A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes stolen property forbidden for a mitzvah (מצוה)—the past act of theft or an ongoing gezulah status? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s question on Sukkah 30a, proposing that mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah requires the aveirah to be "alive" now, meaning a present kinyan gezulah in the object, not just a past transgression. When karka ein lo yeush (land cannot be legally stolen), there is no kinyan gezulah even though one violated lo sigzol.
The shiur opens with Tosafos (תוספות)'s question on daf lamed (30a) regarding lulav shel asheira: Why does the Gemara (גמרא) need to invoke the reason of "kasaim mach'chishah shelo" (that which invalidates due to thinning/pruning) for asheira, when it should be pasul simply because of mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah b'aveirah—performing a mitzvah with an object used for a transgression? Tosafos assumes mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah applies to all mitzvos. The speaker raises a fundamental challenge: by asheira, one served the tree itself, creating an aveirah in that very object. But by ir hanidachas (a condemned city where the majority worshiped idols), one did not worship the lulav—one worshiped Baal elsewhere in the city. Why should the lulav be tainted? The shiur suggests that ir hanidachas may not fit the definition of mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah because no aveirah was done with the lulav itself; rather, Hashem (ה׳) is waging war against the city, and the din is one of milchamah (war), not mishpat (judgment). The taint in mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah must come from an aveirah done in the object itself, not merely in the city where it is located. Rav Kiva's question is introduced: Tosafos later states that Shmuel holds one can be yotzei with lulav hagazul on Yom Tov Sheini because there is no mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah on a mitzvah d'rabanan. If so, why does the Gemara need to give the reason of "kasaim mach'chishah shelo" for asheira? That reason is needed according to Shmuel to exclude asheira even on Yom Tov Sheini. According to Rav Yochanan, mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah would suffice. So Tosafos's question is only relevant to one opinion, not universally.
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.
