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.
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.
