A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) specify gezel Yisrael in the case of a stolen lulav? Rashi (רש"י)'s girsa reveals a fundamental difference: gezel akum and gezel Yisrael operate on entirely different principles. With a Jew, the issur is having his money; with a goy, it's the ma'aseh gezeilah itself. This distinction transforms how we understand mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah b'aveirah and the requirement of "lachem."
This in-depth shiur analyzes Sukkah 30a-b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of a lulav acquired from avankrei (non-Jewish thieves). The central textual question is: Why does the Gemara specify that the land might have been stolen from a Jew (gezel Yisrael)? Why couldn't the sugya work equally well with gezel akum (theft from a non-Jew)? Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s girsa in the Gemara, which explicitly states the avankrei stole from Jews. This leads to a fundamental kushya: if gezel akum is mutar (permitted according to some opinions), why does the Gemara need to specify Jewish ownership? The shiur explores multiple approaches to resolve this difficulty.
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-b
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.
