A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does adding a fifth species to the four minim constitute bal tosef? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute among Tosafot, Rabbeinu Chananel, and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding whether bal tosef creates an issur, a psul, or both, and whether the principle of halachuda koi v'halachuda koi eliminates bal tosef entirely or only affects the status of the kol hamosef gorei'a.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Sukkah 31b, focusing on the halachic and conceptual dimensions of bal tosef when taking the four minim. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that holding additional species beyond the required four creates a problem of bal tosef, even without tying them together. The central question is whether this violation constitutes an issur, renders the mitzvah (מצוה) invalid (kol hamosef gorei'a), or both. The shiur begins with the Tur Poskim's position that even holding extra minim without an agudah (binding) constitutes bal tosef, requiring kavanah l'shem mitzvah to transgress. The Beit Yosef challenges this from a Gemara indicating that during the time of the mitzvah (bizmanon), no kavanah is needed for bal tosef. The Bach offers forced explanations, while the Taz suggests the case involves someone already yotzei the mitzvah taking it again with kavanah to add, but this resolution faces its own difficulties.
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.
