ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 30
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Mal'achi "va'Haveisem *Gazul ve'es
ha'Pisei'ach*" - that, just as a lame animal cannot be cured (and is
permanently disqualified from being brought on the Mizbe'ach), so too, is
stolen animal permanently disqualified - even after 'Yi'ush'.
(b) One would not be Yotze if he brought a stolen Korban from which the
owner had ...
1. ... not yet been Meya'esh (despaired) - because it is not his, and the
Torah writes in Vayikra "Adam Ki Yakriv *Mikem*".
(c) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, to explain the Pasuk in
Yeshayah "Ki Ani Hashem ... Sonei Gezel be'Olah" - compares it to a King,
who upon reaching the customs control post at the border, insisted on paying
taxes on all his taxable belongings (despite the fact that all the taxes
belonged to him anyway) in order that his subjects should take their cue
from him, and pay their taxes, too.
2. ... already been Meya'esh - because it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah
(d) We learn from here that although logically, Hashem ought to accept
stolen sacrifices, seeing as they belong to Him anyway - He declines to do
so - because people will then learn not to steal (to teach us how much
Hashem detests theft).
(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Nachmeini quoting Shmuel, disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan
- according to him, since on the second day of Sukos, one is Yotze with a
*borrowed* Lulav (because "Lachem" does not apply on the second day), one is
also Yotze with a *stolen* one (and in his opinion, the Pesul of 'Mitzvah
ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' is confined to the realm of Korbanos).
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak infers from our Mishnah: 'Lulav *ha'Gazul*
ve'ha'Yavesh Pasul' - that a *borrowed* one, is Kasher. The Mishnah can only
be speaking on the *second* day, because, on the *first*, why should a
*borrowed* Lulav be Kasher?
(c) But did Shmuel not declare a stolen Lulav, Kasher on the second day?
(d) Really our Mishnah is speaking on the first day, we reply - and when the
Tana says that a *stolen* Lulav is Pasul, he means *even* a stolen Lulav,
and certainly a borrowed one. Why is that? Because we would otherwise have
thought that it is only a *borrowed* Lulav that is Pasul, because it is not
his, but a stolen Lulav is Kasher, because 'S'tam Gezeilah Yi'ush Ba'alim'
(i.e. we take for granted the fact that the owner despairs from retrieving
his stolen article), in which case, the robber will acquires it.
(a) Rav Huna instructed the Hadas salesmen that, whenever they purchased
their Hadasim from non-Jews, they should make sure to let the owners cut the
Hadasim themselves. It would have been wrong to allow the salesmen to cut
the Hadasim themselves - because generally, the gentiles had stolen the
land, and land cannot be stolen (i.e. it always remains in the possession of
the original owner), in which case, it would not become their property. By
cutting the Hadasim themselves, they would not fulfill the Mitzvah - either
because Yi'ush alone does not acquire, or because it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah
(b) By letting non-Jews cut the Hadasim - there would be Yi'ush at the hands
of the gentiles, and Yi'ush plus change of ownership *is* Koneh - neither is
it a case of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' (since it is not *they* who
performed the Aveirah, but the gentiles from whom they acquired them).
(c) Rav Huna was referring to the Hadasim that the salesmen wanted to use
*for themselves* - but as far as the Hadasim *for sale* was concerned, their
clients would have acquired them anyway, for exactly the same reason as the
salesmen acquired them in our case.
(a) The Gemara asks why they did not acquire the Hadasim with 'Shinuy
Ma'aseh' - meaning changing the format of the stolen object (which acquires
even without Yi'ush). The Shinuy Ma'aseh referred to here is the binding of
the four species together.
They called a Hadas, 'a Hosha'ana' - because they used to use them for the
Mitzvah on Hosha'ana Rabah.
(b) The Gemara answers that Lulav does *not* require binding - in which
case, binding it is not a proper Ma'aseh.
(c) We then answer that even if it *would* require binding - it would not
acquire, because a Ma'aseh that can easily be undone, is not considered a
(d) They could not acquire the Hadasim with Yi'ush and Shinuy Hashem on the
assumption that, before it was cut, it was called an 'Asa' - the Aramaic
word for a Hadas, whereas now, it was known as a 'Hosha'nah' - because they
tended to call a Hadas a 'Hosha'ana', even before it was cut.