A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a hadas that becomes pasul before Yom Tov and then becomes kosher on Yom Tov have the status of dichui? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s position that dichui applies only when the lulav was tied in an agudah, suggesting that agudah creates a special status even according to those who hold lulav ein tzarich agudah. A parallel analysis examines Rashi's approach to kisui hadam and the principle of ein dichui etzel mitzvos.
The shiur opens with a fundamental question about dichui (disqualification) in mitzvos. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a hadas that was nikdam rosho (its top was cut off) before Yom Tov and then grew back on Yom Tov. The simple understanding would be that once Yom Tov begins, if the hadas was pasul, it should have a din of dichui and remain pasul even if it later becomes kosher. However, Rashi (רש"י) introduces a critical distinction: the din of dichui applies only when the hadas was already tied in an agudah (bundle). If it was never part of an agudah, even though it was pasul at the beginning of Yom Tov (kidush hayom), there is no dichui. This leads to a fundamental question about the nature of agudah according to those who hold lulav ein tzarich agudah (a lulav does not require tying). If agudah is not me'akev (indispensable) according to the Chachamim, why would it be relevant to the din of dichui? The shiur suggests that Rashi must be learning that even according to the Chachamim, agudah accomplishes something significant—it creates a status of cheftza shel mitzvah (מצוה), transforming the four species into a single unified object designated for the mitzvah.
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
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.
