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.
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.
