Laws of (Shofar) Sukkah (and Lulav) Chapter 5 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Sukkah Chapter 5 – Laws of S’chach

Opening

Speaker 1:

The holy Rambam, we are learning Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav, within Laws of Sukkah Chapter 5, which is the second chapter of Laws of Sukkah. And the sponsor of this shiur is Rabbi Yoel Leib Wertzberger. May the Almighty help him continue to sponsor many more shiurim and many mitzvos and good deeds.

Halacha 1 – The Five Conditions for Kosher S’chach

Speaker 1:

Yes, in the previous chapter we learned about the walls of the sukkah, how many there need to be, what they can be made from. Now we’re going to learn about the s’chach, the laws of s’chach.

The Rambam says that s’chach shel sukkah, the roof of the sukkah, the s’chach, is not kosher from anything. That means, ah, it’s a continuation from before. Earlier he said that the walls of the sukkah are kosher from anything. He says, but the s’chach is not kosher from everything. Rather what? That the s’chach is more important, yes? The sukkah is called after the s’chach, or the s’chach is called after the sukkah. It’s interesting, because there the Rambam was explaining, as it were, a wall in any case, yes, some such language. But the s’chach is something like you say, s’chach is something important, it needs to be a certain way. Yes, just as we’ve already seen that the walls can be however far, and the s’chach may not be too high. Also. Yes.

S’chach shel sukkah is not kosher from anything. And the Rambam explains, one may not cover, one cannot make the s’chach, except with something whose growth is from the ground, only things that grow, that is not attached to the ground, it cannot be a tree that is still standing, it cannot be planted, and does not receive tumah, it has not yet been made into a vessel or something, it does not receive tumah.

I think these three things are like things that make it more earthy, it’s not such worked things, it’s not such nice wood that already receives tumah, but such junky pieces of wood. Right, the three conditions are like details of one thing. It needs to be an organic thing, it grows, but not in the midst of growing. So in other words, after growing and before making it into a vessel, like in between. So that it should be an ohel arai, as the Gemara says that it should be from the waste of the threshing floor and wine press.

Yes, but it’s not, one cannot present the ohel arai so well, I mean not, because there is a dispute where Rabbi Yehuda said like a permanent dwelling, but he also agrees with the laws of s’chach, so one must understand.

Speaker 2:

Are you right that there is perhaps a concept of temporary in the sukkah?

Speaker 1:

Certainly. Sukkos one makes “when you gather from your threshing floor and wine press,” that the type of sukkah one makes in the field looks like that. When one stands in the field and doesn’t want to stand in the heat and sun, one makes a covering from the threshing floor and wine press that one finds, one can put together a sukkah. There is like a limit, but apparently this is also the meaning, it has something to do with this.

The Last Two Conditions – Bad Smell and Constantly Shedding

Speaker 1:

Yes. And after that there are two more conditions, two more laws: “and they should not have a bad smell” – the s’chach of the sukkah may not have a bad smell. It seems that when one uses these types of things, it often happens that one uses things that have a bad smell. What could it be talking about? It may not have a bad smell. “and they should not constantly shed and wilt” – not things that will mold and fall off. That means, the first three things say it’s temporary things, and the second is not too temporary things, not too junky.

Distinction Between the First Three and Last Two Conditions

Speaker 1:

So now the Rambam says that the five conditions are not all the same, rather the first three are essential, and it seems it’s from the Torah that it’s invalid if not. “If one covered with something whose growth is not from the ground, or with something attached, or with something that receives tumah, it is invalid.” But the other two things are only l’chatchila, “but if one transgressed and covered with something that wilts or something that has a bad smell, it is kosher, for they only said one may not cover with these so that one should not abandon his sukkah and leave.” The reason why they said one may not make s’chach with things that have a bad smell is so they won’t abandon the sukkah. It’s like one may not use kerosene, any bad smell, because one will abandon the meal. One won’t be at the meal candles because something doesn’t smell good, one will run away from there. Therefore it’s only l’chatchila, but b’dieved, yes.

Halacha 2 – Strings and Leaves Descending Within Ten Tefachim

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further: “And one must be careful that strings and leaves of the s’chach should not descend within ten tefachim.” One must make sure also that when one builds a sukkah of ten tefachim, not only should the main s’chach be higher than ten tefachim, but also the little bit shouldn’t be in the ten tefachim, that will stick out. Why? “so that the majority of his sitting should not be outside,” so it shouldn’t bother him when he sits in the sukkah.

Discussion: Is This Invalid B’dieved?

Speaker 1:

It seems that even when there’s a bit of strings and leaves, if it’s the majority of strings and leaves, apparently it’s a matter of b’dieved invalid, just as we learned that it’s like thicker s’chach. There is in the Chazon Ish, he struggles with this. That means, earlier we learned that if it’s higher than twenty and there are many descending ones, it’s actually reduced, if its sun is greater than its shade. Here we’re talking about a little bit, apparently. And the Gemara says, that when one sits in the descending ones it’s also called an uninhabitable dwelling, a person cannot live there.

But it seems the Rema understood that this doesn’t mean it becomes out of measure. Perhaps you’re right if it’s more than the majority of it or if its shade is greater than its sun, but then indeed he cannot sit there, he can sit there, he needs to move. But he sits in the place where there are certainly others who learn that yes, that then it means out of measure and it’s then invalid entirely, even just a little bit.

Speaker 2:

Yes, I mean so. Ah, no, you’re right. Perhaps only… I don’t know. In memory for a blessing it says that it’s invalid b’dieved, he says.

Speaker 1:

I don’t think so, perhaps the memory for a blessing also speaks when its shade is greater than its sun? But the question is, presumably, what does dwelling require mean? The Trumba learns that this is only a rabbinic prohibition, like similar to bad smell, the same sort of level, so it sounds.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Halacha 3 – Metals, Bones, Attached, Wooden Vessels, Broken Vessels, Foods

Speaker 1:

Section 3. Very good, if one covered with metals. If one covered with types of metals, which is… yes, something that receives tumah. If it’s impure… no, it’s not grown from the ground. Metals can be simple, it’s a metal vessel. Metals are… stones of iron, we’re talking about copper.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but it’s not called growth from the ground.

