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.
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.
