A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Are blackberries on a hadas merely a cosmetic blemish (psul hadar), or do they change it into a non-hadas (chasaron in the min)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s proof from hilchos niddah that red berries share black's status suggests the issue is min, not beauty. This foundational chakira addresses the Magen Avrohom's question why the Rama rules differently for esrog spots (pasul all seven days) versus hadas berries (pasul only Yom Tov Rishon).
This shiur analyzes Sukkah 33a, focusing on the din of hadassim (myrtle branches) that have black berries. The central question is whether such berries constitute merely a blemish in hadar (beauty), or whether they fundamentally change the object into something that is not min hadas (not of the species of myrtle). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that if there are more blackberries than leaves (anavim merubos), the hadas is pasul. Rashi (רש"י) understands the entire sugya as discussing a case where the hadassim were already bound (bagud) before Yom Tov. The question arises: if berries are removed on Yom Tov after the bundle was made, is there a problem of ein ma'atin b'Yom Tov (not reducing on Yom Tov), and does the din of dechi (rejection) apply?
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
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.
