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.
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.
