A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the mitzvah (מצוה) of shofar to blow an instrument (tekiah) or to hear the sound (shemiyah)? The shiur resolves this tension by explaining that shofar is a chefetz of tefillah—an appendage to the person speaking, not an independent musical instrument. This yesod answers the classic kashyas: how shlichut works for a mitzvah shebe'gufo, and why a cheresh or katan cannot fulfill the mitzvah.
This shiur addresses a fundamental machloket Rishonim about the nature of the mitzvah (מצוה) of shofar on Rosh Hashanah. The Gemara (גמרא) in Rosh Hashanah 26a presents two seemingly contradictory principles: the requirement that a bar chiyuv (obligated person) blow the shofar suggests a mitzvah of tekiah (blowing), while the requirement that one hear the actual sound of the shofar (not an echo in a bor) indicates a mitzvah of shemiyah (hearing). The Maran Habib, Chasam Sofer, and Shaagas Aryeh all grapple with this tension. The Maran Habib suggests that there are two aspects to the mitzvah: both tekiah and shemiyah, which must occur simultaneously. This creates a difficulty: if there is a mitzvah of tekiah, how can one person blow shofar as a shaliach for another? It would be a mitzvah shebe'gufo (a mitzvah that must be performed personally), like putting on tefillin. The Maran Habib proposes a special derasha from "Yom Teruah Yihiyeh Lachem" to permit shlichut, but this is a difficult approach.
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!
Rosh Hashanah 26a
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.
