A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does adding a fifth min to the lulav violate Baal Tosif? The shiur analyzes three Rishonim—Tosafos (תוספות), Rambam (רמב"ם), and Rabbeinu Chananel—who disagree on whether the prohibition applies inside the agudah, outside it, or both, and whether the issur is d'Oraysa or d'Rabbanan according to Rav Yehuda and the Chachamim.
This shiur analyzes the complex dispute among Rishonim regarding when adding to the arba minim constitutes a violation of Baal Tosif (the prohibition of adding to a mitzvah (מצוה)). The central question is whether the issur is Biblical or Rabbinic, and whether it depends on the placement of the additional species—inside or outside the agudah (bundle). The Gemara (גמרא) in Sukkah 31a-b discusses the halacha (הלכה) k'Rav Yehuda—meaning that a lulav requires an agudah—and whether this makes adding species outside the bundle permissible (since it is excluded from the mitzvah) or prohibited. The Gemara states pshita ein mosifen (it is obvious one may not add), yet the word pshita implies there should have been a tzad to permit it. The shiur explores why the Gemara needed to teach this.
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 31a-b
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.
