A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't adding a fifth species to the four minim considered bal tosif (adding to a mitzvah (מצוה))? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether items outside the束 (bundle) or not done כדרך מצוה (in the manner of the mitzvah) avoid the prohibition. Tosfos reconciles seeming contradictions between different cases, raising fundamental questions about what constitutes bal tosif and whether kavana (intent) is required.
This shiur analyzes Tosfos on Sukkah 31a regarding the prohibition of bal tosif (adding to a mitzvah (מצוה)) as it applies to the four species (arba minim) taken on Sukkos (סוכות). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone adds a fifth min (species) to the lulav, esrog, hadassim, and aravos, and whether this constitutes a violation of bal tosif. The fundamental question is why there should be no bal tosif when adding an extra species. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the lulav requires an aguddah (binding), the Gemara suggests that if the fifth species is outside the bundle, it's considered halachu dekvar v'halachu dekvar (two separate entities that don't combine), and therefore there's no bal tosif. According to the Rabbanan who hold lulav ain tzorech egged (the lulav doesn't require binding), one might think there's an even stronger reason to say there's no bal tosif, since the species are inherently separate.
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!
Sukkah 31a
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.
