A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) discuss shinui kinyan when someone buys hadassim from a non-Jew for the lulav bundle? The shiur distinguishes two separate mitzvos: netilas lulav (taking) and hoshana (na'anu'im—waving). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s careful language reveals that agudah (binding) is only hiddur mitzvah (מצוה) for netilah, but is me'akiv (essential) for the mitzvah of hoshana. This resolves Rashi (רש"י)'s position that stolen lulav may still permit a berachah under certain conditions.
This shiur examines the sugya in Sukkah 30b regarding buying hadassim from non-Jews and the concern that Jewish buyers might cut the myrtle branches themselves, thereby violating the laws of a stolen lulav. The Gemara (גמרא) asks why they don't acquire ownership through shinui ma'aseh (a change in the object). The Magen Avrohom raises a fundamental question: even if one acquires the lulav through shinui ma'aseh, the Shulchan Aruch rules that a stolen lulav, even if acquired through shinui ma'aseh, cannot be used for a berachah due to the principle of mitzvah (מצוה) ha-ba'ah ba'aveirah. Why then does Rav Huna not mention this problem? The shiur develops a careful reading of Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) to resolve this difficulty. Rashi uses the term "lego b'hoshana" (to tie it for hoshana), not merely "lego b'lulav," indicating that the Gemara is focused specifically on the mitzvah of hoshana—the waving performed with the bound species—rather than on netilas lulav alone. This distinction is crucial.
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 30b
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.
