A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a stolen lulav be used on the second day of Yom Tov? The shiur analyzes the machlokes Rashi (רש"י)/Tosfos versus the Rambam (רמב"ם) on whether lulav on days 2-7 is a mitzvah (מצוה) d'rabbanan with the structure of a formal mitzvah, or purely zecher l'mikdash—a commemorative practice with different halachic consequences for mitzvah ha'ba'ah b'aveirah, brachos, and pesulim.
The shiur opens with the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of why a yaveish (dried) lulav or a gazul (stolen) lulav is permitted on Yom Tov Sheini but not on Yom Tov Rishon. Rashi (רש"י) explains that Yom Tov Rishon is d'oraysa, requiring hidur mitzvah (מצוה), while Yom Tov Sheini is d'rabbanan and does not. Tosfos asks: if the din of hadar (beauty) applies all seven days, why doesn't chaser (missing component) also apply all seven days? Tosfos distinguishes between what comes before "u'lekachtem lachem" in the pasuk (which applies only on day one) and what comes after (which applies all seven days). The Ramban (רמב"ן) reads the entire sugya as dealing with d'oraysa categories, arguing that chaser is a pesul all seven days in the Mikdash according to the din of hadar, not lekichah. Rabbi Zweig then introduces a fundamental question about the nature of the rabbinic enactment of taking lulav seven days in the provinces after the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed. The Gemara establishes this practice as "zecher l'mikdash" based on the pasuk "Tzion hi doresh ein lah." The opening assumption of the Gemara is that there is no reason why yaveish or gazul should be pasul on days 2-7—they should be kosher because the practice is merely a zecher, a commemoration, not a full mitzvah. This is the exact opposite of what one would expect if it were a mitzvah d'rabbanan structured like the d'oraysa mitzvah.
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 30a
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.