POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafSukah 30
1) MITZVAH HABA'AH B'AVEIRAH
(a) The Tana does not seem to differentiate between the
first and second days of YomTov regarding a stolen
2) METHODS FOR CHANGING OWNERSHIP IN THEFT
1. Question: But the Torah singles out the first day
for the obligation that the Lulav belong to the
(b) (R. Yitzhok citing Shmuel) One *does* fulfills one's
obligation on the second day of Sukos with a stolen
Lulav (since a borrowed Lulav may be used, so, too, a
2. Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon b. Yochai):
Because on all days it is a Mitzvah HaBa'ah
i. Malachi connects the stolen offering with the
lame and ill offering.
3. In a similar vein R. Shimon b. Yochai interprets
the Pasuk wherein HaShem despises theft in an
ii. The defect of being stolen does not abate,
just as the lame condition of the animal does
not pass, even after the owner loses hope
iii. Question: While before Yiush we understand
that the offering does not belong to the one
bringing it; surely after Yiush it is his!?
iv. Answer: The invalidation must be Mitzvah
i. Question: Why single out an Olah?
4. R. Ami teaches explicitly that the defect of a
stolen Lulav is Mitzvah HaBa'ah b'Aveirah.
ii. Answer: It is analogous to a King who pays
taxes (which come right back to him) so that
his servants will not learn to evade taxes;
so, too, does HaShem despise a stolen Olah,
so that we might learn to avoid theft.
1. Question: But our Mishnah prohibits a stolen Lulav
and thus seems to permit a borrowed Lulav!?
i. This could not be speaking on the first day
of Sukos, where the Torah says Lachem (and a
borrowed Lulav does not qualify)!
2. Answer (Rava): The Mishnah is speaking on the
first day of YomTov.
ii. It must be speaking on subsequent days, and,
still, a stolen Lulav is Pasul!
i. The Mishnah singles out a stolen Lulav not
because a borrowed one is permitted.
ii. To the contrary, we would naturally prohibit
a borrowed one (which is not Lachem) but we
might have permitted a stolen Lulav (by
presuming that commonly the owners have lost
(a) R. Huna told the merchants to have the gentile sellers
cut the Hadasim (not the merchants).
(b) Question: Why would this be necessary?
(c) Answer: Since the gentile presumably stole the property
(perhaps from a Jew).
1. Since property does not change ownership by theft
it may still belong to a Jew.
2. Having the gentile clip the Hadasim results in the
permitted combination of Yiush and change of
ownership [Shinui Reshus].
(d) Question: It should be sufficient that the Yiush takes
place as it is clipped by the merchant, and the Shinui
Reshus takes place into the hands of the buyer!?
3. Thus the Yiush takes place in the hands of the
gentile, and the Shinui Reshus is into the hands
of the merchant.
(e) Answer: Indeed, R. Huna was speaking to the merchants
about acquiring their own Hadasim from the gentile.
(f) Question: Let Shinui Ma'aseh be sufficient (tying
together of the Minim)!?
(g) Answer: R. Huna does not require that they be bound
(and even if he does, such a binding does not create
Shinui Ma'aseh since it can be readily undone).
(h) Question: Let Shinui HaShem be sufficient (it was
called a Asa [Hadas] and it is now Hoshana)!?
(i) Answer: It was commonly called Hoshana even before it
was tied together with the Minim.