A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If someone sits down to eat without first taking the lulav, must they interrupt their meal? The Gemara (גמרא)'s debate centers on whether "yitol al hashulchan" imposes an issur achilah (prohibition to eat) or merely a mitzvah (מצוה) l'chatchilah to pause. Rashi (רש"י) reads Rav Zeira as fundamentally reinterpreting the Mishna: the obligation is only l'chatchilah—a precautionary measure (shema yishkach v'yivsha) rather than an absolute prohibition, applicable to d'rabbanan but perhaps not d'oraita obligations.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Masechta Sukkah (38a) concerning the halachic obligation to interrupt one's meal if one has not yet fulfilled the mitzvah (מצוה) of lulav. The Mishna states that if someone is on the road without a lulav, upon arriving home they should take it "al hashulchan" (at the table), and the lulav is valid all day. Rashi (רש"י) clarifies that "im shachach" means if one forgot—distinguishing between negligence (posheia), forgetfulness (shachach), and circumstances beyond one's control (oines). The Gemara (גמרא) asks a fundamental question: is there a contradiction between our Mishna, which seems to require interrupting a meal for lulav (a d'oraita obligation), and the din by Mincha, where the Gemara states "hischilu ein mafsik" (if they began eating, they need not interrupt)? Rashi explains that the case of "hischilu" refers to someone who started eating during the half-hour before Mincha when Chazal said one should not begin a meal, yet if one did begin, there is no requirement to interrupt.
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 38a
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.
