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.
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.
