A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does lulav require being bundled, or may the four species be taken separately? The shiur analyzes Sukkah 30b on the principle of "lulav ein tzorech agudah." If bundling is optional, how does the Gemara (גמרא)'s challenge from shomeir meis'ah make sense? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s presentation of these halachos in Perek 7 (sections 6–9) raises fundamental questions about the order, din of right-hand vs. left, taking them individually vs. together, and the requirement that all four species be "mutzuyim etzlo."
This shiur focuses on Sukkah 30b and the halachos of taking the arba'ah minim (four species) on Sukkos (סוכות), specifically addressing the question of whether the lulav must be bundled together with the hadassim and aravos or whether they may be taken separately. The central Gemara (גמרא) principle discussed is "lulav ein tzorech agudah" – the lulav does not require bundling. However, this principle generates a series of difficulties. The shiur opens with a fundamental question on the Gemara's challenge from shomeir meis'ah (an item acquired through wrongdoing). The Gemara asks: if one took lulav through shomeir meis'ah, can one recite a berachah? The assumption underlying this question is that even though lulav ein tzorech agudah, if one took it as shomeir meis'ah, bundling would still be required. But the Gemara answers that there is no berachah because it is "acharei yeush" (after the owner despaired). Rabbi Zweig raises a more serious challenge: on daf 31a, the Gemara discusses a case of "gozel eitz v'sich v'chem" (stealing wood and building with it), where the halacha (הלכה) is that due to takanas hashavim (the enactment for penitents), one fulfills the obligation with the stolen item and even makes a berachah. How can this be reconciled with the principle that one cannot make a berachah on a mitzvah (מצוה) done through an aveirah?
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 30b
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.