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.
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.
