A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a stolen sukkah invalid? Rashi (רש"י) holds the mitzvah (מצוה) itself removes the issur geneiva through shinui hashem (ה׳) and shinui ma'aseh before Takanas HaShavim even applies. Tosfos raises the case of building a sukkah in someone's field: what exactly is stolen—the walls, the sitting space, or the floor itself?
This shiur delivers an intricate analysis of Sukkah 31a, focusing on the fundamental nature of sukkah gezulah (a stolen sukkah) and the mechanics of Takanas HaShavim (the rabbinic enactment allowing robbers to pay monetary value rather than return the stolen object itself). The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion centers on when and how the prohibition of mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah (a mitzvah that comes through a transgression) applies to a sukkah constructed from stolen materials. Rabbi Zweig presents Rashi (רש"י)'s revolutionary approach: the mitzvah of sukkah is fulfilled through shinui hashem (ה׳) (change of name) and shinui ma'aseh (change in physical form) even before Takanas HaShavim takes effect. When a person takes stolen wood and constructs a sukkah, the construction itself creates a fundamentally different object from what was stolen. At that moment, there is no cheftza of geneiva (stolen object)—it is a new entity entirely. Therefore, the person is yotzei (fulfills) the mitzvah immediately, not because of Takanas HaShavim, but because the object is no longer "stolen" in its essential nature. Takanas HaShavim merely addresses the practical issue of returning the object: it allows the thief to keep the transformed object and compensate the owner monetarily rather than dismantling the structure.
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 31a
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.
