Ask A Question about the Daf

Introduction to Sukah

Sukah 2

1) THE ENACTMENTS OF A "KORAH" AND "SHITUF" FOR A "MAVOY"

QUESTION: The Gemara asks why the Mishnah here says that "a Sukah that is higher than 20 Amos is Pasul" without stating how to rectify the problem, while a similar Mishnah in Eruvin (2a) says that a "Mavoy which is higher than 20 Amos should be lowered," teaching how to rectify the problem.

RASHI (DH Mavoy) explains the Mishnah in Eruvin. The Rabanan required that a Mavoy, a three-sided alleyway that opens into Reshus ha'Rabim, must have a Korah (beam) across the top of the open side, in order to permit carrying inside the Mavoy. A three-sided alleyway resembles a Reshus ha'Rabim, a public domain, and therefore the Rabanan prohibited carrying more than four Amos there (lest people think that it is permitted to carry in a real Reshus ha'Rabim), unless there is a Korah at the opening to Reshus ha'Rabim which reminds people that it is not a Reshus ha'Rabim.

Rashi adds that the Rabanan made an additional enactment of "Shituf Mavoy." He explains that in the times of the Gemara, a Mavoy had Chatzeros opening into it. The people living in each individual Chatzer were the owners of that Chatzer. The Mavoy, in turn, was owned by all of the residents of the Chatzeros. The Rabanan prohibited carrying from a private Reshus ha'Yachid (Chatzer) to a less private Reshus ha'Yachid (Mavoy). (Similarly, they prohibited carrying from one's home, a private Reshus ha'Yachid, to the Chatzer, a less private Reshus ha'Yachid, unless a Eruv Chatzeros is made.) In order to permit carrying from the Chatzeros a "Shituf" must be made. The Shituf joins together all of the Chatzeros and makes them all collectively owned by all of the residents, so that it is as if it is one Chatzer with one owner.

Why does Rashi mention the enactment of Shituf? It is irrelevant to the Gemara which is discussing the enactment of the Korah, which permits carrying in the Mavoy itself. The Shituf is an auxiliary enactment which permits carrying from the Chatzeros to the Mavoy, once there is already a Korah in the Mavoy. What does the Shituf have to do with the Gemara which discusses lowering the Korah in order to rectify the height of the Mavoy? (MAHARAM)

ANSWER: Perhaps Rashi mentions Shituf in order to explain why the enactment of Korah was made for a Mavoy.

Rashi writes that the reason a Mavoy needs a Korah is so that people do not mistakenly think that just like it is permitted to carry in a Mavoy, it is permitted to carry in a real Reshus ha'Rabim. Rashi could have written another reason why a Mavoy needs a Korah -- in order to prevent people from carrying from there into Reshus ha'Rabim through its open side. Rashi instead writes that the Mavoy itself resembles a Reshus ha'Rabim and thus people might err and think that if one may carry in the Mavoy, one may also carry in Reshus ha'Rabim.

How did Rashi know that the enactment of a Korah was because a Mavoy resembles a Reshus ha'Rabim, and not because of the fear that people might carry from the Mavoy into Reshus ha'Rabim? We know that without a Korah, it is permitted to carry something in a Mavoy within a distance of four Amos. If the Gezeirah not to carry in a Mavoy (without a Korah) was to prevent people from carrying from the Mavoy into Reshus ha'Rabim, then it should be prohibited to move an object *any* distance, because one might be standing at the exit of the Mavoy, less than four Amos from Reshus ha'Rabim, and if it is permitted to carry up to four Amos, he might carry into Reshus ha'Rabim! It must be that the only concern was that one would think that if it is permitted to carry in a Mavoy it is also permitted to carry in a Reshus ha'Rabim. There would be no place to limit the prohibition of carrying to a distance of four Amos.

In what way, though, is a Mavoy similar to Reshus ha'Rabim? Rashi explains that a Mavoy is like a Reshus ha'Rabim in that it is a *non-privately owned domain outside of a number of private domains*. This is evidenced by the requirement for Shituf. The requirement for Shituf shows that it is a non- privately owned domain outside of private domains, and in that way it resembles a Reshus ha'Rabim and thus requires a Korah. This is why Rashi discusses Shituf -- as an introduction to why a Korah is needed. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Gemara asks why the Mishnah here says that "a Sukah that is higher than 20 Amos is Pasul" without stating how to rectify the problem, while a similar Mishnah in Eruvin (2a) says that a "Mavoy which is higher than 20 Amos should be lowered," teaching how to rectify the problem. The Gemara (in its first answer) says that the reason the Mishnah teaches that a Sukah is Pasul is because the requirement for a Sukah to be less than 20 Amos is mid'Oraisa, while the Mishnah in Eruvin gives the Takanah for a Mavoy which is too high because the requirement for a Mavoy to have a Korah below 20 Amos is mid'Rabanan. How does this difference affect whether the Mishnah says "Pasul" or whether it tells us how to rectify the problem?

