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.
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.
