Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sukah 46

1) HALACHAH: THE BLESSING OF "LEISHEV BA'SUKAH"

OPINIONS: The Beraisa says that when a person "enters to sit in the Sukah," he recites the Berachah of "Leishev ba'Sukah." This implies that as soon as one goes into the Sukah to sit down, he makes the Berachah, even before sitting. At what point exactly is a person supposed to recite the Berachah?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Sukah 6:12) and RAV HAI GA'ON cited by the ROSH (4:3) rule that when a person enters the Sukah, he should recite a Berachah even before sitting down.

Rav Hai Ga'on adds that even if one walks in without intention to eat (for example, he goes in to his friend's Sukah to visit), he also recites the Berachah. The Rambam in fact does not mention that one must intend to eat in order to recite the Berachah.

(b) The RA'AVAD (Hilchos Sukah 6:12) writes that one may make the Berachah on the Sukah after he sits down with intention to eat. The Berachah is really for the act of eating that will be done in the Sukah, but since the act of sitting is preparatory to the act of eating, one recites the Berachah when he sits down. The Rosh points out that this was also the practice of RABEINU MEIR, who would recite the Berachah after sitting down, before eating.

(c) The ROSH writes that the universal practice is not to recite a Berachah for sitting in the Sukah except immediately before eating, after saying ha'Motzi. (This is in contrast to the Ra'avad, who says that one recites the Berachah when one sits down to eat, even though one will not be eating right away.)

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 639:8) rules like the Rosh, that the blessing is recited only at the time of eating. The MISHNAH BERURAH there (639:46) adds that it is best to be Machmir, and as soon as one walks into the Sukah one should take a Shi'ur (k'Beitzah) of Mezonos and recite a Berachah of "Leishev ba'Sukah" and "Borei Minei Mezonos" and eat.

The Mishnah Berurah (639:48) also adds that if one has no intention to eat bread at all that day, he should make a Berachah as soon as he enters the Sukah, even though he is not eating. The only reason to push the Berachah off is that it is better to make a Berachah on the main use of the Sukah (eating) than on the secondary use (sitting and otherwise using the Sukah). If he does not intend to eat, though, he must recite the blessing upon entering the Sukah. He adds, citing the CHAYEI ADAM, that even if a person who *did* eat that day walked out of the Sukah, and later returned with intention to sit in, but not to eat in, the Sukah, he must recite a Berachah upon his return. (Even though his main use of the Sukah was eating, *at this point* his only use of the Sukah will be sitting and spending time in the Sukah -- since he will leave the Sukah again before returning for the next meal. Therefore, when he re-enters the Sukah he recites the Berachah even though he is not eating).

(It is recorded in MA'ASEH RAV (#18) that the practice of the VILNA GA'ON was to recite a Berachah every time he entered the Sukah, even when he did not eat there.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that aside from reciting the Berachah of Shehecheyanu for the arrival of the Yom Tov, one also recites Shehecheyanu upon performing the Mitzvos of the Yom Tov (such as Sukah and Lulav) for the first time.

Outside of Eretz Yisrael, we observe a second day of Yom Tov, due to the original doubt about the exact date. (In the time when the Beis Din established the new month based on witnesses' sighting of the new moon, word of the new month would not reach the far-away locations. Even today, when the calendar system is used, the Rabanan decreed that the people in those places observe two days of Yom Tov as if they were in doubt.) The Berachah of Shehecheyanu is also recited on that second day of Yom Tov in Chutz la'Aretz, for the Rabanan enacted that all of the Berachos of the first day be recited on the second day as well. Therefore, in Chutz la'Aretz, we recite a Shehecheyanu as part of Kidush on the second night.

What about the Shehecheyanu recited for the Mitzvos of Sukah and Lulav? When we pick up the Lulav on the second day of Yom Tov, do we recite another Shehecheyanu, just as we did the day before?

