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.
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.
