A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Are there two separate halachos of mitzvah (מצוה) haba ba'aveira — psul b'cheifetz (a stolen object) and ein aveira mitzvah (doing an aveira during the mitzvah)? The shiur resolves the Minchas Chinuch's difficulty with Tosfos and Kivei Ager's kasha by distinguishing between Rav Yochanan's din (psul nachefetz) and a possible separate din by Shmuel (aveira b'shas ma'aseh). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s shitah combines both: the aveira must attach to the cheifetz.
This shiur examines the fundamental structure of the din of mitzvah (מצוה) haba ba'aveira through an analysis of Sukkah 30a, Tosfos, the Rambam (רמב"ם), and various Rishonim. The central question is whether mitzvah haba ba'aveira represents one unified halacha (הלכה) or two distinct dinim. The shiur begins by establishing two possible categories: (1) psul b'cheifetz — where the object itself is disqualified even though the person performing the mitzvah is not actively doing an aveira (the classic case being gazol domim u'piseach, a stolen object used for a mitzvah after ye'ush); and (2) ein aveira mitzvah — where the performance of the mitzvah itself constitutes an aveira. The Minchas Chinuch asks why matzah shel tevel (untithed matzah) requires a special pasuk to disqualify it — isn't it automatically mitzvah haba ba'aveira? The Minchas Chinuch answers that Tosfos on daf tes holds mitzvah haba ba'aveira is only d'rabanan when it's psul b'cheifetz, but when you're doing an aveira b'shas ma'aseh (at the time of the act), it may be a Torah (תורה)-level disqualification.
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.
