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.
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.