Although the Beraisa states that one should recite Shehecheyanu upon completing the construction of the Sukah (before Yom Tov), the Gemara concludes that the practice of the Amora'im was not to make a Shehecheyanu at that time, but instead to include it in the Kidush recited at the onset of Yom Tov. Therefore, the Shehecheyanu that is recited for the Mitzvah of Sukah is not in question, since it is included in the Shehecheyanu that is recited during Kidush on the second evening of Yom Tov. But what about the Shehecheyanu for the Mitzvah of Lulav? Should a person who lives in Chutz la'Aretz recite Shehecheyanu again on the second day of Yom Tov when he picks up the Lulav?

(a) The ROSH (4:2) cites the BA'AL HILCHOS GEDOLOS who says that the Shehecheyanu recited during Kidush of the second night covers the Mitzvah of Lulav as well, even though that Mitzvah will not be performed until the following day.

The Rosh mentions that the Rishonim reject this ruling, because the Mitzvah of Lulav does not apply at night, so how could a Shehecheyanu said at night include the Mitzvah of Lulav, when there is no Mitzvah of Lulav at night? (This is presumably the reason why the Behag agrees that the Shehecheyanu recited on the *first* night of Sukos does not cover the Mitzvah of Lulav that will be performed the next day. The Behag apparently understood that once the obligation of the Mitzvah of Lulav takes effect on the first day, then it continues uninterrupted for the next seven days. Even at night the obligation applies. Before the first day (such as the first evening, during Kidush), the obligation has not yet taken effect, since it only takes effect when he can actually do the Mitzvah in practice. It *remains* in effect, though, once it has already taken effect, even when he cannot do the Mitzvah in practice.

(b) The Rishonim explain instead that there is another reason not to say Shehecheyanu on the second day on the Mitzvah of Lulav. The Beraisa states that one recites Shehecheyanu on the Lulav *before* Sukos, when he finishes preparing for himself the Lulav. Certainly, then, a Berachah of Shehecheyanu that is recited on the first day of Yom Tov covers the Lulav, since such a Berachah would cover the Lulav even if the first day is not really Yom Tov.

However, RABEINU SHMUEL of IVRA (cited by the Rosh) rejects this logic. There are only two times that one may recite Shehecheyanu on the Lulav: (a) when one finishes preparing the Lulav (before Sukos), or (b) when one performs the Mitzvah (on Sukos). The Shehecheyanu recited on the first day of Yom Tov, which is, out of doubt, being recited on the *making* of the Lulav, will not help for the second day of Yom Tov (which requires a Shehecheyanu to be recited on the *performance* of the Mitzvah).

The Rosh counters that even if Rabeinu Shmuel's logic is correct, the Shehecheyanu recited on the first night is certainly just as good as the one recited when one prepares the Lulav. This Shehecheyanu, made on the first day of Yom Tov (which might not be Yom Tov), is clearly made for the performance of the Mitzvah. Even if the day is really not Yom Tov, since he must pick up the Lulav anyway because of the doubt, that is enough to make his Shehecheyanu relate to the Mitzvah. That is the Rosh's conclusion -- it is not necessary to make a second Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day of Yom Tov in Chutz la'Aretz.

(c) The RABEINU MANO'ACH (Hilchos Sukah 6:12), however, says that the opposite logic can be proposed. Even if it is true that one could recite Shehecheyanu before Yom Tov, that is only when one knows why he is reciting the Shehecheyanu; when he makes the Berachah because he has prepared the Mitzvah, the Berachah is valid. However, if he recites a Shehecheyanu because he thinks this is the first day, and he thinks that it is the correct time for the actual performance of the Mitzvah (and not just preparing the Mitzvah), while in reality it is a normal day and it is not time to perform the Mitzvah, the Berachah is worthless and is not related to the Mitzvah, because it is based on an error. (Rabeinu Mano'ach writes this with regard to the Berachah of Shehecheyanu recited on the Mitzvah of Sukah, but the same logic should apply to the Shehecheyanu recited on the Mitzvah of Lulav.)

