A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When exactly do you make the bracha on lulav—before touching it, after picking it up, or somewhere in between? The Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of oiver la'asiyasan (don't pass over a mitzvah (מצוה)) appears straightforward, but Tosfos reveals a fundamental dispute: Does the bracha need to attach to the ma'aseh hamitzvah (the act itself) or to the kiyum hamitzvah (the fulfillment)? This analysis drives the halacha (הלכה) of when and how to recite al netilas lulav.
This shiur on Sukkah 39a explores the intricate halachic issues surrounding the precise timing of reciting birkas hamitzvos, specifically focusing on the bracha for lulav. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the principle of oiver la'asiyasan—that one should not pass over the opportunity to perform a mitzvah (מצוה)—and what this means in practice for making brachos. The shiur opens with the Gemara's statement that for any mitzvah, one should make the bracha oiver la'asiyasan. The question immediately arises: what does this mean practically? Tosfos brings a proof from Gemara Menachos regarding the placing of tefillin, where the bracha must be made between the hanachah (placing) and the keshirah (binding). This establishes that you cannot make a bracha when the object is "munach b'kli"—resting in its container, uninvolved.
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 39a
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.