Speaker 1:

That growth can mean things that grow, things that come from the ground.

Speaker 2:

Okay, yes, stones are holy. Or… actually, I think from pressure also grows, but yes, that’s not what growth from the ground means. It grows. It develops in the ground, but yes. It’s inanimate. As it is written inanimate, it doesn’t multiply, it doesn’t grow.

Speaker 1:

If bones and hides, these are from animals, it’s also, both things are not growth from the ground. He just grabs the two things that… like hides and skins, yes, he eats by everything, that means not growth from the ground.

Further, he expands on what was started, how is it kosher, he says how it’s not kosher, and he said that it may not be attached. If it is attached, how does one make s’chach from attached? One may not cut off grapevines, when they emerge, until they become a sukkah. That means to say, it’s certain that simply sitting under a tree doesn’t mean a sukkah, but even if it’s not sitting under a tree, one made a way that one has or he made it so it should specifically grow there on the sukkah, “until it becomes a sukkah,” it’s also invalid, “because they were not detached.” You are covering with something that was not detached.

Or if one covered with wooden vessels, yes, wood is growth from the ground, but a vessel of wood. Or “if with mats of reeds and of grass,” which receives tumah, “and the like, it is invalid,” when it already receives tumah.

Broken Vessels – Rabbinic Decree

Speaker 1:

“And likewise if one covered with broken vessels and their worn parts,” which now do not receive tumah because they are broken vessels, or worn parts of garments, worn-out garments, but “since they were receiving tumah,” it’s also invalid.

Speaker 2:

Perhaps this is also rabbinically invalid?

Speaker 1:

I don’t know. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Perhaps he will cover with broken pieces that have not yet been purified, the Sages also prohibited this. So say the commentators, rabbinically invalid. This is different, it’s an “lest” decree, it’s not any creeping thing.

Foods

Speaker 1:

Further, “if one covered with foods,” if one covers with things that are food, foodstuffs, it’s also invalid for the same reason, “because they receive tumah.” Food receives tumah, food and drink receive tumah. Only because it had preparation, it was prepared, but no difference, there is still a way that it receives tumah.

Halacha 4 – Branches with Fruit; Vegetables

Speaker 1:

He says, now he goes into what happens when something has food, for example branches that have fruit and leaves. “Fig branches with figs on them,” there are also figs there, or “vine branches with grapes on them,” branches from the grapevine. Every tree has its own name for its branches. The part of figs is called “shoots.” Also cutting, every fruit has a type of name, yes, it’s interesting. Fruits have many names. A culture that was strong farmers, there are very many words. There are many fruits, or it grows, yes.

“And likewise with grapes on them,” or “palm branches with dates on them.” Palm branches is interesting, palm branches means a broom. But it could be the opposite, that sweeping is because one used to use the broom. I don’t know which stems from which, or the opposite, yes. “And all similar to them.” “And they are called brooms because they are accustomed to sweep the house with them.” So said the Maharik of Lublin.

We Look – Invalid Greater Than Kosher

Speaker 1:

And all similar to them, the question is how do we look at it? Do we look at it as growth from the ground which is good, or do we look at it as foods? So we look, at invalid, the word invalid, invalid we had earlier the word invalid. This falls in. Invalid that comes from the sukkah, it’s not a proof from the language, but invalid means the branches are more than the food. It’s not in the worth, the worth is certainly that the fruit is worth. It means the size, the size, what takes up the most size. and one may not cover with them. That means, one doesn’t say that it needs to be its shade greater than its sun from the branch itself, because it’s nullified by the majority. One looks at it as you have covered me with good s’chach.

Vegetables – Whatever Stands to Be Nullified Is Considered Nullified

Speaker 1:

What happens then? If one covered with vegetables, with, let’s say, I don’t know, lettuce, green grasses. that if they dry out, when once it becomes dry, they wilt, it becomes wilted, and nothing will remain of them, nothing will remain on it. even though now they are moist, even now it’s still moist, their place is considered as if it is air as if they are not, one counts it now as if it’s dried out, and therefore we count it now as if there’s already nothing there, as if they are not.

Question: Why Is There Such a Leniency of “Whatever Stands to Be Nullified Is Considered Nullified”?

Why is there such a leniency? Such a whatever stands to be nullified is considered nullified? A piece of lettuce was never anything, so? That’s how it looks. Yes? Yes.

Answer: The Sukkah Must Be Fit for Seven Days

Speaker 2:

If one covered with flax stalks. I want to understand, why does one say that it’s already like air? Because it’s not, it doesn’t count. One cannot make a sukkah from this. He says that it must be fit for seven days, so it says in the Gemara. There is one of the things is and it should not constantly shed and wilt. This is something that sheds and wilts, even the first day it’s still whole, but… yes, the Ramban took this from here, but…

Halacha 4 – If One Covered with Flax Stalks

Speaker 1:

If one covered with flax stalks. Flax, the little branches of flax. that were not pounded and not separated. What one has not yet removed from it the merchandise, that which will be merchandise. Something to divide, something like what one does to make it for flax. Yes, it is kosher, for they have the status of wood.

But if one pounded and separated them, if one has already made from it pieces of cotton, pieces of flax, one may not cover with them, because although it’s growth from the ground, but it already looks like merchandise, it no longer looks like growth from the ground, it doesn’t have the status of wood on it, as if it is not from growth from the ground. It already looks like wool, it already looks like other types of merchandise. It’s a dispute with the Rabbis, he doesn’t say invalid, he says one may not cover with them.

One May Cover with Ropes of Bast and Grass

And another thing, but what does one do? One may cover with ropes of bast and grass, the pieces of strings that one also makes from basically such flax or such types of things that grow. One may, for their form does not stand, and the ropes are not vessels. Because this is not like greens that one may not, and also not like flax that has become different, because a rope still looks like a piece of thing that grows, it still has a form. And this is not pounded and separated, this is raw. Something like that. The point is that it looks similar, but the pounding and separating makes from it that it becomes like flax, it becomes vessels, it becomes garments, it becomes not a growing thing.

Objection of the Raavad

On this the Raavad argues. What does the Raavad say? He may argue, what do you care about me? Sorry.