RASHI explains that when the Pesul is mid'Oraisa, the Pesul existed before the Mishnah was taught, and therefore it is appropriate to say "Pasul." When the Pesul is only mid'Rabanan, though, such as the Pesul of a Mavoy which has a Korah higher than 20 Amos, it is not possible for the Mishnah to say that it is "Pasul," because the Pesul was not known before the Mishnah was taught.

What exactly does Rashi mean? Why is it not possible for the Mishnah to teach the Pesul d'Rabanan by saying that a Mavoy higher than 20 Amos is "Pasul?" True, this is the first time that we are being told of the Pesul, but what is wrong with using the language of "Pasul" to teach it?

ANSWER: Rashi means that the proper method for teaching a Takanah or obligation is to first teach the positive -- i.e., what *is* required -- before teaching the negative -- what is invalid. Thus, the Mishnah can begin with the word "Pasul" (the negative aspect of the law) only if the positive aspect, of what *is* required, has already been taught. The Torah already teaches that there is a requirement to build a Sukah. Therefore, it is possible for the Mishnah to add that a certain detail will *invalidate* the Sukah. However, regarding a Mavoy (or any other rabbinical enactment), the concept of the prohibition to carry in a Mavoy without a Korah has not yet been taught until one reads the Mishnah. Therefore, the Mishnah cannot start with "Pasul," but must begin with "Yema'et," which includes both the positive ("keep it lower than twenty Amos") as well as the negative ("don't raise it above twenty Amos").

2b

OPINIONS: The Gemara gives four opinions regarding the reason why a Sukah which is 20 Amos tall is Pasul. The different reasons have practical consequences with regard to whether there are exceptions to the Pesul of a 20-Amah tall Sukah, and under what circumstances those exceptions apply.

(1) Rabah (2a) says that the reason a 20-Amah tall Sukah is Pasul is because the Sechach is not readily noticeable. However, if the walls of the Sukah reach all the way up to the Sechach, then the Sechach catches a person's eyes and the Sukah is valid even if it is taller than 20 Amos.
(2) Rebbi Zeira says that it is Pasul because the roof does not provide shade to the lower part of the Sukah when it is so high. According to his reason, if the dimensions of length and width of the Sukah are at least four by four Amos, then the roof does provide shade even though it is higher than 20 Amos, and such a Sukah is valid.
(3) Rava says that a Sukah taller than 20 Amos is Pasul because the Torah requires that the Sukah be a "Diras Arai," a temporary dwelling. A structure taller than 20 Amos is normally built as a "Diras Keva," a permanent dwelling. A Sukah cannot be built in the manner of the type of building that is built to be a "Diras Keva." According to Rava, no Sukah taller than 20 Amos IS valid.
(4) The Gemara (2b) cites a fourth opinion. Rav Chanan bar Rabah says that a 20-Amah tall Sukah is Pasul only when it is so small that it "contains only his head, most of his body, and his table," which is defined as seven Tefachim long by seven Tefachim wide. (TOSFOS explains that such a small structure is considered like a chicken coop and is not called a dwelling place.) If the Sukah is larger, though, it is valid even if it is taller than 20 Amos.

Which opinion is the Halachah?

(a) RABEINU CHANANEL says that the Halachah should follow Raba. His reasoning (cited by the Rif) is that Raba was an expert in Rav's teachings, and he should know best what Rav taught. If he ruled that a tall Sukah is valid when its walls reach the Sechach, he must have known for certain that that is what Rav taught. Since Rav was a very early Amora, that should therefore be the Halachah. (This is how the Korban Nesanel explains the intention of Rabeinu Chananel.) The Halachah certainly should not be like *Rava*, because when the Amora'im (Rav Yoshiyah, Rav Huna, and Rav Chanan bar Rabah) quote Rav, none of the statements said in his name agree with Rava's opinion. The RA'AVAD and ITUR add that Rava is a Talmid of Rabah, and the Halachah should be like the rebbi.

(b) However, the ROSH points out that the RIF rules in accordance with Rava. Why is this? The Rosh explains that first, of all the Amora'im quoted in the Gemara, Rava is the latest ("Basra"), and the Halachah should follow the latest opinion (even though he is a Talmid of Rabah). Second, later in the Gemara (7b). Abaye gives a list of Tana'im who hold that a Sukah is a "Diras Keva," and he includes Rebbi Yehudah of our Mishnah in that list. This implies that the Rabanan and most other Tana'im do not agree that a Sukah is a "Diras Keva," and the Tana'im which maintain that it is are expressing the opinion of a minority. According to all of the Amora'im except Rava, the Rabanan of our Mishnah do permit a Sukah over 20 Amos tall even though such a structure is a "Diras Keva." Hence, we see from Abaye there that the Halachah should follow Rava, who says that a structure that is fit to be a "Diras Keva" should *never* be a valid Sukah.

According to Rava, the Mishnah is more precise, because it makes no mention of any exceptions to the Halachah that a Sukah 20 Amos tall is Pasul, like Rava holds. This is the ruling of the SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 633:1).