A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What happens when someone blows one long tekiah intending it to count as both the conclusion of one set and the start of another? The shiur analyzes the dispute between the Ritz Gayus, the Rambam (רמב"ם), and other Rishonim. Ultimately, the Rambam's position is that such conflicting kavana invalidates even the first set entirely because the deficiency is in the kavana—the essential structure of tekiah-teruah-tekiah—not merely in the sound itself.
This shiur analyzes a complex discussion on Rosh Hashanah 27a regarding a person who blows shofar with the intention that one elongated tekiah should serve as both the concluding tekiah of one set (tashrat) and the opening tekiah of the next set (tarat). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that this does not work—"ein omrim"—but the exact rationale and consequences are debated by the Rishonim. The Ritz Gayus (Ritva according to many) holds that such a person does not even complete the first set. He has only taf-reish (tekiah-teruah) but lacks the final tekiah of the first set, because his intention for the second set disqualifies the sound from serving the first. Other Rishonim disagree and hold that he does complete the first set (tarat), but he lacks the opening tekiah of the second set. The Ramban (רמב"ן) raises several challenges to the Ritz Gayus: Why isn't the extraneous sound (the long tekiah intended for the wrong set) considered a "kol mafsik" that invalidates everything? And how can this be worse than "tekiah rishonah," which the Gemara says is valid even without intent?
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 27a
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.
