No community start suggestion yet.
Why do Rav Levi bar Chama and Rava argue whether shofar blowing is forbidden on Shabbos (שבת)? The shiur identifies three distinct aspects of shofar: prayer (Rashi (רש"י)), preparation for Yom HaDin (Ramban (רמב"ן)), and Yovel freedom proclamation (Tosafos (תוספות)). Only the Yovel aspect constitutes potential melacha since it accomplishes concrete change, while prayer and judgment preparation remain permissible as 'chochma v'einah malacha.'
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Masechta Shabbos (שבת) 131b, addressing fundamental questions about the nature of shofar blowing on Rosh Hashanah and its permissibility on Shabbos. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the machlokes between Rav Levi bar Chama, who holds that blowing shofar is assur d'oraisa on Shabbos, and Rava, who maintains there is no such issur because it is 'chochma v'einah malacha' (wisdom but not work). The shiur addresses several kashas (difficulties) raised by the Turim and Eliyahu Zuta, including how Chachamim can institute a third tekiah if there's an issur d'oraisa, how one can blow shofar in cases of safek, and why shofar was blown to signal the end of Yom Tov before Shabbos. The analysis reveals three distinct aspects of tekiah shofar according to different Rishonim. According to Rashi (רש"י), shofar blowing is fundamentally a tefillah (prayer), as evidenced by his commentary that the bent shofar of Rosh Hashanah reflects the bent posture of prayer, and his interpretation of 'zichron teruah' as requiring the recitation of zichronos and shofros passages to give meaning to the shofar sounds. The Ramban (רמב"ן) presents a second aspect: shofar on Rosh Hashanah is connected to Yom Kippur and serves as preparation for the Day of Judgment. Tosafos (תוספות) introduces a third dimension: every tekiah shofar has an aspect of Yovel, learning from the gezeirah shavah between Rosh Hashanah and Yovel that they share the same essence - both involve proclaiming freedom and renewal. The resolution of the machlokes hinges on understanding that only the Yovel aspect of shofar constitutes a potential issur d'oraisa on Shabbos, because Yovel accomplishes concrete changes (freeing slaves, returning land). The tefillah and Yom HaDin aspects are merely 'chochma v'einah malacha.' When the Torah (תורה) says 'zichron teruah' regarding Shabbos, it indicates that on Shabbos, shofar retains only its prayer aspect, without the Yovel dimension. This explains why Rava permits shofar on Shabbos - because the Shabbos shofar lacks the accomplishment aspect that would create an issur. The shiur concludes by explaining how this resolves various practical questions, including why missing shofar due to Shabbos doesn't necessarily portend a bad year (since the prayer aspect is preserved), while missing it due to other circumstances (when the Yovel aspect is also lost) does create a deficiency.
Masechta Shabbos 131b
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.
Up Next in this Series
How can Shabbos observance atone for the idolatry of Enosh's generation? The Rambam's reading shows that generation sought God through physical intermediaries rather than direct connection. Proper Shabbos observance creates authentic divine experience that naturally displaces attraction to spiritual substitutes - like tasting real coffee exposes ersatz as meaningless.
Why does the Gemara say one Shabbos protects from Amalek while two Shabboses bring redemption? The shiur applies a principle from Kiddushin about repetition changing psychology: the first time doing anything is experimental, but the second demonstrates genuine desire. True Shabbos connection with Hashem requires moving beyond spiritual curiosity to authentic internalization.
Why does the Gemara pray to be 'among those who eat three meals on Shabbos' rather than simply to fulfill the mitzvah? The shiur develops that Shabbos eating means 'tasting the day itself' - mindful appreciation that connects us to Shabbos's spiritual quality. This requires discipline and community support, with three meals corresponding to distinct phases of Shabbos time.
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.
