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 10
SUKAH 10 (25 Nisan) - dedicated by Sandy and Les Wiesel in memory of Les's
father, Menachem Yehuda ben Avigdor Yosef Wiesel, who perished in the
Holocaust.
|
1) ONE SUKAH BENEATH ANOTHER SUKAH
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the various possibilities of one Sukah
underneath another Sukah. The Gemara says that if the bottom Sukah has more
shade than sunlight while the upper Sukah has more sunlight than shade, and
both are within 20 Amos of the ground, the upper Sukah is Pasul (i.e. one
cannot eat in the upper Sukah) because there is more sunlight than shade in
that Sukah, and the bottom Sukah is valid because there is nothing above it
to make it Pasul. (Rashi explains that the Sechach of the upper Sukah that
is above it is not considered Sechach at all, since there is more sunlight
than shade.)
The Gemara says that it is not obvious that the bottom Sukah is valid. We
might have thought that the bottom Sukah should be Pasul because of a
Gezeirah, lest one might think it is permissible to use Pasul Sechach
together with valid Sechach for his Sukah. The Gemara teaches that there is
no such Gezeirah and we are not afraid that someone will make that mistake.
Rashi explains that the Havah Amina is that we are afraid that one might sit
in the lower Sukah even when the upper Sukah is taller than 20 Amos (in
which case the Sechach of the Sukah is Pasul, and joins with the Sechach of
the lower Sukah to invalidate the lower Sukah).
Why are we concerned that a person may sit in the lower Sukah even when the
Sechach of the upper Sukah is higher than 20 Amos? If we have such a
concern, then *every* Sukah should be invalid, for fear that the person will
sit in it even if its roof is higher than 20 Amos!
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI (DH Tachtonah Kesherah) explains that the Gezeirah would apply
only here because the bottom Sukah has all that it needs to make it valid,
as it has more shade than sunlight. Therefore, one might forget that it is
possible to invalidate it with the upper Sukah that has more sunlight than
shade coming in. (That is, we are afraid that one will ignore that upper
Sukah since it is not a full Sukah while the bottom one is.)
(b) RABEINU TAM, cited by Tosfos (9b, DH Ha), asserts that Rashi's
explanation is forced. Rabeinu Tam explains the Gemara based on a different
Girsa. According to his Girsa, the Gemara does not say that *both* the lower
and upper Sukos are within 20 Amos, but that the *bottom* Sukah is within 20
Amos (implying that the upper Sukah is higher than 20 Amos). (The RITVA here
and the BA'AL HA'ME'OR (2a) cite a similar Girsa in which the Gemara states
explicitly that the upper Sukah is higher than 20 Amos, which is the same
thing as saying that the bottom one is below 20 Amos.)
According to Rabeinu Tam, the Sechach of the upper Sukah -- which has more
sunlight than shade -- is above 20 Amos, and nevertheless the bottom Sukah
is valid because the Sechach of the upper Sukah does not invalidate it. He
explains that Sechach which is above 20 Amos is not considered to be invalid
Sechach; it is the *Sukah* which is Pasul, because it is a "Diras Keva," but
the Sechach itself is not Pasul. Therefore it does not invalidate the
Sechach which is below it.
According to Rabeinu Tam, it is certainly a Chidush that there is no
Gezeirah invalidating the lower Sukah in such a case. Even though one might
confuse this case (of a Sukah beneath another Sukah which is 20 Amos high)
with a case of a Sukah beneath a tree and think that such a Sukah is valid,
we are not concerned for such an error and there is no such Gezeirah.
(c) The RA'AVAD (commenting on the Ba'al ha'Me'or, 2a) has the Girsa of the
Ritva (mentioned above, (b)) that the upper Sukah has Sechach which is above
20 Amos). He argues with Rabeinu Tam and says that Sechach above 20 Amos
*is* Pasul. He explains, though, that the reason the bottom Sukah is valid
in this case is because the pieces of invalid Sechach that are above 20 Amos
are positioned *between the pieces* of the valid Sechach below, and
therefore the lower Sukah still has a majority of shade even after taking
away the shade created by the upper (Pasul) Sechach.
This is the meaning of "b'she'Chavtan" according to the Ra'avad -- one makes
each piece of Sechach the only layer. This is also the Rambam's
understanding (Hilchos Sukah 5:13, according to the Magid Mishnah). The
Chidush of the Gemara is that we might have thought that the lower Sukah
should be Pasul because one might think it is valid even when the Sechach of
the upper Sukah is directly above the Sechach of the lower Sukah. The Gemara
teaches that we are not concerned for such an error.
2) A CUBIC TEFACH AND "TUM'AH RETZUTZAH"
QUESTION: Rav Huna says that in order for the lower Sukah to be Pasul
because it is a Sukah underneath a Sukah, the distance between the Sechach
of the upper Sukah and the Sechach of the lower Sukah must be at least one
Tefach. He derives this figure from the laws of Tum'as Ohel, in which a
covering is only considered to be an Ohel if the space below it is at least
one cubic Tefach.
