A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) require the hadasim in the Gemara (גמרא) to be stolen from a Jew rather than a non-Jew? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: gezel Yisrael is a bein adam l'chavero rooted in ownership rights, while gezel akum is a bein adam l'makom focused on the act of theft itself. This distinction explains Rashi's girsa and resolves questions about yiush, shinui reshus, and mitzvah (מצוה) ba'aveira.
This shiur analyzes Sukkah 30a-b focusing on Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding of a sugya about hadasim that may have been stolen. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where avantrei (non-Jews) are cutting hadasim from property that may have been stolen from Jews. The question is whether such hadasim are kosher for use on Sukkos (סוכות). Rashi's girsa differs from the standard text. According to Rashi, the Gemara specifies that non-Jews steal from Jews (rather than non-Jews stealing in general). The question is why this specification is necessary. If the prohibition of gezel akum (stealing from a non-Jew) is assur (forbidden), as we pasken, why would the Gemara need to specify that the property belonged to a Jew? The same problems of yiush and shinui reshus should apply to stolen property from a non-Jew.
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.
