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.
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.
