A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) give a unique reason for lulav yayvesh being pasul—saying it lacks hadar because "mitzvah (מצוה) mehudar"—when the Gemara (גמרא) already teaches that yayvesh is pasul through a hekesh to esrog? The shiur explores the tension between Rashi's approach and the Gemara's explicit reasoning. A parallel difficulty emerges with the Rambam (רמב"ם), who rules lulav yayvesh is kosher beshas hadchak, contradicting the Mishna's unqualified "pasul" and raising the Raavad's strong objection.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the laws of arba minim: why is a dried lulav (lulav yayvesh) disqualified? The Gemara (גמרא) on daf chaf tes amud beis in Sukkah provides a clear answer—lulav yayvesh is pasul because of a hekesh (textual linkage) between lulav and esrog. Just as esrog must fulfill the requirement of "pri eitz hadar" (a beautiful fruit), so too lulav must meet the standard of hadar (beauty) through this hekesh. According to this reasoning, a dried lulav lacks hadar and is therefore invalid. Rashi (רש"י), however, introduces an apparently different reason. On the phrase "lulav yayvesh," Rashi writes that it is pasul because one needs "mitzvah (מצוה) mehudar"—a beautiful mitzvah object. This formulation suggests that the disqualification stems from a general principle of beautifying mitzvos, rather than from the specific hekesh between lulav and esrog taught by the Gemara. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that Rashi himself clearly holds of the hekesh—elsewhere, when discussing other blemishes in the lulav such as nikdam rosho (the top was cut off) or nifretzu alav (the leaves separated), Rashi explicitly states these are pasul because they lack hadar, which comes from the hekesh to esrog.
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.
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.
