Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sukah 26

1) BUILDING A SUKAH IN THE FIELD WHERE ONE WORKS

QUESTION: The Beraisa states that watchmen of orchards and gardens are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. The Gemara asks why are they exempt? They should be required to build a Sukah in the field where they sleep. Abaye answers that there is a principle of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" -- one is only required to live in a Sukah in the manner in which one lives in a house (and since the watchmen do not live in a house, they do not have to live in a Sukah). Rava answers that if the watchman stays in a Sukah, he will be inviting thieves to the field (since they will see that he does not have a good view of the entire field from within the Sukah).

Earlier, the Gemara quoted a Beraisa that said that travelers, away from home, are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah while they are traveling. However, the Gemara there did not ask why they are not required to build a Sukah, like it asks here with regard to orchard guards. Why did they Gemara not ask this question there? Furthermore, the Beraisa which mentions orchard guards also says that the watchmen of a city are exempt from dwelling in a Sukah, and yet the Gemara did not ask that they should be required to build a Sukah where they are. (The Gemara's question was only on the orchard guards, as is implied by the word "v'Lei'avdi Sukah *Hasam* [in the above- mentioned orchard]," as is evident from Rashi DH Pirtzah.) If only now, after the Gemara asks this question regarding orchard guards, Abaye introduces to us the principle of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru," that indicates that the Gemara was not familiar with this principle until now, and thus it should have asked the same question on the other cases -- of those who are traveling and those who guard the city; they, too, should have to build Sukos where they are!

ANSWER: The RITVA asks another question. According to Rava, why should one be exempt just because of a fear that thieves will come and steal some fruit? Where do we find that a loss of money (or the inability to properly do one's job) exempts one from the Mitzvah of Sukah? If Rava, who argues with Abaye, does not apply here the principle of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru," then he should remain obligated to dwell in a Sukah despite the loss of money! The RITVA explains that Rava agrees that there is a requirement of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru." However, he does not apply it in this case in the same way that Abaye does. Abaye maintains that "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" is sufficient to exempt such people as watchmen from living in a Sukah. A person who lives in any place where one usually lives without furniture (such as a watchmen who lives in a field) is not Chayav in Sukah, because living without furniture is not the type of Dirah that the Torah commands for the Mitzvah of Sukah (Rashi). [Alternatively, Abaye holds that if one is in a place in which a normal person eats or sleeps outside of his house (such as in the field), he does not have to live in a Sukah (Ritva).]

Rava does not agree to *this particular* application of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru." Even if a person lives in a place without furniture he is Chayav to live in a Sukah during Sukos -- since that is his "k'Ein Taduru." He normally lives in this manner. Rava agrees, though, that if one is going to lose money due to living in a Sukah, or it will otherwise be difficult to live in a Sukah in that place, then he is exempt because of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru," because one would not live in a house under such conditions.

We asked, why did the Gemara not ask this question regarding the watchmen of a city and travelers? They, too, should have to build a Sukah wherever they are! Why did the Gemara only ask this question regarding orchards guards? The answer is that the Gemara there knew that there is a principle of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru," and that is why it did not ask in those cases that the city watchmen or travelers should have to build a Sukah while guarding the city or while traveling. However, the Gemara, in that stage, thought that "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" teaches that *during the time* that a person normally does not live in a house, he does not have to live in a Sukah. That is, if the guard works during the day, he is exempt from Sukah during the day, but since he normally sleeps in his house at night, he must sleep in a Sukah at night on Sukos. However, in the case of orchard guards, who guard the orchards both during the day and during the night, there is no time that this person stays in his home; he is a professional watchmen and stays in the field at all times (Rashi). If so, his living in the field is akin to a normal person living in a house, since that is how he lives all year, and thus he should be Chayav to live in a Sukah on Sukos because of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru!" Abaye answers that "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" does not mean the way a person lives in a place the whole year; rather it means the way a *normal* person lives during the whole year.

Rava answers that since he is going to lose money by living in a way different than the way he normally lives (in the open field), then it is not "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru." But if living in a Sukah will incur for him no loss, then -- in contrast to the opinion of Abaye -- he is required to live in a Sukah there because it is "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" (even though normal people do not live in the fields).

Still, though, the Gemara should have asked that in the case of *city* watchmen who guard the city during the day and during the night, they should be required to build a Sukah, since that is where they normally live throughout the year, just like orchard guards! Why does the Gemara not ask this question in that case? The answer seems to be that the Rishonim did not have the Girsa of "ba'Yom u'va'Laylah" ("[city guards who work] during the day and during the night") in their texts, neither in the case of travelers nor in the case of city watchmen (Ritva, Rabeinu Chananel, Rif, Rosh, as well as in Kisvei Yad cited by the Dikdukei Sofrim). Therefore, the first place where it mentions "during the day and during the night" is in the case of the orchard guards. (It seems that the difference between city guards and orchard guards is that there was no such thing as a city guard working throughout the day and night, sleeping outside of the city walls.) (M. Kornfeld)

OPINIONS: The Beraisa says that "Holchei Derachim" (travelers) are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. Rashi says that the reason they are exempt is because of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" -- one is obligated to live in a Sukah during Sukos in the same manner that one lives in his house during the rest of the year; since, during the rest of the year, a person does not stay in his home at all times but he leaves on trips for purposes of business and such (at which times he is not living in his house), so, too, on Sukos he does not have to stay in his Sukah, but he may go on a trip and not live in a Sukah.

