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.
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.
