A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why are you yotzei with a stolen shofar but not stolen matzah? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira in mitzvah (מצוה) bo ba'aveira: only when the aveira leaves a "roshem" (residual effect) in the object itself does it become pasul—gezel attaches to a physical item but not to sound or land, which explains the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s seemingly contradictory pesakim across Hilchos Shofar, Matzah, and Sukkah.
This shiur analyzes the sugya of shofar she'olah in Rosh Hashanah 28a, exploring the fundamental question of when the principle of mitzvah (מצוה) bo ba'aveira (a mitzvah performed through a sin) disqualifies the performance of a mitzvah. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a machlokes between Rav Yehuda and Rav regarding a shofar of olah (burnt offering): Rav Yehuda holds that if you blew it without permission (lo nitka), you are not yotzei, but if meila occurred (imtaka—the object left hekdesh status), you are yotzei. With a shofar of shelamim (peace offering), even if meila occurred, you are not yotzei. Rav disagrees, holding that in both cases you are not yotzei because mitzvas la'asos henos ninhu—the mitzvah of shofar is defined by the act of producing sound, not deriving benefit. The shiur highlights Tosafos (תוספות)'s fundamental difficulty: if Rav Yehuda holds that mitzvah bo ba'aveira applies (which is why you're not yotzei with a stolen or forbidden shofar), why is there a distinction between olah and avodah zarah? The Gemara states that with a shofar of avodah zarah, if you blew it without permission you are not yotzei, but if imtaka (it left its forbidden status), you are yotzei. This parallels the olah case. But with shelamim, even after meila, you remain not yotzei. What is the difference? The gedolei acharonim offer two approaches: (1) the principle "mila'asta Rachmana l'cah ovdei avodah l'machani"—the Torah (תורה) forbids an act, so if performing it wouldn't constitute a mitzvah, it wouldn't be an aveira either; therefore the lack of mitzvah validity prevents the aveira, making the act pasul; (2) mitzvah bo ba'aveira itself is the operative principle.
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.
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.
