A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can a second person fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה) of lulav with a stolen object on Yom Tov Sheini when the original thief cannot make a bracha? The shiur explores two distinct dimensions of gezel — the prohibited act of stealing versus using another's property — and argues that mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah applies only when the aveirah contributes to the mitzvah itself. Shinui maisa creates independent ownership that severs the connection to the original theft.
This shiur analyzes the complex sugya of mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah (a mitzvah that comes through sin) as it relates to stolen arba minim (four species) on Sukkos (סוכות), focusing on Sukkah 30b. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone takes esrogim from a non-Jew's orchard, and Rav Huna instructs him to be careful to fulfill the mitzvah properly. The shiur begins by addressing the Magen Avrohom's difficulty: why would Rav Huna be concerned only about the technical fulfillment of the mitzvah while seemingly ignoring the more fundamental issue of theft? The shiur establishes that according to the Gemara, the person was technically permitted to take the esrogim (presumably based on a halachic mechanism like rov), so there was no ma'aseh aveirah (act of theft) performed. The only potential problem is that he might be inadvertently using someone else's property. This leads to a fundamental chakira (conceptual distinction) in the nature of gezel: there are two separate dinim (legal components). First, there is the issur of taking something illegally (ma'aseh gezel). Second, there is the prohibition of using someone else's property (hishtamshus b'mamon chaveiro). One can violate the second without violating the first if the taking itself was permitted but the object actually belongs to someone else.
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 30b
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.
