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.
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.
