A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna begin with lulav instead of esrog, when the Torah (תורה) lists esrog first among the arba minim? The shiur develops a yesod from Gemara (גמרא) Sukkah that the name "lulav" encompasses all three species—lulav, hadas, and aravah—because it's the tallest and most prominent. This innovation of Klal Yisrael, expressed through the mitzvah (מצוה) of agudah (binding them together), gives lulav precedence in the Mishna's arrangement.
This shiur on Masechta Sukkah 29b addresses a fundamental question about the structure of the Mishna: why does it begin discussing lulav hagazel v'hayaveish rather than following the Torah (תורה)'s order, which lists esrog (pri etz hadar) first among the arba minim? Rabbi Zweig develops a comprehensive answer based on a careful reading of Rashi (רש"י) and the Gemara (גמרא). The shiur begins by noting two textual anomalies in the Mishna. First, why does the word "pasul" appear after just two items (lulav hagazel and lulav hayaveish) rather than at the end of a complete list? Second, why does the Kapos Temarim ask why the Mishna uses the term "gozel" (robbery) rather than "ganav" (theft)? Rabbi Zweig also highlights a difference between Rashi and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the definition of lulav itself: Rashi considers it any branch (kaf) of the date palm, while the Rambam restricts it to the closed, scepter-like form before the leaves spread.
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.
