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.
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.
