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.
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.