HALACHAH: The Halachah follows the Rosh, and no Shehecheyanu is recited on the Lulav on the second day of Yom Tov in Chutz la'Aretz (SHULCHAN ARUCH OC 662:2). Of course, if the first day of Sukos occurs on Shabbos, or one is unable to take the Lulav on the first day for some other reason, then one does recite Shehecheyanu on the second day. (If, however, one did take the Lulav on the first day and merely *forgot* to recite Shehecheyanu then, there is a doubt whether he must recite Shehecheyanu on the second day. See SHA'AR HA'TZION 662:4.)

46b

QUESTION: Rebbi Zeira states that one should not give his Lulav to a child on the first day of Yom Tov, because a child can be Koneh an object from others, but he cannot be Makneh to others. If an adult gives his Lulav to a child, the adult cannot fulfill his Mitzvah with it after the child, because it belongs to the child and not to him.

It is obvious that in order for a child to fulfill his obligated of Chinuch by performing the Mitzvah of Lulav, he must do the Mitzvah in the same manner that he will do it when he becomes an adult (see Insights to 42:1). For that reason, it is not sufficient for an adult to merely lend his Lulav to the Katan. On the other hand, he cannot be Makneh it to the Katan, because the Katan will not be able to be Makneh it back to him.

Why does the Gemara not suggest that the adult simply give it to the child as a "Matanah l'Zman" (a "temporary gift," stipulating that he is fully Makneh the Lulav to the child for a limited period of time (five minutes)? When that time has passed, the Lulav reverts back to its original owner, and there is no need for the child to be Makneh it to him!

Moreover, why can an adult not give the Lulav to a child the same way that one adult gives it to another on the first day of Yom Tov, as a "Matanah Al Menas l'Hachzir" (41b)? The Halachah is that if the person does not return the Lulav, then he was never Koneh it to begin with, and thus in this case, when one gives it to a child on condition that he return it, since the child cannot be Makneh it back to the adult, it was never the child's to begin with! (In that manner, the adult is able to fulfill the obligation of Chinuch for the child by allowing the child to perform the Mitzvah as he will when he grows up, and the adult is also able to fulfill the Mitzvah himself.)

ANSWERS:

(a) The ROSH (3:30) writes that we see from this Gemara that when someone acquires an object with a "Kinyan l'Zman," that object is not considered to be "Lachem," fully owned by him, which is necessary in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Lulav. Therefore, it is of no use to give the Lulav to the child as a "Matanah l'Zman," since it is no different than simply lending it to him (which is also not considered "Lachem").

Regarding the question of why the adult does not give the Lulav to the child as a "Matanah Al Menas l'Hachzir," the RITVA here explains that doing so will have the opposite effect. Since it is known in advance that the child is unable to be Makneh the Lulav back to the original owner, one is making a stipulation which is impossible to fulfill. Consequently, the stipulation becomes voided and the action is fully binding ("Tenai Batel u'Ma'aseh Kayam"), and thus the child takes full possession of the Lulav and the adult cannot get it back from him.

(b) The KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN (241:4) points out that a number of Rishonim disagree with the Rosh. They maintain that a "Kinyan l'Zman" *is* considered an absolute Kinyan and thus falls under the category of "Lachem." In fact, they maintain that a "Matanah Al Menas l'Hachzir" is itself actually a "Kinyan l'Zman" (TOSFOS Erchin 30a, DH v'Lo; Teshuvos ha'Rosh 35:2, quoting RABEINU AVIGDOR Kohen-Tzedek; this also appears to be the opinion of the RID, cited by the Rosh 3:30).

Rather, the Ketzos ha'Choshen says that one may indeed give the Lulav to a child with a "Kinyan l'Zman" and then fulfill the Mitzvah himself afterwards when the child gives it back. The Gemara is just saying that one should not give it to a child in such a way that it will be a "Kinyan Gamur," a complete Matanah.