A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can one fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה) of lulav on Yom Tov Rishon with a stolen lulav if thieves cut it themselves or sell it to someone else? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s two possible explanations—either yiush alone doesn't transfer ownership (requiring shinui reshus) or yiush does work but creates a mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah problem—and explores the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that the lulav is "yiush in the hands of the thieves and shinui reshus in the hands of the buyer."
This shiur on Sukkah 30a-b focuses on a Gemara (גמרא) discussing whether thieves who cut hadasim (myrtle branches) for a lulav can fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה), and whether someone who purchases from them can be yotzei. The Gemara addresses the Torah (תורה)'s requirement of "lachem"—that the lulav must belong to the person performing the mitzvah on Yom Tov Rishon. Rashi (רש"י) presents two possible explanations (tav shita) for why cutting the branches creates a problem. The first explanation is that yiush (the owner's despair of recovering stolen property) alone does not effect acquisition; one needs both yiush and shinui reshus (change of domain) for the thief to become the owner. Therefore, if the thieves cut the branches themselves, there is yiush but no shinui reshus, and they won't be yotzei the mitzvah because the lulav doesn't belong to them. The second explanation is that yiush kedei kanya—yiush by itself does transfer ownership—but this creates a problem of mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah (a mitzvah that comes through a sin), which disqualifies the lulav.
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-b
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.
