A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a stolen sukkah becomes permissible through takanas hashavim, what is the status of the thief's ownership during and after Sukkos (סוכות)? The shiur analyzes whether the rabbinic acquisition creates real ownership or merely suspends the prohibition, examining the challenge from the Rav Akiva Eiger that without kinyan geneiva, physical possession alone shouldn't create a din gezeilah on the sukkah structure itself.
The shiur analyzes Sukkah 31a, focusing on the case of sukkah gezulah—a stolen sukkah—and the application of takanas hashavim (the rabbinic enactment allowing thieves to repay monetary value rather than return stolen items to encourage repentance). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that if one steals wood and builds a sukkah with it, it is not considered gezulah (stolen) and one can fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה) with it, due to two principles: sheini (secondary changes) and takanas hashavim. The shiur begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s formulation, which states that the sukkah is neither gezulah nor she'eilah (borrowed) because of kinyan be'sheini and takanas hashavim. A fundamental question arises: why does Rashi need both reasons? If sheini creates a kinyan mid'oraysa, what function does the rabbinic takanas hashavim serve? The text suggests that Rashi is indicating something about the relationship between these two mechanisms.
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.
