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.
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.