The Raavad says something different. The Raavad says that its form has not changed. This is what the Raavad was difficult, it’s an interesting reasoning this. It is growth from the ground, what does it matter to me what one makes from it? The Raavad came simply to say invalid from the Torah, invalid rabbinically. I don’t know, perhaps both are rabbinic? I don’t know, something is the abundance. As if not from growth from the ground.

The Rabbis didn’t say invalid, he said one may not cover. According to the Rabbis he said the other reason, that it receives tumah. Not receives tumah. It receives tumah through another thing means. Ah, that means that when you put in the core on cost, does it receive tumah? Does it mean already, one counts it already as something that receives tumah.

I don’t know if the Raavad’s position will be with… ah, the Raavad also receives, he says that it’s fit to receive tumah. I feel that the Raavad didn’t like the Rambam’s interesting Torah, that it becomes as if. What is something as if? He also makes a leniency, if one puts it in a receiver receiver, it receives tumah.

Yes, he says that this is similar to what we saw earlier, worn vessels, which no longer receive tumah, but yesterday they received tumah. This will be tomorrow receiving tumah. Well, well. No, it’s a reasoning that one sees already. Yes, indeed. It’s the opposite of the reasoning that one sees, but it’s a question which is a better reasoning. Yes.

Halacha 5 – If One Covered with Arrows

Speaker 1:

What if someone, if one covered with arrows, with, let’s say, I don’t know, arrows. Arrows have two parts. They have a part like… two types of arrows perhaps it means? Arrows. In any case, there are males and there are females. A part of the arrow is where it covers to the point of the arrow, which is like a vessel which is a receptacle vessel. By males, the part of the… how does he put the picture? The part of the arrow which is a… I think it’s two types basically. Males are such that stick out, and on this one puts on something the point. And or there is the opposite, which one sticks in, and so one sticks in the point.

So in any case, something that has space to put something in is like a vessel, and something that one can pour in a liquid, I don’t know what is called a vessel, receives tumah. But something is the males, it is kosher, it doesn’t receive tumah. That means, even the female arrows, it’s not made there to remain a filling, one only puts in something. It seems that an arrow is a piece of wood or something like that, and on this one sticks in an iron, such a pointed thing from above.

Question: Stands to Be Sealed – Why Does It Receive Tumah?

But with all this, does it mean a… it stands to seal the iron, which then it will be full and there won’t remain enough space to receive something, it won’t be called a receptacle vessel. But now it’s a receptacle, and receives tumah like all receptacle vessels.

Translation

So this is a bit different from the Raavad, where the Raavad said that it’s going to become a vessel. I don’t know if the word is because it’s going to.

Discussion: Question from the Rashba

I don’t know, he asks a good question, that in the laws of vessels, the Rashba asks a question, it says that such a thing is not susceptible to tumah (ritual impurity).

Speaker 2:

Perhaps it’s more like a stringency of sukkah.

Speaker 1:

Okay, like we saw regarding belu’im (worn-out items), that something that was a vessel or something that’s going to be a vessel.

Speaker 2:

Right, but apparently there it says that even such a thing that is omed limalei (destined to be filled) is already now not susceptible to tumah, understand?

Speaker 1:

Right, but I’m saying, just as belu’im is forbidden because it was once a vessel, so this is forbidden because now it’s a vessel. It’s not, it’s not, that’s what I’m saying, it’s not. Even now it’s apparently not a vessel according to…

Speaker 2:

But it looks like a vessel, or what?

Speaker 1:

I don’t know. Perhaps there’s a hint in this that Sukkot doesn’t come with any arrows. There’s such a thing as sukkat shalom (sukkah of peace), not a sukkah of… The males are also the arrow precisely.

Speaker 2:

Okay. Well, we needed some answer, we can’t just say nothing.

Law 6 – Mats

Speaker 1:

Good. Next, machalat kanim (mat of reeds). A machalat is when one sews together or puts together a bunch of pieces of grass or whatever, so it becomes like a mat, yes, so one can sit on it and the like.

A machalat of kanim, of little sticks, of hollow wood, or machalat gemi or chalaf (mat of rushes or sedge), or made from other types of grasses, things that grow from the ground, it’s like this: ketanah, setama lishkivah (a small one, presumably for lying down). A small one of such a mat is setama (presumably), when we don’t know what it is, or when he assembled it and he didn’t have in mind a specific purpose for why he’s making it, we say that setama it was made to be able to sit on it, sleep on it. Therefore one may not use it for sekhakh, one may not use such a thing for sekhakh, because it means it’s susceptible to tumah. What does a vessel mean? Unless he made it for sekhakh, if he assembled it for sekhakh, then it’s not susceptible to tumah.

But a large one, setama for sekhakh, it was made for a roof, it was made for building, not for a vessel. Therefore one may use it for sekhakh. Unless he made it for lying down, if he directly made a large one for a mattress, for a bed, then it is susceptible to tumah, because he made it lishkivah (for lying down).

Mat with Edges

He says, this is when the mat is only one dimension, it’s one flat thing. But if it has kibburet (raised edges), one built it like a little bench, one made such a mat with two sides, even the large one may not be used for sekhakh, for it is a receptacle vessel, it means like a vessel. It’s a basket basically, or even just one side, let’s say such a bench.

He says, and even if its kibburet was removed, even if it no longer has the bench, the side has already been removed, one may not use it for sekhakh, because then it will be like broken vessels. But when there was the wall, it was called like a vessel, as we learned earlier, that something that was a vessel we also don’t make into sekhakh.

Law 7 – Boards

Speaker 1:

Next, nesarim (boards), pieces of wood, that are not four tefachim wide, it’s not four tefachim wide, so it’s something that grows from the ground and it’s not a vessel, it’s not susceptible to tumah, one may use them for sekhakh, even if they are menusarin (planed), even if it’s made smooth, it’s not raw wood, but it’s wood that has already been sharpened, cleaned, and it’s suitable for use, but it’s not susceptible to tumah as long as it’s not a vessel.

But if they are four tefachim wide, if it is four tefachim wide, one may not use them for sekhakh. Then one may not, even if it’s meshupeh (planed), we don’t go by whether it’s cleaned or not, but we go by the size. Why? Because it’s a decree lest one sit under a ceiling and think it’s a sukkah. Then it looks like proper wood that one puts in the roof, large beautiful wood, wide wood, and he’ll still think that this is in the sukkah.

