to the second opinion, it's from 18 up to 24. Then the גמרא says, כתנאי, that this מחלוקת, whether it's from 16 to 22 or from 18 to 24, really is the same as a מחלוקת דתנאי, because we learn a ברייתא where the ברייתא explains פשט in a פסוק. The פסוק says חנוך לנער על פי דרכו, that you should educate the child in his way, which means in such a way that later on when he grows up he should go according to that right way. Now how old is the נער, is this child that we're saying that that's the time for you to educate him in the proper way? רבי יהודה ורבי נחמיה, there's a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and רבי נחמיה. חד אמר, one says, משיבסר ועד עשרין ותרתין, from 16 up to 22, וחד אמר, and one says, מתמני סרי ועד עשרין וארבע, from 18 up to 24. So there we see clearly that there are two opinions of when is the best time to be מחנך the son, so the same מחלוקת as we had before, whether the time when we said your hand is still on the neck of your son is that from 16 to 22 or from 18 to 24. There are a few important, interesting points to note concerning the גמרא we learned today.

First of all, the גמרא before brought a פסוק that a woman is not obligated to perform the מצוה of מילה on her son, and the פסוק is because it says כאשר צוה אותו ולא אותה, השם commanded him and not her, and the גמרא learned out that this is not only מיד, only for that time, but also לדורות, this is a מצוה that goes on for all generations. But תוספות asks a קשיא, first of all, why do we need a פסוק that a woman is not obligated to perform the מצוה of מילה, when the מצוה of מילה is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? It's a מצוה which has a time limit. Since you have to perform the מצוה of מילה on the eighth day, not before, so מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, and the כלל is, as we learned in the משנה before, that any מצוה which is dependent on a time, women are exempt. So this מצוה, which is also dependent on time, you cannot do it before the eighth day, so the women are exempt automatically. So why does the גמרא have to bring a special פסוק, אותו, and learn out from there, אותו ולא אותה? תוספות says, but since after the eighth day you could do it whenever you want, there is no time, you are always obligated to do it, therefore we feel that this is considered a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, and therefore we need a special פסוק that women are exempt. But then תוספות asks a קשיא, but we know that you could perform the מצוה of מילה only during the day, not at night. Why isn't this considered a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא because of that, since you only could do it certain parts of the day, which means only during the day and not at night? תוספות answers that this גמרא must go according to the מאן דאמר that holds that מילה שלא בזמנה you could do during the day and during the night. Because there is a מאן דאמר that holds that this דין that you're only supposed to do the מצוה of מילה during the day is only if it's a מילה בזמנה. If it's a מילה that's done in its proper time, which is the eighth day from when the child was born, but if for some reason you did not do the מצוה of מילה on its proper time, so now you will have to perform the מילה שלא בזמנה not on its proper time, but there is a מאן דאמר that holds that that you could even do at night. According to that מאן דאמר, we must have a special פסוק, אותו ולא אותה. But there is another תירוץ that could be given.

It's based on what the ראגאטשאווער גאון says in his ספרים, that the מצוה of מילה is a פעולה נמשכת. The ראגאטשאווער says that מצות מילה is not like many other מצות, that when you finish doing the מצוה, the מצוה is done, but he says by מצוה of מילה, it is a פעולה נמשכת, which means it's as if you constantly continue doing the פעולה of מילה. Not only is the פשט that after you perform the מצוה of מילה once, now it is a מצוה that is done, and it's after the fact, but the פעולה itself, the act itself, the circumcision itself, is constantly as if it's being done. So based on that ראגאטשאווער, the פשט is that even though the מצוה of מילה could only be done during the day, but after it's done during the day, it's continuously being done every moment of the child's life, of the person's life, including the night, and therefore it is not a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. This is the way the ליובאוויטשער רבי, in his ספר לקוטי שיחות, answers תוספות's קשיא.

Another interesting thing to note in this סוגיא is, the גמרא brought a ברייתא where it says that a father is obligated to circumcise his son, to perform פדיון הבן, and to teach him תורה. And the גמרא said that if the father did not do these מצות with the son, so then the son is obligated to do it himself. But when we look into the רמב"ם, we see that the רמב"ם uses different expressions concerning the different מצות. When he says that if the father did not perform מילה with the son, then the son is supposed to do this מצוה כשיגדיל, when he grows up, which בפשטות means when he becomes a גדול, when he becomes בר מצוה. The same is concerning the מצוה of פדיון הבן, that when the father did not perform the מצוה of פדיון הבן on the son, so the son is obligated to do it כשיגדיל, when he grows up, when he becomes בר מצוה. But when he speaks about the מצוה of לימוד התורה, that if the father did not teach the son תורה, so then the son is obligated to learn himself, the רמב"ם does not say כשיגדיל, the רמב"ם says כשיכיר, that when he understands, that means that when the child becomes of age that he's able to understand the concept of learning תורה, he is obligated, it seems מדאורייתא, to learn תורה himself. But we have to understand two things here. First of all, how is it possible that the תורה should put a חיוב on a child? How can the תורה say that this child before he is בר מצוה yet, when he's still not a בר דעת, he should have an obligation of learning תורה? And the second question would be, why is the מצוה of learning תורה different than the other מצות? By the other מצות, we say that if the father didn't do it to the son, then the son is obligated to do it when he becomes a גדול. But by the מצוה of לימוד התורה, we say that if the father didn't teach the son, then the son is obligated to learn himself כשיכיר, when he starts understanding the ענין of learning תורה, before he even becomes a גדול. And the

