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.
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.
