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.
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.