RASHI (DH Tefach Al Tefach) explains that only when there is a cubic Tefach
of open space under a covering is that covering considered an Ohel, with two
practical ramifications. First, since it is not an Ohel if it is less than
one cubic Tefach, it does not spread the Tum'ah from one point under the
covering to another point under the covering. Second, if there is an object
on top of the covering, the Tum'ah will go right through the covering, since
there is no Ohel to block the Tum'ah. Rashi adds that when there is less
than a Tefach between the object of Tum'ah and the covering above it, it is
called "Tum'ah Retzutzah" and it breaks through the covering and rises.
Why does Rashi introduce the principle of "Tum'ah Retzutzah?" It should
suffice to say that when there is not a Tefach of space, there is simply
nothing to stop the Tum'ah from rising upwards, since there is no Ohel above
it. Why does Rashi have to add the new principle of "Tum'ah Retzutzah,"
which is a force which enables the Tum'ah to actively penetrate the covering
above it? No active force to push the Tum'ah through the covering is needed
here, because the Tum'ah continues by itself through the covering since it
is not considered an Ohel or a Hefsek (and it needs no active force to push
it)!
ANSWER: In the question, we assumed that the only thing that can stop Tum'ah
from spreading upward is an Ohel. Rav Moshe Shapiro, Shlit'a, pointed out
that from the Gemara in Chulin (125b) we learn that a covering which is not
an Ohel is also able to stop Tum'ah from spreading upward. The Gemara there
says that Rebbi Yosi holds that if one puts a rope within one Tefach above a
corpse, then something that passes above the rope thereby being Ma'ahil
(creating an Ohel) on the Mes will not become Tamei. Rebbi Yosi is of the
opinion that Tum'ah cannot break through any intervening substance and rise
("Boka'as v'Olah"). In such a case there is no Ohel stopping the Tum'ah from
spreading, and yet we still see that Tum'ah does not reach above the
covering. The logic behind this is that the object that is above the
covering is not being Ma'ahil (creating an Ohel) over the corpse, but rather
it is being Ma'ahil over the covering which is over the corpse (and whatever
is beneath the covering is inconsequential). This is why Rashi had to
mention the additional principle of "Tum'ah Retzutzah;" even though there is
no Ohel here, nevertheless the Tum'ah would not spread above the covering
unless there is another force pushing it through -- and that is the force of
"Tum'ah Retzutzah."
(One could ask that we find in Ohalos 6:1 that if a Kli which is Mekabel
Tum'ah is even a few Tefachim above a corpse, it does not stop Tum'ah from
spreading upwards. It is understandable that it is not considered an Ohel to
stop the Tum'ah, since it itself is a Kli which is able to be Mekabel
Tum'ah. Why, though, should it not block the Tum'ah from rising? If a
covering stops Tum'ah from rising without being an Ohel, then a Kli should
also stop Tum'ah from rising! It must be that the type of covering that can
stop Tum'ah from spreading is only a type of covering that Tum'ah cannot
enter. If the covering itself can become Tamei (like a Kli), then whatever
is Ma'ahil over that covering is considered to be Ma'ahil over the corpse.)
The Acharonim point out that there are additional consequences of the rule
of "Tum'ah Retzutzah," i.e. that there exists a positive force which pushes
Tum'ah upwards and downwards when it is "squashed" into less than a Tefach.
First, we know that a tightly sealed earthenware vessel ("Tzamid Pesil")
blocks Tum'as Mes b'Ohel from being Metamei an object inside of it. However,
a "Tzamid Pesil" which is above a Tum'ah Retzutzah does become Tamei (RASH,
end of Ohalos 9, from Tosefta); it is the force of Retzutzah which pushes
the Tum'ah through. Second, if a person is standing above a Tum'ah
Retzutzah, it is as if he is touching the Tum'ah and not just being Ma'ahil
(creating an Ohel) over it, since the presence of the Tum'ah is considered
to be filling the whole space above the intervening object (as the Gemara
says in Chulin 125b). The VILNA GA'ON (Parshas Chukas) says that even though
non-Jews are Metamei only through Maga and not through Ohel, they can still
be Metamei with Tum'ah Retzutzah (i.e. if a Jew touches a stone or object
that is less than a Tefach above the non-Jew), because Retzutzah is like
Maga.
10b
3) A FOREIGN OBJECT PLACED ON TOP OF THE KOSHER SECHACH OF A SUKAH
QUESTION: The Gemara says that Rav Ashi told his servant Minyamin to take
down a wet cloak which Minyamin had spread out on top of the Sechach to dry.
He told him to take it down after it became dry so that people would not
think that the Sechach is valid while the cloak was on top of it. He did not
insist that it be removed while it was wet, because while it was still wet
everyone would know that it was put there to dry and not to serve as
Sechach.
We see that if the cloak is wet, there is no reason to take it down. Why
not? The cloak on top of the Sechach should be like a tree above a Sukah,
where the branches (which are invalid Sechach) are Mevatel the valid Sechach
beneath them! The Mishnah itself says that if one places a sheet on top of
the Sukah to protect from the sun, the Sukah becomes Pasul for this reason.
What is the difference between a sheet protecting from the sun and a cloak
spread out to dry?
