A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) discusses adding a fifth species when the lulav is tied (meuged). Does tying create a halachic entity that makes adding a fifth species "kol hamosif goreia" (whoever adds, detracts)? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that agud creates a tziruf—the three species become one object for nanuim—and therefore adding a fifth is pasul, though not baltosif d'oraita.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion in Sukkah 31b regarding the halachic implications of tying the four species together and what happens when a fifth species is added. The central question is whether adding an extra species to the lulav bundle creates a prohibition of baltosif (adding to a mitzvah (מצוה)) or is categorized as "kol hamosif goreia" (whoever adds, detracts). The Gemara initially suggests that according to the Chachamim, who hold that lulav ein tzorech egid (the lulav does not require tying), adding another species should not be problematic since the species remain halachically separate (halechu d'koi, halechu d'koi—separate they came, separate they remain). However, the Gemara concludes with "kamash mulan" (teaches us otherwise): if the species are tied together (meuged), adding a fifth species is pasul. The shiur explores why this should be so if, according to the Chachamim, tying is merely for beauty (zekher l'Beis Hamikdash) and has no halachic significance.
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 31b
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.
