A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) permit women to blow shofar despite shvus concerns but forbid tefillin due to guf naki issues? The shiur resolves the Shagas Aryeh's question through a chiddush about tekiah shel mitzvah (מצוה): when women blow for themselves, their voluntary mitzvah creates valid tekiah shel mitzvah, eliminating shvus problems entirely.
This shiur examines a fundamental question raised by the Shagas Aryeh (siman kuf dalet) regarding the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings on women and mitzvos aseh she'hazman grama. The core issue revolves around an apparent contradiction: the Rambam permits women to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah despite the prohibition of shvus (rabbinic prohibition against unnecessary shofar blowing), yet forbids women from wearing tefillin due to concerns about guf naki (bodily cleanliness), even though both involve potential halachic problems alongside mitzvah (מצוה) performance. The shiur explores the dispute between two Rishonim: the Baal Ittur, who holds that only women themselves may blow shofar but men who have already fulfilled their obligation cannot blow for women, and Rav Yosef, who permits men to blow for women. The Baal Ittur's position is based on the principle that once a man has fulfilled his shofar obligation, his subsequent blowing constitutes a shvus violation. The traditional minhag in Ashkenaz was for men to blow shofar for women before davening, specifically before they themselves became yotzei.
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 with references to Chagigah 16b
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
