A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't you blow a shofar that came from an olah korban? The shiur examines whether the prohibition stems from meila, mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah b'aveira, or lo yachel. Rashi (רש"י), the Rambam (רמב"ם), and Tosafos (תוספות) disagree on the basic mechanism—and each position reshapes how we understand kiyum mitzvah, hana'ah from mitzvos, and the interplay between issur and kol (sound).
This shiur is a deep analysis of Rosh Hashanah 28a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling that one may not blow a shofar taken from an olah offering, but if one does so b'shogeg, one is yotzei. The shiur opens with Rashi (רש"י)'s question: the Gemara states that after zerikas ha-dam (casting the blood), there is no meila in the hide or horns of an olah, so when was the shofar removed? Rashi explains it must have been taken before zerika. The Kesef Mishna asks: why didn't Rashi simply say it was after shechita (slaughter) but before zerika? This small textual difficulty opens the door to a much larger conceptual inquiry. Rabbi Zweig explores three fundamental approaches to explaining why shofar shel olah is problematic. The first approach, associated with the Tur and some Rishonim, is that the problem is mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah b'aveira—a mitzvah performed through a transgression is invalid. According to this view, by blowing a shofar that still has the status of hekdesh (or that was removed in violation of issur hana'ah), the mitzvah is tainted. The shiur notes that Tosafos (תוספות) in Sukkah holds that mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira is only a rabbinic disqualification, and only when the aveira was done b'shogeg does one become yotzei. This generates a question on the Rambam (רמב"ם), who paskens that if one blows a shofar shel olah, one is yotzei, without distinguishing between shogeg and meizid—suggesting the Rambam does not accept Tosafos's framework.
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 28a
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.
