A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) permit using a shofar of olah despite the issur of me'ilah? The shiur develops a chakira in me'ilah: there's both a din gezeilah (using hekdesh improperly) and a din hana'ah (deriving benefit). Since kol has no me'ilah, using a shofar to produce sound isn't gezeilah, and the hana'ah saguf that accompanies the mitzvah (מצוה) is hana'ah ba'al korcho—permitted.
The Gemara (גמרא) in Rosh Hashanah 28a discusses whether one is yotzei the mitzvah (מצוה) of shofar when using a shofar shel olah (a shofar designated for a korban olah). The issue is that there is an issur me'ilah on such a shofar, yet the Gemara concludes that one is yotzei. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Shofar (Halacha (הלכה) 3) rules that a shofar shel olah may be used, explaining that (1) there is no me'ilah bekol (no me'ilah in sound), and (2) mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu (mitzvos were not given for pleasure). The shiur focuses on understanding the Rambam's reasoning and resolving numerous difficulties. The first major kasha is raised by the Kessef Mishneh (citing the Pri Chadash): the Rambam appears to say that there is hana'ah saguf (physical pleasure) from the sound itself, not just the hana'ah of being yotzei the mitzvah. If so, the answer of "mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu" should only address the hana'ah of the mitzvah, but not the hana'ah saguf. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that one is indeed over an issur (there is hana'ah saguf), but this doesn't prevent being yotzei the mitzvah. The logic is that the principle of "kol d'lo assur Rabbanan lo asah, avad lo mehani" (an act done in violation of a Rabbinic prohibition is ineffective) only applies when invalidating the act removes the issur. Here, even if we invalidate the mitzvah, the hana'ah saguf remains, so the person is still over the averah. Therefore, the mitzvah remains valid, though there is an issur. This principle is compared to kiddushin with chayavei lavin, where the kiddushin is chal even though there is an issur, because invalidating the kiddushin doesn't remove the issur.
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.
