A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When hadas has anovim merubas (abundant berries), may it be fixed on Yom Tov? The shiur develops the Gemara (גמרא)'s shakla v'tarya: is this a deficiency in the species itself or merely in appearance? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling—that it's kosher even without removal after day one—reveals that the maskana treats it as a yofi issue, not a min deficiency, eliminating dichui concerns entirely.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Sukkah 33a-b, focusing on the halachic status of hadas (myrtle) that has anovim merubas (berries covering most of the leaves) and whether it may be fixed on Yom Tov. The Taz raises a fundamental question: if the Gemara's uncertainty about dichui applies, why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) permit using it even when it's nir v'nitzcha (rejected and then became fit) on Yom Tov itself? The shiur presents the Kesef Mishneh's approach that since it's b'yodo (within one's ability) to fix on Yom Tov, there's no dichui problem. However, this creates difficulties: the Gemara should have simply said "da'as l'hoshana achrina" (intending to use a different one), and the Pri Megadim asks why the Gemara needs to invoke chasmana d'alma (mere designation) when b'yodo should suffice.
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.
