A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a sukkah built in someone else's field without permission called a "sukkah gezulah"? The shiur examines Tosafos (תוספות)'s understanding of takanas mehresh, the din of mechubbar lekarka in kinyan chatzer, and whether the gezulah is in the walls or the land itself. A second discussion explores bal tosif and the agudah of the lulav: does tying the four species together create a metzaref that triggers bal tosif, or is the agudah merely decorative?
The shiur focuses on two major sections of Sukkah 31a-b. The first addresses Tosafos (תוספות)'s position on the case of a sukkah gezulah. When Reuven allows Shimon to build a sukkah in Reuven's field and Reuven later ejects Shimon, the Gemara (גמרא) calls this a "sukkah gezulah." Tosafos explains that Shimon retains ownership of the sukkah itself even though it stands in Reuven's reshus, because the sukkah is not mechubbar lekarka (not permanently affixed to the ground) and therefore does not automatically transfer to Reuven through kinyan chatzer. Rashi (רש"י), by contrast, appears to hold that the sukkah is mechubbar lekarka and therefore becomes Reuven's property. Rabbi Zweig presents a fundamental difficulty with Tosafos. The Maharam Schiff and Ketzos HaChoshen (siman 371) both challenge Tosafos: if the sukkah is not mechubbar lekarka and remains Shimon's property, how can using it be considered gezulah? The shiur suggests that Tosafos must be dealing with a case where the sukkah has a floor—using Shimon's floor is the act of gezulah. Without that, what is being stolen? Reuven is merely sitting on his own land. The shiur struggles with defining the nature of the gezulah: is it the act of preventing Shimon from accessing his sukkah, or is it the use of Shimon's property while it sits in Reuven's reshus?
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-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.
