A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can Rashi (רש"י) use the term "pasul" when describing a stolen lulav, given that the deficiency is merely "lachem"—a lack of ownership rather than a flaw in the object itself? The shiur analyzes Rashi's understanding that "lachem" creates an actual disqualification because someone else's ownership introduces a foreign element into the mitzvah (מצוה). It also explores Rashi's definition of lulav as "kaf shel tamar," requiring both backbone and leaves as essential components.
This shiur on Sukkah 29b offers a close reading of Rashi (רש"י) on the Mishna dealing with disqualified lulavim. Rabbi Zweig opens by noting that Rashi defines "lulav" as "kaf shel tamar" (palm branch), which seems to be more than a simple translation—it establishes that a lulav consists of two essential components: the backbone (shedra) and the leaves together. This definition becomes critical for understanding later Rashis in the Mishna. The central focus of the shiur is Rashi's statement that a stolen lulav is "pasul" because of the requirement "ulakachtem lachem"—it must be yours. Rabbi Zweig raises a fundamental question: how can Rashi use the term "pasul" (disqualified) for something that is merely lacking the status of "lachem"? The word "pasul" implies an inherent defect or flaw in the object itself—a mum in the chefetz. Yet the problem with a stolen lulav is not that anything is wrong with the lulav; it simply doesn't belong to you. The deficiency is in the ownership relationship, not in the physical object. This seems to be a misuse of terminology—one should say "lo yatza" (the obligation is not fulfilled) rather than "pasul."
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 29b
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.
