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.
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.
