A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a par's horn disqualified for shofar? The Mishna says it's called "keren," but Rabbeinu Yosef argues all shofars are called keren. The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s approach—that the issue is the absence of the term "shofar"—versus other Rishonim who hold it's passul only because the Torah (תורה) specifically calls it keren. A deeper exploration ties this to the principle of "ein kateigor naaseh saneigor."
The shiur opens with the Mishna on Rosh Hashanah 26a, which states that all shofars are kosher except for the horn of a par (cow), because a par's horn is called a "keren" rather than a "shofar." Rabbeinu Yosef challenges this, asserting that all shofars are also called keren, which would seem to disqualify all of them. This leads to a fundamental question: Is the disqualification of par based on it being called keren, or on it not being called shofar? Rashi (רש"י)'s position emerges as central to the analysis. Rashi understands the Mishna to mean that the par is disqualified because it lacks the name "shofar," not merely because it is called keren. According to Rashi, a horn must be called shofar to be kosher, whether in the language of the Torah (תורה) or in common parlance (as the Meiri explains, "melashon bnei adam"). This reading implies that if something is neither called keren nor shofar, it would be disqualified.
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 26a
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.
