No community start suggestion yet.
Why do the sages both prohibit sitting with one's body in the sukkah while keeping the table outside AND nullify the mitzvah (מצוה) fulfillment? This double penalty is unprecedented among Rishonim on other mitzvos. The analysis of Tosafot and the Rambam (רמב"ם) reveals that when people have easy alternatives but might ignore rabbinic guidance for convenience, both measures are needed to give proper 'teeth' to the legislation.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of a fundamental disagreement among Rishonim regarding the rabbinic authority to prohibit Torah (תורה) commandments, focusing on the specific case of sukkah observance. The shiur begins by reviewing three major positions: Rabbeinu Yonah holds that sages cannot prohibit Torah-mandated actions except by including them under existing rabbinic prohibitions (like making lulav muktzeh on Shabbos (שבת)). The Ramban (רמב"ן) agrees in principle but requires the sages to completely nullify the mitzvah (מצוה) rather than merely prohibit it. The Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes between different mitzvos - by shofar he prohibits due to rabbinic decree, while by lulav he creates a specific prohibition without necessarily nullifying the mitzvah obligation. The central focus shifts to an unusual position in Tosafot regarding sukkah laws, where someone sits with their head and majority (rosho v'rubo) in the sukkah but keeps their table outside in the house. Tosafot rules this is both prohibited AND the person does not fulfill the mitzvah obligation - a double penalty that seems unprecedented among the Rishonim. This creates a fundamental question: why would the sages both prohibit an action AND nullify the mitzvah fulfillment, rather than employing just one of these measures?
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!
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.
Up Next in this Series
Why does saying Ashrei three times daily guarantee a share in the World to Come? The verse 'umasbia l'chol chai ratzon' reveals that God provides not just sustenance but pleasure to all creation out of pure love. This recognition teaches us that even basic needs are expressions of divine chesed, creating the foundation for love-motivated service through both major and minor mitzvos.
Why does halacha forbid entering dangerous places if everything happens by Divine decree? The shiur examines the debate between Rashi and Tosfos on traveling at night, developing a fundamental distinction: Rashi holds one must avoid even deserved punishments that Hashem delays through mercy, while Tosfos holds the prohibition addresses self-inflicted harm through free will. This framework reveals how people rationalize self-destructive behavior as "hashgacha."
Why does the Gemara praise hospitality to scholars as a unique mitzvah rather than ordinary hachnasas orchim? The shiur distinguishes two mitzvahs: hachnasas orchim (providing for those in need) and connecting to talmidei chachamim (cleaving to God through scholars). Yisro's meal for the Jewish leaders wasn't charity—it was his way of bonding with those transformed by Torah, teaching that learning must fundamentally change who we are.
Sukkah 2a
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!
Should one learn Torah full-time trusting in Divine providence, or combine learning with work? The shiur distinguishes between Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's approach of complete separation from worldly concerns versus Rabbi Shmuel's view that proper work itself becomes part of Torah. The key insight: true emunah means learning without demanding sustenance from either Hashem or community, unlike having a 'contract' expecting payment for learning.
