THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
Previous daf
Sukah 3
SUKAH 3 - Mrs. Rachelle Potack with Marsha and Larry Wachsman are dedicating
this Daf in friendship and support of the Dafyomi Advancement Forum and
Dafyomi study.
|
1) THE SUKAH OF QUEEN HELENA
OPINIONS: The Gemara asks a question from a Beraisa on the Amora'im who
explain the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan in our Mishnah
regarding a Sukah that is 20 Amos tall. In the Beraisa Rebbi Yehudah brings
a proof to his opinion that such a tall Sukah is not Pasul from an incident
involving the queen Hilni. Hilni and her seven sons were sitting in a Sukah
that was more than 20 Amos tall when the elders came to visit her, and they
said nothing about the Sukah. It must be that such a Sukah is valid. The
Rabanan respond that Hilni's Sukah was indeed Pasul, and the reason why the
elders did not say anything about it to her was because a woman is exempt
from the Mitzvah of Sukah, and her sons were not yet old enough to be
obligated in Mitzvos. Rebbi Yehudah retorts that Hilni certainly had a son
who was old enough to be required to do Mitzvos for the sake of Chinuch, and
if so Hilni certainly would have made a valid Sukah for him. It must be that
a 20-Amah tall Sukah *is* valid.
The Gemara explains that according to Rav Yoshiyah (in the opinion of Rabah)
-- who said that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan argue only when the walls of
the tall Sukah do not reach the Sechach -- the Beraisa is not problematic,
because it is the custom of queens to sit in such a Sukah to enjoy the flow
of fresh air, and that is why the Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah were arguing
whether Hilni's Sukah was Pasul or not. However, the Beraisa is problematic
according to Rav Huna and Rav Chanan bar Rabah who explain that the argument
between the Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah applies only to a very small Sukah
(such as one that is only seven by seven Tefachim) which is 20 Amos tall.
Certainly, a queen would not sit in such a small Sukah. It must be that she
was sitting in a very wide Sukah, and yet we still see that the Rabanan and
Rebbi Yehudah argue! The Gemara answers that Hilni had a very large Sukah,
but she was sitting in a narrow subsection of the Sukah with her sons, and
it was that part of the Sukah which the Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah argued
about in the Beraisa.
(a) Rashi points out that this answer will not suffice to justify the
opinion of Rav Chanan bar Rabah, who said (2b) that the Rabanan permit a
tall Sukah as long as its length and width are large enough to fit a
person's head, most of his body, and his table (which is seven by seven
Tefachim). Certainly Hilni's subsection Sukah was not that small, because
how is it possible to fit seven sons and their mother all in an area that is
only seven by seven Tefachim? It must be that the Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah
in the Beraisa are arguing about a Sukah which larger than seven by seven,
which contradicts Rav Chanan bar Rabah's opinion! Rashi concludes that the
Beraisa is indeed difficult according to Rav Chanan bar Rabah.
(b) TOSFOS answers that even according to Rav Chanan bar Rabah, Hilni's
Sukah would have been Pasul according to the Rabanan. Even though it
certainly is not talking about a Sukah which was only seven *by seven*
Tefachim (which would not fit Hilni and her sons), perhaps Hilni and her
sons sat in a *long and narrow* subsection of the Sukah. If that compartment
was less than seven Tefachim wide, it could be any length at all, and still
remain invalid.
It appears that Rashi and Tosfos argue about the definition of the
dimensions of a small Sukah. Rashi understands that the Shi'ur of "seven
Tefachim by seven Tefachim" (Gemara 16b and Rashi 4b, 16a) describes the
minimum *area* of a kosher Sukah. As long as the Sukah's area is equal to
the area of a seven by seven Sukah (49 square Tefachim), then it is valid,
such as a Sukah which is 3 Tefachim long by 16 1/3 Tefachim wide. Therefore,
a mother and seven children can never fit into a minimally sized Sukah.
Tosfos, on the other hand, maintains that when the Gemara says that a Sukah
must be seven Tefachim long, it means that it must have a minimum of seven
Tefachim in each dimension, the length and the width. It does not matter
whether the area of the Sukah comes to 49 square Tefachim; it any one
dimension does not reach seven Tefachim, it is invalid. (In most other
Halachos, such as the 4 x 4 Amah Sukah according to Rebbi or 4 x 4 Tefachim
with regard to Mechitzos, Tosfos is certainly correct. Both dimensions must
be a full 4 Amos or Tefachim. However, Rashi differentiates between these
and the Shi'ur of Sukah, perhaps because the Shi'ur of Sukah depends on the
practical consideration of placing a table along with a person into a Sukah.
The table can be placed either at the person's side, or before him.)
3b
2) HALACHAH: THE MINIMUM SIZE OF A SUKAH
OPINIONS: The Gemara records two arguments between Beis Shamai and Beis
Hillel. First, they argue about the minimum size of a Sukah. Beis Shamai
says that a Sukah must be at least seven by seven Tefachim (large enough to
hold "Rosho v'Rubo v'Shulchano" -- one's head, most of his body, and his
table). Beis Hillel says that it needs to be only six by six Tefachim (large
enough to hold one's head and most of his body, without his table). Second,
they argue whether a person fulfills his obligation of sitting in a Sukah
when he is inside the Sukah but his table is outside of the Sukah. According
to Beis Shamai, the Rabanan made a Gezeirah that he is *not* Yotzei his
obligation, because we are afraid that he might be drawn after his table and
end up eating outside of the Sukah. Beis Hillel maintains that the Rabanan
did not make such a Gezeirah. In both cases, we find that Beis Shamai is
more strict.
