A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If yiush alone makes the thief an owner, why does the Gemara (גמרא) require shinui reshus for the purchaser to be yotzei on Yom Tov Rishon? The shiur develops a complex understanding: ownership derived from the thief remains tainted by mitzvah (מצוה) b'aveira, but shinui reshus means the buyer acquires directly from the original owner (who was already meyayeish), bypassing the theft's taint. The Magen Avrohom and Maharsha are reconciled through this framework.
This shiur delivers an intricate analysis of Sukkah 31a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of stolen hadasim (myrtle branches) and the interplay between yiush (despair of recovery), kinyan (acquisition), and mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah b'aveira (a mitzvah performed through a transgression). The core question is why, according to Rashi (רש"י), the Gemara requires both yiush and shinui reshus (change of possession) for purchasers to fulfill the mitzvah, when yiush alone should suffice to transfer ownership. Rashi presents two explanations for why the avankri (thieves) cannot cut the hadasim themselves and be yotzei: either because yiush without shinui reshus doesn't create valid ownership (and thus lacks "lachem," the requirement that the lulav set belong to you), or because yiush does confer ownership but creates a problem of mitzvah b'aveira—a mitzvah performed with stolen property remains invalid even after acquisition.
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 31a
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.
