A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the essential function of binding the four species together—mere beautification or creating a new halachic entity? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s differing frameworks, showing how the Rambam views agudah as transforming the arba'ah minim into a single unit necessary for the mitzvah (מצוה) of na'anuim. This leads to a profound distinction between spiritual hiddur (non-me'akev) and physical beauty (me'akev), with implications for the requirement of shiur and the scope of hiddur mitzvah in rabbinic mitzvos.
The shiur opens by completing a discussion from the previous day regarding whether lulav is viewed as a single four-tefach entity or as two separate components: a three-tefach base and a one-tefach portion for na'anuim (waving). The Mishna's language—"lulav sheyesh bo shlosha tefachim k'dei lehina'ne'ah bo"—suggests two distinct requirements, prompting an analysis of whether certain halachos apply only to the top tefach or to the entire four-tefach structure. Rabbi Zweig examines the machlokes regarding the required size of the lulav when the hadasim are longer than the standard three tefachim. The Tosafos (תוספות) Rishon (cited as "yesh omrim" in Shulchan Aruch) holds that if the hadas is five tefachim, the shedrah (spine) of the lulav must extend beyond it by at least one tefach—indicating this is not merely a din in the absolute shiur of lulav, but rather a shiur related to k'dei lehina'ne'ah bo. The Rambam (רמב"ם) (Hilchos Lulav 7:8), however, presents a strikingly different formulation: "If one binds them together, the shedrah of the lulav must extend beyond the hadas and aravah by a tefach or more." This language implies that the requirement for the lulav to be taller applies only when the minim are bound together (im agad), not when taken separately.
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.
