A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a stolen item disqualified for a korban? The shiur develops a fundamental understanding of mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah through Tosfos, Rambam (רמב"ם), and Rav Akiva Eiger. The core principle: the disqualification stems not from a defect in the object, but from HaKadosh Baruch Hu's refusal to participate in an aveirah—the Mizbeach cannot "eat" something forbidden, as defined by mashgiach Yisrael.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the principle of mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah (a mitzvah that comes through a transgression) as it appears in Sukkah 30a, focusing on the dispute between Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan regarding a stolen lulav. The shiur addresses multiple fundamental difficulties in the Tosfos and presents a novel understanding of the entire sugya. The shiur begins with Rav Akiva Eiger's fundamental question on Tosfos: Why does the Gemara (גמרא) need a special pasuk to teach that something used for avodah zarah (nevad) is disqualified for the Mizbeach? It should be disqualified based on the principle of mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah alone. This leads to four major difficulties in Tosfos: (1) Rav Akiva Eiger's question about nevad; (2) Why does Tosfos distinguish between cases where the kinyan occurred before the mitzvah versus ba'vas achas (simultaneously); (3) Why is hekdesh considered ba'vas achas but lulav tzorech eged is not; (4) Why does Tosfos hold that there is no mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah by mitzvos derabbanan, while the Ramban (רמב"ן) holds the opposite.
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.
