A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the pasuk say "gazul" when discussing korbanos, and how does it relate to the requirement of "mikem"? The shiur develops that mikem means you must give *yourself* through the korban, not just send money. When you bring something stolen (even after yiush), you're not giving yourself—that's the yesod of mitzvah (מצוה) haba b'aveirah, which may be fundamentally a din of mikem.
This shiur on Sukkah 30a analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s derivation of mitzvah (מצוה) haba b'aveirah (a mitzvah performed through transgression) from the pesukim dealing with stolen korbanos. The Gemara presents multiple pesukim that seem to teach the same halacha (הלכה): one pasuk says "mikem" (implying the korban must be yours), another says "gazul" (stolen), and a third compares gazul to "pise'ach" (blemished). The central question is why we need all these pesukim if they all teach that you cannot bring a stolen korban. Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing Rashi (רש"י)'s position. Rashi explains that the word "gazul" indicates the korban was brought after yiush (despair of the original owner), which would technically transfer ownership to the thief. The key question becomes: if after yiush the object belongs to the thief, why is the korban invalid? Rashi introduces a critical distinction: the pasuk of "gazul" is necessary for a case where the person heard the owner was miyayesh (despaired) and only then brought the korban. If he didn't know about the yiush, that would fall under the general prohibition of "mikem"—you cannot be makdish something that doesn't belong to you.
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
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.
