A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can you fix a disqualified lulav on Yom Tov? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s debate over dichui mikor versus nir venitztchu and whether the principle of beyado (something in your hands to fix) applies. Tosafos (תוספות)'s position that beyado helps only for dichui mikor but not nir venitztchu leads to a fundamental investigation of what constitutes "pushing away" from a mitzvah (מצוה).
This shiur examines Masechta Sukkah 33a-b, focusing on the halachic principle of dichui (disqualification) as it applies to the four species, particularly the lulav. The central question is whether something disqualified from use on Yom Tov can be fixed on Yom Tov itself, and what role the concept of beyado (being in one's hands/power to fix) plays in that determination. The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between two types of dichui: dichui mikor (pushed away from the outset) and nir venitztchu (became disqualified). Rabbi Zweig explains that according to Rashi (רש"י), dichui mikor is not considered true dichui—it's not genuinely disqualified. The debate centers on whether beyado creates an exception to dichui rules.
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 33a-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.