צמח צדק in פסקי דינים, when he explains this רמב"ם, he says that he is מדייק in the words that the רמב"ם uses the לשון כשיכיר here, and it טאקע means, he says, when he is still a קטן as soon as he recognizes. And he says that since the father is obligated to teach his son תורה מדאורייתא, so therefore מדאורייתא, the מצוה is transferred on the son himself, and the son himself has an obligation while he is a קטן to learn תורה. And it seems the פשט is that since the son is the חפצא המצוה, it is not just that the father is obligated to do something to the son, but the son himself is part of the מצוה himself. In other words, the מצוה on the father is to see that his son should learn and understand the תורה. So the understanding of the son, the תורה that he learns, is part of the מצוה of the father. So therefore, the son's learning תורה himself is part of the מצוה. And therefore, if the father does not teach him, this obligation that the son has to learn תורה stays with the son, and therefore, the son is obligated to learn even before he becomes a גדול. And this is the difference between the מצוה of learning תורה and the other מצות that the father is supposed to do to the son. By the other מצות, the son is only the חפץ, that's all. The father is supposed to perform the מצוה of מילה on the son, which means the son is like the object and the father performs the מצוה with this object, which happens to be the son. Or the case of פדיון הבן, the son is the חפץ המצוה, the son is the object with which the father performs the מצוה of פדיון הבן. But the son himself takes no part in the מצוה. While by learning תורה, the מצוה of the father is not just to teach the son, the מצוה of the father is to see that the son learns the תורה, that the son understands. So the מצוה is that the son takes part in the מצוה itself. And therefore, the son, since he is part of the מצוה, not only as a חפצא, but he is part of the מצוה, part in the performance of the מצוה. And therefore, the son is considered a מחוייב בדבר, is obligated to do it, and if the father didn't teach him, he is supposed to learn himself as soon as יכיר, as soon as he understands what the meaning of learning תורה is. Or באמת you could say another thing, it says in the שאלות ותשובות זכרון יוסף, it's brought down in the פתחי תשובה in יורה דעה סימן ש"ה, סעיף קטן כ"ה, there he says like this: that by פדיון הבן and מילה, if he will do it while he is a child, then it will be done, and he won't be able to perform it when he grows up. And since when a child is under בר מצוה, the מצוה is not the same as when he grows up, so by doing the מצוה while he's still a קטן, even though he understands what it means to do the מצוה, but since he's still a קטן, he will be using up the מצוה that when he will be a גדול, he won't be able to perform the מצוה a hundred percent properly. But by learning תורה, even if he learns תורה while he's a קטן, he still will be able to learn תורה while he's a גדול. He is not taking anything away from the מצוה that he will have when he grows up, therefore he is obligated to learn while he's still a קטן.

Another interesting thing to note here is that when the גמרא brings the story of רב אחא בר יעקב, that אביי used him to get rid of the מזיק, so the מהרש"א asks a קושיא that how can he do that when we have a rule that a person should never rely on a נס? Because who knows if the נס will be performed? And the גמרא says even more, that even if השם will perform a נס, מנכין לו מזכיותיו, השם will take away some of his זכיות, some of the good deeds that the person has, some of the זכותים. So therefore here too, when the נס was performed for רב אחא בר יעקב, wouldn't that cause for רב אחא בר יעקב to lose some of his זכותים? So how can אביי do that, to rely on the miracle that would happen through רב אחא בר יעקב? And the מהרש"א answers that really אביי did not rely on the נס that would happen through רב אחא בר יעקב, he relied on the תפילה of רב אחא בר יעקב. He was sure that since רב אחא בר יעקב is such a great צדיק, so השם will accept his תפילה, and if he will מתפלל to get rid of that מזיק, השם will listen to his תפילה and השם will get rid of that מזיק. And in a case where השם listens to a person's תפילה, that is not considered a נס that they take away from his זכות. The only thing, the question was maybe השם will get rid of the מזיק before he even gets a chance to מתפלל, that would be considered a נס, and that would take away from the זכותים. So for that he took a risk, that possibly that it won't happen before the תפילה, so for that he thought it was worth for him to take this risk, and relied that מסתמא it'll be his תפילה that will cause to get rid of the מזיק. And the מהרש"א says that this is what רב אחא בר יעקב meant when he said to them the next day, that if השם wouldn't make a miracle, I would be in danger, because he felt that it wasn't the תפילה that caused to get rid of the מזיק, but it was the נס that השם performed. And therefore he was upset, saying that you caused השם to perform a נס for me, and therefore it is no good, because השם will take away from my זכותים. But really what אביי had in mind was that השם should do it through the תפילה of רב אחא בר יעקב.