Question: What is the Decree of Tikrah?

A sukkah is specifically when there’s a… We haven’t yet said the law that it can’t be something that’s normally used for a roof. It must be something that’s not normally used for a roof. It says gezeirat tikrah (decree of ceiling), and what’s wrong with a tikrah? It appears that a tikrah is not a sukkah. It’s a roof of pesolet goren vayekev (waste of the threshing floor and winepress), one doesn’t make a roof from pesolet goren vayekev. Again.

Actually, the books are difficult, biblically one may put wood and it’s a sukkah. The Rabbis say one shouldn’t, why? They think it’s a tikrah. What’s a tikrah? Tikrah means what’s properly… What’s the difference? A tikrah may be strong. It appears perhaps because… Why do we go by the next law we’re going to see about a tikrah, how does one make a tikrah kosher? It could be that a normal tikrah has on top a mezivah (plaster), which is certainly invalid sekhakh, or perhaps such a thing. Understand? Not clear.

Speaker 2:

Yes, not clear why we go basically by size, not meshupim (planed), because one could say that gezeirat tikrah should be on meshupim.

Speaker 1:

Okay, that too. And also, what’s the meaning of the gezeirat tikrah at all? I don’t understand. What’s wrong with a tikrah? A tikrah is kosher, is it kosher. What do I care? It’s talking about some tikrah that’s not kosher, that one will confuse, but precisely what it’s talking about, I don’t know.

One Board That is Four Tefachim

The Rema says, if he placed one board that has a width of four tefachim, he placed one of the boards, he didn’t make the whole thing from boards, but one board that is four tefachim. It’s kosher, because invalid sekhakh, we’ll see more later, invalid sekhakh only invalidates if it’s four tefachim when it’s kosher. But one may not sleep under it, because the board itself is a

Continuation of Law 8 – Boards Four Tefachim Wide but Not Four Thick

Speaker 1: Under this it doesn’t mean like one sits under the sekhakh, because if one sleeps under it, one hasn’t fulfilled one’s obligation. No. Invalid sekhakh only invalidates up to four amot, that’s the word. There are two aspects here. But under this one may not sleep, because it’s not kosher sekhakh. It’s in any case not the best of sekhakh, but it’s not kosher sekhakh.

And further, if there were boards that are four wide but not four thick. If there were such boards that in width there are four but they’re not four thick, and he did a trick, and he turned them on their side that doesn’t have four, he set it up in a way that it’s not four, but he used them for sekhakh, then it’s invalid. For this board is invalid, the board is invalid because it’s gezeirat tikrah, whether he used it for sekhakh on its width or whether he used it for sekhakh on its thickness.

Interesting. This is like a decree for the decree. But the decree was a general decree, there’s no difference.

Speaker 2: Okay, one more law?

Speaker 1: Sorry.

Ceiling Without Mezivah

A ceiling that doesn’t have mezivah on it. A roof of a house that doesn’t have on top the mezivah. What does the word mezivah mean? Mezivah is like tar or stones, something that’s not connected to the roof. The normal way of making a roof was to lay wood, and on the wood one puts mezivah. I mean, mezivah is tar or some such type…

Speaker 2: Okay, but it’s not a…

Speaker 1: A roof is invalid. Which is the stones. This is the Rema explaining, right? This is the meaning of mezivah. It’s not properly connected to the roof, but merely boards stuck in. That means, one only has the wood of the roof, it’s invalid. It’s invalid. Why? Here we’re talking even when the boards are not four tefachim, they’re weak boards. But why is it invalid here? Because one placed it there in order to make a roof, one just hasn’t finished the roof yet. So they weren’t made for the sake of sukkah but for the sake of a house.

Innovation – For the Sake of Sukkah

So this tells us the Rambam reveals a secret, a greater law, that the sekhakh must be placed for the sake of sekhakh. If one placed things on the roof because one wanted to build a house, then it’s not kosher. Although the house isn’t yet, the sekhakh is invalid. But even if invalid sekhakh wasn’t placed, it’s still invalid because it’s not for the sake of sukkah.

Fixing Through Shaking

Therefore, what advice does he have? He says, one can now make it for the sake of sukkah. Meaning, therefore, if one shook the boards. If one is mefakpek is a term of… he lifts up, he mixes up. So always when one is mefakpek it means one shakes it around.

Speaker 2: Yes, one shakes.

Speaker 1: Okay. If one shakes it, meaning he removed the nails, he removed the… the nails for the sake of sukkah, and it came down for the sake of sukkah. It’s kosher, which means when he shook it, the explanation is that he took it down and he put it back, he placed it for the sake of sukkah. But further, provided that no board is four tefachim wide, because that wouldn’t help. Because then there’s the decree that we just talked about, that one shouldn’t make a decree even if it’s not for the sake of sukkah.

Speaker 2: Why, in this case that we just talked about, that it’s a house that’s not for the sake of sukkah?

Fixing Through Removing One of Every Two

Speaker 1: Yes, and a second way how one can make the ceiling become kosher, so there won’t be the problem of ta’aseh velo min he’asuy (you shall make and not from the already made), that one didn’t make it for the sake of sukkah. If he removed one from between them, when I’m clever for the sake of sukkah, he removed a bit from the… one of them, he says. One of them. One of all, or one from every…

Speaker 2: We think it’s two, he says. What the Rishonim say. The Rambam doesn’t say. The Rambam says echad (one), echad, one from every second? Which one?

Speaker 1: From between them. Echad means it’s actually only one, but we from between them means from between each two. It’s actually from between every two. That’s how he translates it. So he says, it’s stated in Perush HaMishnah, and he placed in its place kosher sekhakh for the sake of sukkah, it’s kosher, even if he didn’t shake everything. If it comes out easier for him to do this, like it’s the majority?

Speaker 2: What’s the difference of the one? What’s the reason? It becomes the majority? The majority becomes kosher?

Speaker 1: No, he doesn’t say majority.

Speaker 2: Well, there’s a majority that’s not kosher.

Speaker 1: No, the next one too, yes? This is the end. It comes out approximately half.

Speaker 2: What’s the first and the last?

