A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) bring two sources for mitzvah (מצוה) habah b'aveirah: gazal domai l'pisaiach and Hashem (ה׳) sonei gezel b'olah? The shiur argues there are two distinct dinim: a psul hachefetz (like a blemish) even when the theft is unknown, and the din of eila hamitzvas (I told you not to do it) when you knowingly violate a prohibition. Rishonim dispute whether mitzvah habah b'aveirah applies to shogeg.
The shiur analyzes the two distinct sources in the Gemara (גמרא) (Sukkah 30a-b) that teach the principle of mitzvah (מצוה) habah b'aveirah (a mitzvah that comes through a transgression). Rabbi Yochanan ben Shimon ben Yochai derives from "gazal domai l'pisaiach" that a stolen lulav is invalid on the second day of Yom Tov, and separately from "ki ani Hashem (ה׳) ohev mishpat sonei gezel b'olah" that Hashem hates mitzvos performed through theft. The fundamental question is why two sources are needed for what appears to be the same halacha (הלכה). Rabbi Zweig proposes that these represent two conceptually different aspects of mitzvah habah b'aveirah. The first din — gazal domai l'pisaiach — creates a psul in the chefetz itself, analogous to a physical blemish (mum) on a korban. This psul exists regardless of whether the person knows the item is stolen; it is an objective spiritual defect in the object. The second source — sonei gezel b'olah — addresses the eila hamitzvas dimension: when Hashem commands "don't do X," doing X cannot constitute fulfillment of a mitzvah even if you don't realize it's stolen. This follows the Yerushalmi's principle of ein aveirah mitzvah.
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-b
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.
