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.
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.
