A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah apply on yom tov sheni according to Shmuel? The shiur analyzes Rav Akiva Eiger's question on Tosfos and explores the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding through the Kesef Mishna. Multiple dimensions of mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah are distinguished: when the object becomes tainted versus when one actively transgresses.
This shiur presents an intricate analysis of mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah (a mitzvah performed through a transgression) through the lens of Sukkah 30a, focusing on a difficulty raised by Rav Akiva Eiger on Tosfos. The central question is whether the principle of mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah applies according to Shmuel on yom tov sheni (the second day of the festival). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses lulav hagazul (a stolen lulav), lulav shel asherah, and lulav of ir hanidachas (a city condemned to destruction). Tosfos questions why these latter two cases are invalid due to kisui'im ach tachiru (a separate halachic category), when they should be invalid due to mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah. Tosfos answers that according to Shmuel, who does not hold mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah, a different reason is needed.
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
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.
