A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the disqualification of excessive berries (anavim merubim) on hadas a defect in the species itself or merely in appearance (hadar)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s shakla v'tarya explores whether fixing the hadas on Yom Tov constitutes a Torah (תורה)-level tikun mana. The maskana suggests that it's only a rabbinic defect in appearance, which resolves whether dichui applies and explains why the Rambam (רמב"ם) permits its use even when fixed l'achilah.
This shiur analyzes the complex sugya in Sukkah 33a-b regarding the halachic status of a hadas (myrtle branch) that has excessive berries (anavim merubim) covering its leaves. The fundamental question is whether this disqualification constitutes a defect in the species itself (chasaron ba-min) or merely an aesthetic deficiency (chasaron ba-hadar). This distinction has profound implications for the laws of dichui (when an object is "pushed off" from mitzvah (מצוה) use) and for whether one may fix the hadas on Yom Tov. The shiur begins by examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s initial assumption (havamina) that removing the berries on Yom Tov would constitute tikun mana (preparing a vessel), which is prohibited. However, the Gemara questions whether dichui mekara (disqualification from the outset, before Yom Tov began) constitutes genuine dichui. The Gemara's answer involves the principle of "islei Hoshana achrina" (if one has another lulav set available), suggesting that when an alternative exists, there is no prohibition.
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 33a-b
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.
