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.
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.
