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.
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.
