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.
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.
