Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
1. One cannot use a stolen lulav even on the second day of Sukkos because it is a mitzvah that is brought about through the violation of a negative prohibition and is thus invalid. There would be no distinction whether the owner despaired of recovering the lulav or not, because even if the owner despaired of recovering the lulav, the mitzvah is invalid because it was brought about through the violation of a prohibition. (29b4-30a1)
2. Rabbi Yitzchok maintains that just like one could fulfill his obligation with a borrowed lulav on the second day, he can also fulfill the mitzvah with a stolen lulav. (30a2)
3. Rav Huna told the merchants who purchased hadassim, myrtle branches, from gentiles that they should ensure that the gentiles cut the branches and give the branches to the merchants. Rav Huna did this because he was concerned that the gentiles had stolen the land from a Jew and land cannot be deemed stolen. This means that even if the original owner of the land despairs of recovering the property, the thief is not considered to be the owner and the original owner retains ownership of the land. Rav Huna intended that the gentiles should cut the branches and give the branches to the merchants so the abandonment of the owner regarding the produce would occur while the branches were in the hands of the gentiles, and there would be a change of ownership when the merchants received the branches. This procedure would thus allow the merchants to acquire the branches in accordance with the principles regarding acquisition of stolen objects. (30a2-30b1)
4. There is a principle that allows a thief to acquire stolen property if there is a physical change in the stolen object. The Gemara asks that since according to one opinion, one is required to tie the lulav together with the other two species, the tying should constitute a physical change and thus the merchants should be permitted to acquire the hadassim in this manner. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna follows the opinion that maintains that the lulav does not have to be tied with the other species and therefore no physical change occurs to the hadassim. Alternatively, even if Rav Huna requires the lulav to be tied with the other species, this tying is not deemed to be a change because the change can be reversed and the rule is that a change that can be reversed and the object will revert to its original form is not deemed to be a change. (30b1-30b2)
2. Rabbi Yitzchok maintains that just like one could fulfill his obligation with a borrowed lulav on the second day, he can also fulfill the mitzvah with a stolen lulav. (30a2)
3. Rav Huna told the merchants who purchased hadassim, myrtle branches, from gentiles that they should ensure that the gentiles cut the branches and give the branches to the merchants. Rav Huna did this because he was concerned that the gentiles had stolen the land from a Jew and land cannot be deemed stolen. This means that even if the original owner of the land despairs of recovering the property, the thief is not considered to be the owner and the original owner retains ownership of the land. Rav Huna intended that the gentiles should cut the branches and give the branches to the merchants so the abandonment of the owner regarding the produce would occur while the branches were in the hands of the gentiles, and there would be a change of ownership when the merchants received the branches. This procedure would thus allow the merchants to acquire the branches in accordance with the principles regarding acquisition of stolen objects. (30a2-30b1)
4. There is a principle that allows a thief to acquire stolen property if there is a physical change in the stolen object. The Gemara asks that since according to one opinion, one is required to tie the lulav together with the other two species, the tying should constitute a physical change and thus the merchants should be permitted to acquire the hadassim in this manner. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna follows the opinion that maintains that the lulav does not have to be tied with the other species and therefore no physical change occurs to the hadassim. Alternatively, even if Rav Huna requires the lulav to be tied with the other species, this tying is not deemed to be a change because the change can be reversed and the rule is that a change that can be reversed and the object will revert to its original form is not deemed to be a change. (30b1-30b2)
0 comments:
Post a Comment