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.
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.