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI (DH Lo Shna) seems to address this question. He says that when one
spreads a sheet on top of the Sechach to protect from the sun, it is meant
to shield what is under the sheet. Since its purpose is to shield or to
protect, it is serving the same purpose as the Sechach, and therefore it can
be Mevatel, disqualify, the valid Sechach (it does not become Batel, or
secondary, to the Sechach, but rather it is Mevatel the Sechach). In this
case, when the object was placed there just to dry, it will not disqualify
the Sechach since its purpose is not the same as the purpose of Sechach --
it is not protecting anything beneath it. Therefore it will become Batel to
the Sechach, just like a sheet which serves as decoration for the Sukah
becomes Batel to the Sukah.
The RITVA says similarly that the cloak that is drying cannot be compared to
the sheet that is shielding from the sun or from what falls from the
Sechach, because the sheet that is shielding from the sun or the falling
objects is something that is needed for the Sukah, and therefore it is not
considered a temporary addition. Something that is put out to dry is not
serving the Sukah and is considered a temporary addition and thus does not
invalidate the Sechach. It becomes Batel to the Sechach even if it serves no
decorative purpose.
(b) Other Rishonim do not differentiate between a protective covering that
is under the Sechach and something that is spread out to dry on top of the
Sechach. The only time something is Batel to the Sechach is when it is
decorative, in which case it is serving the Sechach by beautifying it and
thus it is Batel to the Sechach. Anything which does not serve the Sechach
will not be Batel to the Sechach. (See, for example, Hagahos Oshri.) Why,
then, did the wet cloak not invalidate the Sechach?
TOSFOS (10a, DH Pires) explains that if the Sukah has more shade than
sunlight, then whatever one spread out on top of it will not make it Pasul,
even though the object that was spread out on the Sechach itself makes more
shade. In the Mishnah, the reason why the Sukah is Pasul when the sheet is
placed on top of it is because the Sechach of the Sukah was letting in more
sunlight than shade (TESHUVAS HA'GE'ONIM), or because the sheet itself
served to make sure that the Sechach gave more shade than sunlight (by
holding up the leaves that fell, or by protecting the Sechach from the sun
so that it would not dry out -- RABEINU TAM). The Sechach of Rav Ashi's
Sukah had more shade than sunlight, and thus there was no problem with a wet
cloak on top of it. (See Insights to 9:1:b.)
(c) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR explains that when a Sukah had more shade *before*
something else (invalid Sechach which let in more sunlight than shade) was
placed on top of it, then it remains valid even if one adds invalid Sechach
afterwards. Since he put the cloak up after the valid Sechach was up, it
does not invalidate it, since it covered only a small part of the Sukah. In
the Mishnah, the sheet that was placed atop the Sechach made more shade than
sunlight, and Pasul Sechach which makes more shade always invalidates what
is below it. (See Insights to 9:1:c.)
(d) The RITVA and RAN explain that Rav Ashi was not eating in the Sukah at
the time, and therefore he did not care if something was on top of the Sukah
invalidating it. The cloak certainly made the Sukah Pasul, but as long as he
was not eating there, he did not need the Sukah to be valid. If so, what
difference does it make if the cloak was wet or dry, if he did not need a
valid Sukah? The answer is that if the cloak was wet, then everyone would
know that no one will be eating in that Sukah, because the water from the
cloak would drip on anyone below; since no one would be eating there, the
people would not mistakenly think that it is a valid Sukah. If the cloak was
dry, they would think that Rav Ashi was intending to eat in the Sukah, and
they would assume that a cloak must be a valid form of Sechach. Therefore,
Rav Ashi required the cloak to be removed once it dried.
HALACHAH: We have seen that there is a Machlokes Rishonim whether something
put up to dry on top of a Sukah disqualifies the Sechach under it or not.
Rashi says that it is like putting something up as a decoration, and it does
not disqualify the Sechach. Other Rishonim say that it is like putting
something up to protect the Sukah from the sun or to catch falling leaves,
and it does disqualify the Sechach.
The RITVA writes that one should be Machmir and not sit underneath an object
placed on top of the Sechach, even it was put up to dry or for another
purpose unrelated to the Sukah. The TUR (end of OC 627 and 629),though,
seems to cite contradictory opinions whether something put out to dry is
like a decoration or is like something put up to protect from the sun or
from falling leaves (see BI'UR HALACHAH, end of 627). The BI'UR HALACHAH
(end of 629) writes that l'Halachah one should be Machmir and not place
anything on the Sechach to dry out while eating in the Sukah.
We have also seen that the Rishonim argue over whether a Sukah (with more
shade than sunlight) becomes invalidated if it is later covered with invalid
Sechach or a sheet.
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 626:1, 629:19) cites the opinion of Rabeinu Tam that
a Sukah does not become Pasul if it has more shade than sunlight even if
there is a tree, or other invalid Sechach, above it. He also cites the other
opinion (Rashi etc., see Insights to 9:1:a) that such a Sukah does become
Pasul. The Poskim are Machmir that one should not sit in such a Sukah when
it is not a She'as ha'Dechak (see Mishnah Berurah 626:7, 629:58).
Next daf
|