Speaker 1: Okay, he also doesn’t say that it must be the same size, or…

Speaker 2: Not at all. One must look here… What? Because a part of the thing was for the sake of sukkah?

Speaker 1: That’s what it says, here one must until. I ask you, what’s the language? It needs to renew the thing. Because shaking he also doesn’t place it fully for the sake of sukkah, yes? Because he shakes, half the sekhakh still lies, yes? And then the other half.

Speaker 2: Yes, but there must be an action for the sake of sukkah, and this is also an action for the sake of sukkah.

Speaker 1: Okay, I’ll believe you for now. Wonderful.

Law 9 – A Sukkah Made According to Law / Ta’aseh Velo Min He’asuy

A Sukkah Not for the Sake of the Mitzvah but for the Sake of Shade

Speaker 1: Law 9. The Rambam says, a sukkah that was made according to law in any place. Apparently what I mean is that he means it doesn’t need to be made for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah. Unlike for example with matzah we saw that it must be for the sake of the mitzvah of matzah, because they saw for example if one makes it for the sake of a thanksgiving offering or for the wafers of a nazir, one didn’t make it for the sake of matzah. “Ushmarten et hamatzot” (and you shall guard the matzot), the mitzvah of matzah, which must be guarded matzah.

But here, in any case it’s kosher, even if one didn’t make it in honor of the mitzvah, even if he’s an am ha’aretz (ignoramus), he doesn’t know about the mitzvah of sukkah. But, he says clearly, “even though it wasn’t made for the sake of the mitzvah, provided that it was made for shade”. It must however be made for the sake of, not the mitzvah of sukkah, but for the sake of sukkah. Sukkah means a thing that protects from the sun, it must be made for the sake of shade.

Regarding this, like a sukkah of gentiles, a sukkah of animals is also good. A sukkah that one makes for the workers in the field, or simply a gentile makes a sukkah but he makes it for shade, or someone makes a sukkah for his animals. So similar to these, similar to this that one makes the sukkah for the sake of, it’s made from the right species, it’s made with the laws correct, and it’s made in order to have shade, it’s called a kosher sukkah.

Discussion: What Does “Not for the Sake of Shade” Mean

To exclude what? “But a sukkah that was made by itself…” He’ll already say other cases when it’s not for the sake of shade, but for the sake of other things. I don’t know, for the sake of… so it won’t… No, the only thing not for the sake of shade is that one hangs up things to dry out, for example. One puts leaves on a pole, but one wants the leaves to dry out. It’s not made for the sake of shade. It’s not made to live there, it’s not for something else. It’s made precisely for the sekhakh, it’s not for the… to be under the sekhakh.

What I want to bring out is just that “not for the sake of shade” doesn’t mean that there are other reasons. Making a sukkah. A sukkah is a thing that’s for shade. “Not for the sake of shade” means not for the sake of a place to live, a place to… let’s say someone builds a structure because he wants to put valuable things there.

Speaker 2: Protection is “not for the sake of shade.”

Speaker 1: No, that’s not what it says. What it says in other examples is when one makes, it just happens that there’s shade there. Understand what I mean? Because apparently protection is in shade, it’s protection from the sun.

A Sukkah Made By Itself

But a sukkah that was made by itself, a sukkah that wasn’t made for the sake of anything at all, but a sukkah happened, and he’ll already say for example, it’s invalid. Why is it invalid? Because it wasn’t made for shade. So it appears that what we call “ta’aseh velo min he’asuy” (you shall make and not from the already made), that one must make a sukkah and not that the sukkah should be made by itself, the problem with it is that it wasn’t made for the sake of shade. Yes.

Innovation – The Rambam’s Understanding of “Ta’aseh Velo Min He’asuy”

It’s interesting, he brings here from below, you see, it says “chag hasukkot ta’aseh lekha” (you shall make for yourself the festival of Sukkot). Chazal say, not what is made. So “ta’aseh lekha” means you should make for the sake of shade. So it’s very interesting that…

Speaker 2: You know things all the time.

Speaker 1: He says, we know. But the Rambam didn’t write for people who know everything, so one must know. But you’re right that the commentators here talk about this, that in the Gemara it says “according to ta’aseh velo min he’asuy.” The Rambam doesn’t bring this version. So there is indeed a discussion, this means that “ta’aseh velo min he’asuy” is something an extra invalidation. The Rambam sounds like it’s the matter of, as you say, lishmah (for its sake), for the sake of shade.

But it could be that the Rambam understood, as I also think, I don’t know if you mean exactly to say what’s stated here below in the Ritva, that the Rambam understood that “ta’aseh velo min he’asuy” is the teaching, this is the source that it must be for the sake of shade. But it’s not something new “velo min he’asuy” (and not from the already made). There’s nothing wrong with something already made. If it would have been made, it doesn’t matter, if it was made for the sake of shade, it would have been good. Understand what I mean to bring out?

“Ta’aseh velo min he’asuy” is only the source. Like someone says, where does it say that two shofarot is invalid? It says “shofar” and not two shofarot. But the invalidation is not the language of the verse. The verse is only the source of the teaching why we know that not for the sake of shade is invalid.

Speaker 2: Okay, one must know. Let’s see later all the examples he has, I thought there are examples where “ta’aseh velo min he’asuy” is itself the problem.

Speaker 1: No, all of them the Rambam says not for the sake of shade, it wasn’t made initially for the sake of shade.

A Sukkah Made By Itself – Examples

The Rambam says: And likewise, another… made by itself, he tells me there’s no such case, but let’s say there’s a case where you can think of a sukkah that was made by itself.

Speaker 2: Perhaps he means the example he’s going to say?

Speaker 1: No, “and likewise” means another case. What can “made by itself” mean? A wind came and moved a sukkah. A wind came, a demon placed boards for him and made a sukkah, I don’t know.

Speaker 2: Okay, a robot made a sukkah will also be the same thing?

Speaker 1: I don’t know. It depends who operates the robot. It’s not that a person must make it. A robot, presumably whoever puts the program into the robot, he’s the maker.

Speaker 2: Okay, yes, I mean, I mean to say that if one puts into the robot that it should make because Sukkot is coming, then apparently it will be like a machine makes something, and it’s a person who asks the question. If there’s such a thing that a robot does such things because it decided on its own, yes, but that’s metaphysically impossible, it will never be.

