A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does adding a fifth species to the lulav violate bal tosif? The shiur distinguishes between two types of bal tosif—adding to the cheftza shel mitzvah (מצוה) versus performing two complete ma'aseh mitzvahs—and develops Rabbeinu Chananel's approach that the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion concerns whether one fulfills the mitzvah, not whether one transgresses bal tosif.
The shiur undertakes a complex analysis of Sukkah 31a-b, focusing on the sugya of adding to the arba minim and whether this constitutes bal tosif. The central question is whether adding a fifth species (such as an extra lulav or esrog) invalidates the mitzvah (מצוה) or violates bal tosif. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the dispute between Tosfos and Rabbeinu Chananel regarding the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement "keshem she'im pochas kach im mosif alav." Tosfos understands this applies even within the agudah (bundle), while Rabbeinu Chananel limits the discussion to cases within the agudah according to the Rabanan. The fundamental question is whether adding minim is problematic according to Rabbi Yehuda (who holds lulav tzorech agudah) versus the Chachamim (who hold lulav ein tzorech agudah).
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.
