A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does taking the lulav with the left hand invalidate the mitzvah (מצוה)? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between netilat lulav (taking) and naanuim (waving): the right-hand requirement is only lechatechila for netila but me'akev (invalidating) for naanuim, since naanuim has a status of avodah similar to korbanot. This resolves disagreements between the Rama and Mechaber and explains the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s repetition of halachot.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the halachic requirement to take the lulav with the right hand, particularly addressing the positions of the Mechaber and Rama in Shulchan Aruch regarding a left-handed person (iter yad). The Machaber rules that a left-handed person takes the lulav the same way as everyone else (in the right hand), while the Rama holds that a left-handed person takes it in his own left hand (which for him has the status of a right hand). The Rama adds that if a left-handed person took it in his right hand, he is still yotzei b'dieved. The Taz raises three fundamental questions on this position: First, from the Gemara (גמרא) it appears that the right-hand requirement is only lechatechila (optimal) based on the reasoning that there are three mitzvos here versus one mitzvah (מצוה) with tefillin, so there is no logic to make it me'akev b'dieved. Second, the Gemara asks why one who carries lulav to reshut harabim isn't exempt based on toved var mitzvah—why doesn't the Gemara answer that he took it in his left hand rather than answering that he took it upside down? Third, why don't the poskim suggest taking it with the left hand first as an eitzah for bracha over la'asiyasa, rather than the more difficult solution of taking it upside down?
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 30b
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.