Speaker 1: I’m not talking for example like the Temple must be built for the sake of the Temple, it comes down from heaven. From heaven it’s built for the sake of the Temple. From the Briskers. But such a thing, it can fall down here regarding the oil of the miracle, that one doesn’t fulfill. Good.

One Who Hollows Out in a Haystack

Chunk 3 Translation

And similarly, another case: One who digs into a pile (gaddish), someone digs into his piles of grain, and makes it a sukkah, and suddenly he finds that in the pile there is now such a tunnel, such a… he even makes a space for the sake of a sukkah, but the problem is he makes the hole, not the shade.

Speaker 2: No, it is not a sukkah, not a sukkah. He did not say this pile is for shade.

Speaker 1: The reason why he made the space in the…

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: The reason why he moved the grain at all was for the grain.

Digging in a Pile — Chokeik Tochos vs. Chokeik Yirchos

Speaker 1: He didn’t just happen upon it, he dug it out. But if he does it specifically, if he builds a space in the… it’s not a problem with chokeik tochos, because he doesn’t dig… it is, because he makes the space and he doesn’t make the thing around the space. It is.

It seems so. This will be actually dependent on the previous inquiry a bit. There are those who understand, this is exactly the previous inquiry that we had, whether there is “for the sake of shade,” or “you shall make and not from the already made,” which means that one must make the sukkah, not the hole.

As you say chokeik tochos, which is a parable he means to say. There is from a sukkah, one covers the sukkah, he acted upon the space. There was a need to make the space. The sukkah was already there because there was a pile. This is what the Rambam lays down.

But let’s say, someone wants to make a sukkah, he thought of a plan, first he will make a pile, then he will make a hole. It could be that it should be valid if one goes with the concept of “not for the sake of shade.” According to those who learn that there is indeed a concept of “you shall make,” that one must make the sukkah, that one should be invalid. This is the practical difference of the inquiry we had a minute ago.

A Novel Understanding of “You Shall Make and Not from the Already Made”

I always… one minute, I need to stop the tzaddik. And what I mean to bring out is, now, this is a novelty today. You say I have no enthusiasm in nigleh, you see it’s a great novelty.

I always thought that “you shall make and not from the already made” is some metaphysical thing, it must be made and not have become made, what’s the difference? The Rambam makes much more sense now, about this I’m happy about the revelation that I just grasped that the Rambam has a better explanation.

The Rambam argues that one must make it for the sake of shade, it’s part of the lishmah. Just as it is, although it doesn’t have to be for the sake of the mitzvah, but it must be for the sake of shade, and one who digs in a pile was not made for the sake of shade.

Because indeed if someone will make the sukkah initially this way, backwards, chokeik tochos, it is valid. Therefore if he made it initially, this will be the next halachah.

Speaker 2: No, initially is different, there was a space of a tefach.

Speaker 1: I’m saying that even without that, seemingly it should be good, if he made the entire pile for the sake of a sukkah. You understand?

Speaker 2: Okay, the one explaining doesn’t say a pile, he makes a sukkah. But he makes it backwards, he first makes it completely closed, then he opens it. What’s the problem?

Speaker 1: No, you mean to say, for example, let’s say such a case, when one builds upon the s’chach, and there aren’t yet any walls, and then one makes walls. When the sukkah becomes a valid sukkah, the s’chach is already lying there. Or like for example when people make a partition.

Speaker 2: Yes, we learned that yesterday, when one takes people to make a partition, as long as before the person stood there there was no s’chach at all. Now the s’chach became valid.

Speaker 1: I don’t believe that will be the problem with “you shall make and not from the already made.” As you say, because when he made the s’chach he did make it for the sake of shade.

Speaker 2: Yes, I think that certainly is valid.

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s actually learn the next halachah, perhaps indeed a proof against my explanation.

Digression: Pile — Is It Food?

But one must also note that the pile we’re presumably talking about is a pile that is not food, because if yes, as we learned recently that something that is food is also invalid for s’chach.

Speaker 2: Yes, a pile is… a pile of grain, of straw, straw and chaff is such.

Speaker 1: Usually a pile means the thing where the wheat is a pile, yes? I don’t know, perhaps there are both, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s the majority, perhaps there’s still the majority, an entire grain pile.

Speaker 2: I think a pile is before one has made it there, yes, before one winnows it.

Speaker 1: But then it’s not yet called food?

Speaker 2: No, it is called, but it’s like before, inedible, whatever. It’s the majority of it, it’s the majority.

Speaker 1: The majority is a problem, because later one will learn even a minority can invalidate. So let’s see, let’s see later.

Halachah 9: Therefore If He Made Initially a Space of a Tefach

Speaker 1: Therefore, says the Rambam, because there is the law that the pile must be made for the sake of shade, therefore if he made initially a space of a tefach. It’s not the simple meaning that he… the first week we’re talking about when he moved around the grain, and let’s say, it came out just so. I know, he wanted more of the grain to be exposed to the sun, let’s say. Consequently it came out that there is underneath this a space. So he did make a space.

Speaker 2: No, no, no. Here we’re talking about he makes a space. Before there was an entire closed pile. He came on erev Sukkos, he’s going to make his sukkah here. So he made a space, but he didn’t make the sukkah.

Speaker 1: Here we’re talking about that initially he made a space for the sake of a sukkah, but not such a large space, just a small one. He made a small space.

How Does the Mechanism of a Tefach Space Work?

Speaker 2: When did he put on s’chach? Is the simple meaning that the whole time when he put on his space he put s’chach?

Speaker 1: No. Before he put the pile he put some piece of wood, I don’t know, makes sure there is space. So later when he puts the things on this, it means he’s putting s’chach. Because he wants to have the space there to have the sukkah there.

This is an interesting thing. He introduces a novelty, that there is a space of a tefach in the dimensions of seven by seven. That means, the width is seven by seven, and even the height is only a tefach, and he dug in it afterwards and completed it to ten, later he made it so it should be ten tefachim high, it is valid, for behold the s’chach was made for shade. The s’chach he made for shade.

