A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't you fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה) of hadass with a stolen one even after yiush (despair of recovery)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of merchants (avankari) cutting hadassim raises complex questions: does yad po'el k'yad rabbo apply to gentile workers? Rashi (רש"י) and the Aruch differ on the mechanics, leading to a fundamental analysis of when stolen property becomes valid and the parameters of mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah.
This shiur analyzes Sukkah 30a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of avankari (merchants) who cut hadassim from non-Jewish property. The core question is why there is no shinui reshus (change of possession) that would permit using these hadassim for the mitzvah (מצוה), even after yiush. Rabbi Zweig opens with Rashi (רש"י)'s unusual explanation of the term "avankari." Rather than simply translating it as "merchants" (tagrei), Rashi elaborates that they are "kodover l'ishtakero" (motivated by profit) and can sell various items like combs and needles, not just hadassim. The shiur questions why Rashi needs to state the obvious—that merchants are profit-driven—and why he specifies they sell other merchandise as well.
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 30a
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.
