A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a lulav with black or yellow leaves kosher after the first day? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between dichui meikkar and nir ve'nitkah, arguing that when the disqualification is merely a psul in appearance (not a lack of the essential "min"), the concept of "beyado" applies and there's no prohibition of tikkun mana d'orayta—only kimasaken d'rabanan.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Sukkah 33b dealing with the kashrus of hadassim (myrtle branches) when their color changes. The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that if black or yellow leaves outnumber the green ones, the hadas is pasul. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion centers on whether removing the discolored leaves constitutes tikkun mana, a Torah (תורה)-level prohibition of fixing a disqualified object. The Gemara distinguishes between two types of disqualifications: dichui meikkar (rejected from the outset) and nir ve'nitkah (something that was kosher but became pasul). Initially, the Gemara assumes that dichui meikkar is worse, but the sugya's resolution hinges on understanding what type of chasaron exists. When the disqualification is a deficiency in the min itself—the object is fundamentally not the species the Torah requires—then dichui meikkar is indeed severe. However, when the problem is merely a psul (a blemish in appearance), the calculation changes.
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 33b
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.
