A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a lulav that became unbound on Yom Tov remain invalid even after retying? The shiur explores whether the invalidation (dechui) is from the binding itself creating a mitzvah (מצוה) object, or from the act of taking. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) disagree fundamentally on when the din of dechui takes effect—on Erev Yom Tov when bound, or only on Yom Tov itself.
The Gemara (גמרא) in Sukkah 33a discusses a case of "avar v'liktun"—where one bound the four species and then unbound them. The Tanna Kamma holds this invalidates the lulav, while the Chachamim permit it. The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes underlying this dispute. The first possibility in the Gemara is that everyone agrees lulav requires binding (lulav tzarich agud), and they disagree whether we apply a binyan av from sukkah to lulav. The principle of "dichui etzal mitzvos" would mean that once an object is disqualified for a mitzvah (מצוה) (when Yom Tov arrives while the species are unbound), it remains disqualified even after correction. The Tanna Kamma holds we learn this from sukkah (yilfinun lulav mi'sukkah), creating a din of asiya (an act that creates the mitzvah object), while the Chachamim hold we don't learn this binyan av (lo yilfinun).
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.