According to Beis Shamai, is the Pesul of a small Sukah (one that is less
than seven by seven Tefachim) and the Pesul of a large Sukah with the table
outside, mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan? In addition, what is the Halachah in
each case?
(a) The RIF (13a in the pages of the Rif) writes that in *both* arguments,
the Halachah follows Beis Shamai, because the two issues "depend on the same
reason." The RAN and the RITVA explain that the Rif understood that the
Pesul of a small Sukah is mid'Rabanan, just like the Pesul of a large Sukah
with the table outside. In both cases, the Rabanan made a Gezeirah lest a
person be drawn after his table. Since the Rif says that both types of Sukah
(the small one, and the one with the table situated outside of the Sukah)
are Pasul for the same reason (i.e. the Gezeirah d'Rabanan), it is clear
that he holds that Beis Shamai only invalidates them mid'Rabanan.
The Mishnah Berurah (Bi'ur Halachah, DH Afilu) asks that although the Rif
seems to say that even the Pesul of a small Sukah is only mid'Rabanan, we
find that the Gemara in many places (for example, 7a, 16a-b) discusses the
minimum Shi'ur of a Sukah and it always seems to take for granted that there
is no Shi'ur mid'Oraisa other than 7 X 7. If that Shi'ur was mid'Rabanan,
the Gemara should have mentioned what the Shi'ur d'Oraisa is.
To answer this question on the Rif, the Mishnah Berurah (in Sha'ar
ha'Tziyon, #7) suggests that perhaps the Rif also means to say that the
Pesul of a small Sukah is *mid'Oraisa*. How does he understand the Rif's
statement that both the case of a large Sukah with the table outside and the
case of a small Sukah are Pasul for the same reason? It could be that the
Rif understood that the fact that the Torah invalidates a small Sukah (the
size of which is not large enough to contain one's table) reveals that the
*Torah itself* was concerned that if the table is outside of the Sukah
because of its small size, one might be drawn after the table. From that
Halachah, the Rabanan learned to make a Gezeirah in the case of a large
Sukah with the table outside, even though the Torah did not invalidate it
(since it is *possible* to have the table inside such a Sukah -- see Ran).
(b) However, the ROSH and the RAN and others say that the two arguments are
completely unrelated. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak, who ruled like Beis Shamai,
said that a Sukah has to be large enough to contain "Rosho v'Rubo
v'Shulchano." He is only ruling like Beis Shamai with regard to the Shi'ur
that the Torah requires for a valid Sukah. In the case of a large Sukah with
the table outside, Beis Shamai's reason is completely different. There, Beis
Shamai holds that the Rabanan invalidated the Sukah out of concern that a
person might be drawn after his table. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak did not say
that we follow Beis Shamai in that case. Consequently, a Sukah less than 7 X
7 is Pasul *mid'Oraisa*, while a large Sukah with the table outside is
kosher mid'Oraisa. Even according to Beis Shamai, it is only invalid
*mid'Rabanan*.
The MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 634, Bi'ur Halachah, end of DH Pesulah) suggests
that this is also the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Sukah 4:1, 6:8).
(c) TOSFOS (3a, DH d'Amar Lach) and TOSFOS RABEINU YEHUDAH HE'CHASID
(Berachos 11a) suggest that in both cases, the Pesul is d'Oraisa according
to Beis Shamai. Even though the Gemara says that the Pesul of a large Sukah
with the table outside is because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan lest a person be
drawn after his table, the Rabanan decreed that if a person sits in his
Sukah with the table outside, then he will not have fulfilled the Mitzvah of
Sukah even *mid'Oraisa*. The Rabanan have the right to decree that if a
person does not perform a Mitzvah in the way that they prescribed, then he
does not fulfill the Torah obligation.
It is not clear, though, how the Rabanan are able to prevent one from
fulfilling his obligation mid'Oraisa. Perhaps everyone performs each Mitzvah
"according to the will of the Rabanan" (as we find regarding the act of
Kidushin, "Kol d'Mekadesh, a'Da'ata d'Rabanan Mekadesh"). The intention of
the Rabanan, in turn, is that the act should not be considered to be done
for the purpose of fulfilling a Mitzvah if it is done in a way contrary to
what the Rabanan prescribed. Even if a Mitzvah can be fulfilled without
Kavanah, specific intent, nevertheless if a person specifically intends
*not* to be Yotze the Mitzvah, he will not be Yotze (as TOSFOS rules in
Menachos 40b DH mi'Mai).
HALACHAH: All of the Poskim rule like Beis Shamai in the case of a small
Sukah, because Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak ruled like that. In the case of a
large Sukah with the table outside, TOSFOS, the ROSH and many Rishonim rule
like Beis Hillel. Since Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak was not discussing that case
(according to their understanding of his words), we rely on the tried and
true rule that whenever Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue, the Halachah
follows Beis Hillel.
However, the RIF and RAMBAM rule like Beis Shamai even in the case of a
large Sukah with the table outside, because they maintain that both
arguments are based on the same reasoning (see above, (a)). If we rule like
Beis Shamai in one case, then we must rule like Beis Shamai in the other
case as well. This is how the SHULCHAN ARUCH rules (OC 634:4).
Next daf
|