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.
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.
