A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can someone who took a vow forbidding benefit from another person still fulfill mitzvos through that person? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between benefiting from a friend versus benefiting from the shofar itself. The shiur explores whether mitzvos require intent (kavanah), analyzing cases of forced matzah-eating and the principle of mitzvos lav lehanot nitnu—mitzvos are not given for enjoyment.
This shiur delves into Rosh Hashanah 28a's discussion of a person who vows not to receive benefit (mudar hana'ah) from another individual and whether this prohibition extends to mitzvah (מצוה) performance. The Gemara (גמרא) presents two cases: one who is forbidden benefit from his friend may still fulfill the mitzvah of tekiat shofar through him, and one forbidden benefit from the shofar itself may still be yotzei the mitzvah. Tosfot asks why the second case is necessary if we already know from the first that "mitzvos lav lehanot nitnu"—mitzvos are not given for pleasure. The shiur suggests that the first case might only apply where the issur derives from the person, not from the object of mitzvah itself. Rabbi Zweig examines whether the principle of "mitzvos lav lehanot nitnu" means there is literally no pleasure in performing mitzvos, or whether it means that even when there is physical pleasure, it doesn't constitute prohibited benefit because the Torah (תורה) commands the action. He explores this through the Gemara's case of one forbidden benefit who goes to the mikvah: in hot weather (geshem) the immersion is permitted, but in cold weather (cham) when there is physical pleasure from cooling off, it is forbidden. Rashi (רש"י) explains that the mitzvah itself provides no benefit, but the bodily pleasure of cooling off is real hana'ah.
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.
