A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a dried lulav (yoveish) disqualified all seven days when hidur mitzvah (מצוה) ordinarily isn't me'akev? The shiur analyzes three approaches: Rashi (רש"י) holds the seven-day requirement flows from zecher l'mikdash where hidur mitzvah is me'akev because of kavod Shem Shamayim. Tosafot distinguishes ikar lekicha from hidur mitzvah. The Ramban (רמב"ן) learns the Gemara (גמרא) refers to the Torah (תורה)-level mikdash obligation, creating a chakira between the gevulin mitzvah (lekachtem) and the mikdash mitzvah (u'smachtem).
The shiur presents an intricate analysis of Sukkah 29b, examining why a dried lulav (yoveish) is disqualified all seven days of Sukkos (סוכות) when the general principle is that hidur mitzvah (מצוה) does not invalidate a mitzvah object. The discussion revolves around three major approaches: Rashi (רש"י), Tosafot, and Ramban (רמב"ן), each offering fundamentally different understandings of the Gemara (גמרא)'s structure. According to Rashi and Tosafot, the Gemara is addressing a rabbinic decree (din derabanan) that extends the requirement of hadar to all seven days as a commemoration of the mikdash (zecher l'mikdash). Rashi explains that the requirement flows from the concept that zecher l'mikdash creates a framework where hidur mitzvah becomes me'akev (invalidating). The shiur develops that Rashi distinguishes between two types of mitzvos: the gevulin obligation (taking the lulav outside the mikdash) and the mikdash obligation (taking it in the Temple). In the mikdash context, where one is being makir Shem Shamayim (acknowledging God's Name), hidur mitzvah is me'akev even though it normally would not be. Since our seven-day rabbinic observance is zecher l'mikdash, it inherits this stringency.
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 29b
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.
