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.
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.