The Learning from a Tefach Space — Minimum Ohel

He also throws in here by saying something about a tefach space. He also tells us that even though it wasn’t valid until afterwards when he already did it, that doesn’t mean “you shall make and not from the already made.”

Speaker 2: Very good, because think about it…

Speaker 1: No, let’s explain the logic here. Here it’s simple, because we say that it doesn’t have to be for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah, the s’chach doesn’t have to be for the sake of a valid sukkah, it doesn’t have to be for the sake of a sukkah. Now, the minimum ohel, we learned still in the laws of Shabbos I think, the minimum ohel is a tefach. So a tefach is already an ohel. A sukkah it is not, because a sukkah must be ten tefachim, but an ohel it is.

So “you shall make” he must make the sukkah valid, but he made it for the sake of shade. So “you shall make” doesn’t mean a valid sukkah, rather “you shall make” means some sukkah, a minimum sukkah. And here is perhaps a proof against me, because I wanted to argue that he can initially put if he puts the entire pile there.

Question: Why Does One Need a Tefach Space?

Interesting, and here seemingly “made initially” means when he put the pile, right? So it doesn’t work, why not indeed? Why can’t he put the pile? What’s the problem that he makes the sukkah backwards? Interesting indeed.

Discussion: Analogies to Other Cases

Speaker 2: I’ll say again, if someone makes a structure of s’chach and then he sets it up, he can’t say such a problem. Why should it be different here? If he wants to use all the straw from the pile for s’chach, and he piles it on a large pile, and from there he lifts it up, will there be a problem?

Speaker 1: Yes, no, because the lifting is what you do. But what we’re talking about is, that as if it looks like something one makes, one must make s’chach, s’chach must be something higher, something else. A pile is not made anything, it’s made a pile.

I don’t know, if someone will say, this is my order, a new order of making, that one makes a pile and one makes in it a hole. I’m not sure, you understand?

Possible Answers: Raglayim L’davar

He sees that the Acharonim that he brings here indeed argue about this. It could be that what must be a tefach space is only rabbinic, because it’s not recognizable, perhaps truly, indeed so, it would have been good even without this, according to the Rambam’s reasoning of for the sake of shade.

Or it could be that we know that when someone piles up the pile, there is such raglayim l’davar because he’s not making now for the sake of shade, he’s building this all people who make grain and make.

Speaker 2: No, that’s presumably the real one.

Speaker 1: So he must show something different? He must show that here is something different? Our situation that all the neighbors make sukkos, and he also makes a sukkah, he makes it in a different way, is also raglayim l’davar that he’s making here for the sake of shade.

Speaker 2: Yes, there is the… digging in a pile means some farmer stuff. And you hope that when someone told him when he’s dealing with a sukkah, one must have a sukkah. Ah, very good, so this will also be a sukkah. Then it doesn’t work, but it’s people that one must make a sukkah.

Speaker 1: I agree with you. According to my approach, that one looks at all the reality, certainly, the digging in a pile is because Sukkos one makes in the threshing floor and winepress, and he made a scheme. This is not, you must make a sukkah.

But if someone today will discover a new patent, a sukkah that one makes through as it is chokeik tochos and not chokeik yirchos. Yes, he takes out the subtractive manufacture. He cuts out from the wood and it becomes a space. It’s not a problem how he makes it. That would be the reasoning. Although if the rabbis agree… it’s not relevant to anyone to set up.

Analogy: A Tree That One Cuts Down

Leave that, the whole thing leave that. It can indeed be, for example, let’s say, someone has a large tree that makes a large shade, and the tree is lying there, and he just gives a cut down the tree. It wasn’t the tree that was lying there.

Speaker 2: But that one also has such a reality, yes? That he only did one action…

Speaker 1: Yes, but it was still an ohel…

Speaker 2: The action makes it into an ohel. It’s not a problem.

Speaker 1: No, I said that it was already the ohel, he doesn’t just move it, he makes it so it should become disconnected.

Speaker 2: Yes, I hear. It could be that that action is called making the sukkah.

Speaker 1: Yes, let’s see, it’s already such a fallen forest, right? Actually, I’m saying, by every sukkah there is the moment when it becomes valid, yes? You’ll say that it was already made, and now it only became, it was divided, it already works that way.

Speaker 2: Line, but he makes it for the sake of shade, that’s what it says, one doesn’t have to make for the sake of sukkah, one must make for the sake of shade.

Halachah 10: Bundles — One May Not Cover With Them

Speaker 1: Already, says the Rambam, a bundle of straw, a bundle of wood and a bundle of branches. He makes piles, not piles, there are piles. People make in the field, hay, one makes such large rolls. One may not cover with them, one cannot take the bundled bundles and put on the roof. Why? It doesn’t say invalid, it’s rabbinic “one may not cover with them.” Why?

The Reason: A Decree Lest One Make a Bundle on His Roof

A decree, because I have such a decree. Lest a person make a bundle on his roof to dry it. When one makes the bundles, one doesn’t make it for a sukkah. One makes it because one wants to dry out the straw. So there is a fear that there should be such a situation, that a person will put up on a pole, on some roof, a covering, he will put such bundles in order to dry it out.

And then he will reconsider will settle for a sukkah, he will see, ah, perfect, it’s already lying there to dry out, and now he will sit under it and reconsider and sit under it for the sake of a sukkah. But he did not initially make this s’chach for shade, the reason why he put up the straw. Higher the poles, higher the walls, and it wasn’t because he wanted it to lie there for the sake of shade, he only wanted it to lie there to dry out.

And it turns out it comes out that it’s like a sukkah that was made by itself, it’s like a sukkah that was made by itself. Then it would have been invalid from Torah law. So the Sages made a decree that even

Halachah 10: Bundles of Straw and Wood – Rabbinic Decree

Speaker 1: Bundles of straw and bundles of wood and bundles of branches – one may not cover with them, a decree lest a person make bundles on his roof to dry them, and he will reconsider and sit under them for the sake of a sukkah, and he initially did not make this s’chach for shade, and it turns out like a sukkah that was made by itself.

