A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does dichuy (disqualification) apply to mitzvah (מצוה) objects the way it applies to korbanot? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: by korbanot, dichuy is an intrinsic defect in the object itself; by mitzvos, any disqualification stems only from the gavra's inability to use it. This distinction explains why kisui hadam can be reactivated when uncovered, proving there is no dichuy etzel mitzvos.
The shiur opens with a Gemara (גמרא) in Sukkah 33a analyzing whether there is dichuy (disqualification from mitzvah (מצוה) use) when hadasim that lacked leaves on erev Yom Tov later grew leaves on Yom Tov itself. Rashi (רש"י) emphasizes "mishinega" (that they grew), raising the question: why does Rashi need both conditions—that they grew AND that it's Yom Tov? This leads to an analysis of whether dichuy meikara (disqualification from the outset) applies to mitzvah objects. The Gemara brings a proof from kisui hadam: if wind covered the blood, one is not obligated to uncover it and re-cover it. But if the wind then uncovers it again, the obligation to cover returns. This proves there is no dichuy by mitzvos—despite the blood having been covered (and thus not requiring the mitzvah act), when it becomes uncovered the chiyuv is reinstated.
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.
