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.
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.
