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.
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.
