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.
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.