This Gemara is cited as Halachah by the SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 640:8). The MISHNAH BERURAH (640:40) adds that if one can *easily* find a Sukah without difficulty while on his trip, then he is required to dwell in that Sukah. Also, if he travels only during the day but not during the night, he is Chayav to sleep in a Sukah at night. The Acharonim, though, argue how far the obligation to sleep in a Sukah at night goes. The LEVUSH rules that one is only obligated to look for a Sukah that is already built in the town in which he is lodging, but if there is no Sukah built (e.g. there are no Jews in the town), he is not required to build his own Sukah. In contrast, the MAGEN AVRAHAM rules that he is required to build his own Sukah wherever he lodges. The Mishnah Berurah (in BI'UR HALACHAH) and others side with the Levush, because one is not required to spend half the night building a Sukah to sleep in for one night; rather, one merely has to make an effort to find a Sukah that is already built.

Does this mean that today, in practice, one who goes on a pleasure trip during Sukos is exempt from eating and sleeping in a Sukah? Is it permitted to go for a picnic outing during Sukos and eat outside of a Sukah?

(a) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN, zt'l, in IGROS MOSHE (OC 3:93) writes that when the Gemara (and Shulchan Aruch) says that travelers are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah, it refers only to those who are traveling for the sake of business. One who travels for personal pleasure, on the other hand, is *not* exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. One who goes on a picnic outing on Sukos is obligated to eat in a Sukah, and if he does not eat in a Sukah he transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh. Even though, during the year, it is the normal manner for people to leave their homes to eat outside, the principle of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" does not permit one to leave the Sukah to eat outside on Sukos.

Rav Moshe's arguments are that, first, the Halachah (as stated by Rava in the Gemara) is that one who is *Mitz'ta'er* is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. That is, if being inside a Sukah causes a person more distress than he would experience in the house (or anywhere outside of the Sukah), he is exempt (because "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" tells us that just as a person would leave his house during the year if it was uncomfortable for him to be there, so, too, there is no obligation for him to remain in his Sukah during Sukos if it is uncomfortable for him to be there). That was the way Rava expressed this Halachah -- one who is Mitz'ta'er is exempt. If it is true that one is exempt from the Mitzvah if he wants to go on a picnic outing then Rava should not have focused on the negative (one who is uncomfortable in the Sukah is exempt), but on the positive -- one who *enjoys being outside* of the Sukah more than being inside of it is exempt!

Second, Rav Moshe cites the Gemara (Menachos 41a) that states that a person should not attempt to exempt himself from a Mitzvas Aseh (for example, by wearing a garment that does not have four corners so that he does not have to fulfill the Mitzvah of Tzitzis). On the contrary, a person should make every attempt to obligate himself in Mitzvos Aseh, as we find that Moshe Rabeinu requested permission to enter the land of Israel only so that he would be able to fulfill the Mitzvos Aseh that depend on the land (Sotah 14a).

Rav Moshe therefore concludes that one should not go out for a pleasure trip on Sukos to a place where this is no Sukah in which to eat or sleep.

(b) RAV Y. S. ELYASHIV, shlit'a (as recorded by a Talmid in HE'OROS B'MASECHES SUKAH), opposes the above view and says that it is the manner for people to go out for a pleasure trip from their homes just like they go out for business trips. Since this is the manner in which one lives in his home during the year (that is, he goes out on a trip occasionally), then so, too, this may be his manner of living in the Sukah during Sukos, and he should be permitted to leave his Sukah to go out on a pleasure trip.

What about the Gemara in Menachos that says one should not attempt to exempt himself from a Mitzvas Aseh? Rav Elyashiv answers that in this case, he is *not* exempting himself from the Mitzvah. He still has his Sukah; he is simply living in it the way he lives in his house during the rest of the year. Even when leaving his Sukah to go on a pleasure trip, he is not forfeiting the Mitzvah of Sukah; rather he is just living in the Sukah the same way he lives in his house. (When Rashi says that "Holchei Derachim" refers to those who go on business trips, he does not mean to limit the exemption to those who go out on business. He merely mentioned that as an example of why one would travel on Sukos.)

Perhaps we can suggest a reconciliation for the difference of opinion as follows. The two opinions are discussing two different types of pleasure outings. If a person wants to go traveling in order to tour or visit certain places, then it is the same as going out on business. "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" exempts a person from the Sukah during the trip. He might yet find himself sitting in a Sukah during his trip, since if he finds himself next to a Sukah at mealtime then he must go into the Sukah to eat (as the Mishnah Berurah writes, cited above), because that is what he would do during the rest of the year on a trip -- if he finds a house during mealtime in which to eat, he would certainly go into that house.

However, a person may not exempt himself from the Sukah if he wants to eat outside simply for the very purpose of *being outside* -- because he enjoys the outdoors and he wants the pleasure of eating in the outside air. Doing so would truly be considered an attempt to shrug of a Mitzvas Aseh, since even if there is a Sukah nearby when he picnics he would not want to go into it to eat. Furthermore, since he specifically wants to eat outside, he is not just doing the type of action that does not *need* a Sukah (such as touring), but he is doing an action which shows that he does not *want* a Sukah! By going on a picnic on Sukos he is showing that he specifically wants to eat outside of the Sukah, which is a disgrace to the Sukah. We tell such a person to enjoy the outdoors during the rest of the year and not on Sukos. The intention of the tourist, on the other hand, is to travel in order to see the sites, but not to purposefully avoid sitting in a Sukah.

Rav Elyashiv's ruling refers to the average Israeli tourist, who travels in order to reach a destination. Rav Moshe's ruling, on the other hand, addresses the Western phenomenon of picnicking in order to "be in the great outdoors," and since such an intent means that one specifically wants to get out of the Sukah, it is prohibited. (M. Kornfeld)

26b