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.
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.
