A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why are some disqualifications (psulim) of the four species limited to Yom Tov Rishon while others apply all seven days? The shiur examines the dispute between Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), Rambam (רמב"ם), and Ramban (רמב"ן) regarding whether the Gemara (גמרא) discusses the Beis Hamikdash or zecher l'Mikdash, and whether the psul of yoveish (dried lulav) on all seven days stems from hadar (beauty) or hiddur mitzvah (מצוה).
The shiur focuses on a complex sugya in Masechta Sukkah 29b dealing with the Mishna's discussion of disqualified lulavim and the other species. The central question is why certain disqualifications apply only on Yom Tov Rishon while the psul of yoveish (a dried lulav) extends through all seven days of Sukkos (סוכות). Rashi (רש"י)'s position is that the Gemara (גמרא) is discussing the takanas chachamim of zecher l'Mikdash. According to Rashi, on Yom Tov Sheini (referring to the rabbinical requirement outside the Mikdash), only certain psulim apply because of hiddur mitzvah (מצוה). The psul of yoveish extends all seven days because of the requirement of hadar, while other psulim such as gazul (stolen) are limited to Yom Tov Rishon because they stem from lachem (personal ownership). Rabbi Zweig questions why Rashi brings the psul of lachem at all, since according to Rebbe Yochanan the psul of gazul should be mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah, not lachem. He suggests Rashi may be following Shmuel's approach for gazul but Rebbe Yochanan's for yoveish.
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 29b
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.
