A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a dried lulav disqualified all seven days of Sukkos (סוכות)? Rashi (רש"י) holds the psul stems from zekeil levaneh (aesthetic beauty required for korban-like items), not from the mitzvah (מצוה)-level din of hadar which applies only on the first day. Tosfos challenges this, arguing zekeil levaneh is merely a rabbinic embellishment, not a biblical disqualification.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos regarding the disqualification of a dried lulav (lulav hayovesh) throughout all seven days of Sukkos (סוכות). The Gemara (גמרא) in Sukkah 29b discusses why a lulav that has dried is disqualified, and Rashi explains that the psul stems from the concept of zekeil levaneh—an aesthetic standard required for items with a korban-like status. Rabbi Zweig explains that Tosfos raises two fundamental questions on Rashi's approach. First, the Gemara explicitly states that the reason for the disqualification is "hadar" (beauty), not zekeil levaneh. Second, even if we accept Rashi's reasoning, zekeil levaneh is merely a hiddur mitzvah (מצוה) (embellishment) and not a ma'akeiv (absolute requirement), so it should not invalidate the lulav. These two questions form the core challenge to Rashi's position.
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.
