A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a sukkah built on stolen land considered a "stolen sukkah" when land itself cannot be stolen? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos on Sukkah 31a, examining the machlokes between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabanan regarding whether one fulfills the mitzvah (מצוה) in such a sukkah. A central tension emerges: how can sitting on one's own land—even if another built a sukkah there—constitute "sukkah gezulah"?
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Masechta Sukkah (31a) addressing the question of sukkah gezulah—a stolen sukkah—and its relationship to the principle that "karka ein nigzeles" (land cannot be stolen). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a machlokes between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel: Rabbi Eliezer holds that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה) of sukkah in a friend's sukkah built on stolen land (karka nigzeles), while Rabban Gamliel holds that even though land cannot be stolen, a sukkah built on stolen land is still valid. The shiur begins by exploring Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation. Rashi states that when karka is stolen, anything attached to the karka (mechubar l'karka) has the status of karka itself, and therefore cannot be stolen. However, the Gemara needs to explain the case of sukkah gezulah specifically, leading to the question: if karka cannot be stolen, why do we need a separate case of sukkah gezulah? Rashi addresses two cases: one where the land itself is stolen (karka nigzeles), and another where someone steals wood (gozel eitz) and builds a sukkah with it. The latter case introduces the concept of Takanas HaShavim (rabbinic enactment for penitents), which allows the thief to keep the stolen materials under certain conditions by paying their value instead of returning them.
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.
