A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule one makes "al netilas lulav" after picking up the lulav, contradicting his own principle that no bracha can be made after fulfilling a mitzvah (מצוה)? The shiur develops a yesod that the mitzvah of netilas lulav extends beyond the initial picking up—through the minhag Anshei Yerushalayim of continuous holding—making the bracha on the ongoing fulfillment, not a completed act.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental contradiction within the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings on Birchat Netilas Lulav. In Hilchot Brachos (11:16), the Rambam rules that after one picks up the lulav, having already been yotzei the mitzvah (מצוה), one makes "al netilas lulav," but if one makes the bracha before picking it up, the nusach is "litol lulav." This contradicts the Rambam's own principle (Hilchot Brachos 11:6-7) that once a mitzvah is completed, no bracha can be made—as demonstrated by his ruling that one cannot make a bracha on shechita after the shechita is done. Yet in Hilchot Lulav (7:6), the Rambam rules that before picking up the bound lulav (agudah), one makes "al netilas lulav." Rabbi Zweig presents three major kashas on the Rambam: (1) The Raavad's question—if the bracha after picking up the lulav is for future mitzvos (na'anuim or the minhag Anshei Yerushalayim), why isn't it "litol" like "lehisateif patzitzis" when one forgets to make a bracha on tzitzis? Future-oriented brachos should use "le," not "al." (2) The Kivegur's question—the Gemara (גמרא) states "kol hamitzvot kulam mevarech over la'asiyatan chutz min ha'tefillin"; if lulav allows a bracha after picking it up, shouldn't it say "chutz min ha'tefillin v'lulav"? (3) The Kesef Mishna's question—there is an apparent contradiction between Hilchot Brachos (where the Rambam discusses making the bracha after picking up) and Hilchot Lulav (where he rules to make it before picking up).
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 38b
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.
