A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is gezulah (stolen lulav) invalid on Yom Tov Sheini? The shiur develops the thesis that Rav Yochanan treats mitzvah (מצוה) ba'aveirah not merely as a disqualification but as a ba'al mum—a stigma that the Chachamim extended from Yom Tov Rishon to all seven days. Tosfos and Rashi (רש"י)'s approaches to zecher la'mikdash and the interplay between lo lachem and mitzvah ba'aveirah are examined.
The shiur opens with a fundamental difficulty in reading the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of stolen and dried-out lulavim. According to Tosefta, the machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Shmuel concerns whether Yom Tov Sheini has a din of mitzvah (מצוה) ba'aveirah. But the Gemara's proofs seem superfluous—if everyone agrees that mitzvah ba'aveirah is a din derabanan on mitzvos derabanan (like Yom Tov Sheini), why does Rav Yochanan need to bring pesukim establishing mitzvah ba'aveirah? Rabbi Zweig argues that the Gemara is not coming to prove the existence of mitzvah ba'aveirah per se, but rather to establish that mitzvah ba'aveirah functions as a ba'al mum—an intrinsic stigma or blemish in the object itself. Rav Yochanan derives from the juxtaposition of "pisulei'ach" (blemishes in animals) and "gezel" that gezel is treated like a ba'al mum. Since a ba'al mum is invalid for all seven days in the Mikdash, the Chachamim extended this principle to Yom Tov Sheini in their gezeirah of zecher la'mikdash—they weren't merely extending the lachem requirement but rather importing the entire din of ba'al mum.
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 29b
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.