One sees further very clearly that we’re talking about the reality that one is dealing in the field, one makes things. This is not a sukkah. A sukkah must be for the sake of a sukkah. But it also seems as if one cannot make that the walls should establish. Let’s say that bundles of straw and bundles of wood and branches are lying there, and now he gives a last wall, and the last wall validates the sukkah. It doesn’t help, it doesn’t help, because the s’chach must be for the sake of shade. The sukkah means the s’chach. The walls have conditions that there should be three walls. The last piece, when it becomes valid, he says, I’m making it for the sake of shade. There is no “you shall make and not from the already made” on the walls. Right, right. Only on the s’chach.

Speaker 2: And if he untied them, let’s finish the halachah.

Speaker 1: And if he untied them, but if he opened the bundle, he opened the string that takes it around, it is valid, because that’s no longer called a bundle of straw, so there’s no longer the decree.

The Measure of a Bundle – Twenty-Five Stalks

The Ran says an interesting halachah. What is a bundle? And there is no bundle of less than twenty-five stalks. A bundle means twenty-five. If it’s less than that, it’s not called bundles, so it will indeed be valid. There won’t be the concern.

Speaker 2: Wow, shalom aleichem.

Speaker 1: Twenty-five stalks means it’s not bundles, there won’t be the entire decree. This is not the order of putting to dry out.

Discussion: The Source of 25 – Yerushalmi and Agudas Eizov

Speaker 2: Says the holy Rabbi Nachman Avraham, yes?

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: In the Yerushalmi I found, in the Yerushalmi stands the number of 25, I don’t know why he wrote it for even a bundle of three is called a bundle, it says in tractate Sukkah.

Speaker 1: Ah, that’s regarding the four species I think, no? That… where does it say in Sukkah that a bundle of three… that I think regarding hyssop, no?

Speaker 2: What is the Raavad’s source? A bundle of three? Sukkah 13a?

Speaker 1: No, the Gemara talks about the bundle of hyssop. Bundle of hyssop the Gemara says is three. Not the four species. It’s connected seemingly with the sugya of the four species.

So one can understand that the Rambam should make a big difference. But the others say that it’s called a bundle, but it’s not called bundles. What’s the connection between bundle and bundles?

The Rambam can also mean here a practical thing, that the order when one puts to dry out is large piles. There a bundle of hyssop, hyssop is made to smell, three already means a group prepared to smell.

Speaker 2: Okay, I don’t know the sugya enough to now say my opinion on it. Hyssop is not for smelling, hyssop we talk about when one sprinkles.

Speaker 1: But I understand that you agree that they’re two different realities also.

Speaker 2: The Rambam has a Yerushalmi.

Speaker 1: What the Rambam says that it’s a dispute between Bavli and Yerushalmi?

Digression: The Philosophical Paradox of a Pile

I thought that this is very interesting here, that this is the Rambam says a resolution of the very famous paradox, it’s called the paradox of a pile, yes? It has a name, I don’t remember the name technically in English. Yes, people say that it’s very difficult to define what is a pile. One grain of sand is not a pile, two grains is not sand, a thousand grains of sand is a large pile. When does it begin to become a pile? This is one of the things that philosophers have to laugh about, that there are very basic definitions that are fuzzy.

English Translation

If someone says that, you have to tell them it’s nonsense, the Torah says exactly how much is a bundle. How much is a bundle? One, not a bundle, two, not a bundle, twenty-five, that’s a bundle. Good day. There’s an explicit Yerushalmi, it’s not some hidden wisdom of the philosophers, and they have the answer to the question, and that’s it.

Speaker 2: He says, it’s not so simple, there’s a context here.

Speaker 1: I mean to bring out that it’s obviously simple that if someone has twenty-four, it’s not such a measure like halacha. There’s a lo plug, they established a… halacha, but in halacha actually. In philosophy you can turn around. But halacha by a prohibition, a prohibition is also. When I drive at 64, which isn’t driving fast, 66, then it’s driving fast?

Speaker 2: Yes, but here I made the prohibition, you have to establish the prohibition.

Speaker 1: So, says the Rambam, it says “except for a bundle.”

Speaker 2: Okay, I understand.

Halacha 11: A Small Bundle That Was Tied for Counting

Speaker 1: A small bundle that was tied for counting, when people tie things together so that they can easily keep count. For example, a person sells wood, he puts them in packages so he won’t sell one piece of wood at a time, he puts them in packages so it’s a package of ten, of twenty, so yes, he can sell them. So the reason why he tied them wasn’t to dry them or for other reasons, but to count. We may use them for s’chach, that means it’s not a bundle that was gathered together and placed for a certain reason, but a practical bundle.

Speaker 2: Yes, I think when they asked the Rogatchover about a bundle, he brought in all kinds of laws of tying for counting or tying for… that, lions.

The Top of a Palm Tree and Its Branches – Tied by Heaven

Speaker 1: And likewise, one who cuts off the top of a palm tree and its branches, one who cuts off the top of a palm tree, someone cuts off the top of a date palm, and its branches, and all the leaves and branches of the date palm, they are bundles because they’re connected by nature, that’s how a date palm works. So you’ll say that this is also called a bundle, and there’s also on this the rabbinic decree because of drying? No, we may use it for s’chach. Why? Because what is tied by Heaven is not like a bundle, that means it’s also not a bundle, because it wasn’t tied by a person. When a person ties it, we say that the usual bundle is for drying, so that’s also forbidden. But the reason why the Almighty made it, that nature made the palm tree have branches is not for drying, and that’s not called a bundle.

Speaker 2: You’re going the whole time to the reason, but I think it’s more like a principle. Bundle in general, bundle in general.

Speaker 1: Very nice, very good. Another available. Bye.

Speaker 2: Bye. Get out of here. Bye.

Even If One Tied the Tops of the Branches – One Tree Is Not a Bundle

Speaker 1: Another matter. Tied by Heaven doesn’t mean a bundle. Says the Rambam, what happens when there’s such a top of a palm tree and branches come out from it, but the person did indeed make some kind of bundle with it? Even if he tied the tops of all the branches on one side, he cut down the tree, and let’s say for practicality he tied together all the branches, so it should be easier for example to carry it, and the like. So it comes out that it’s like one bundle from two sides, one side it’s a bundle by Heaven, and one side it’s a bundle by man, it’s an awakening from above and an awakening from below, the Chiddushei HaRan has good Torah for Sukkos. We may use it for s’chach, you can indeed use it for s’chach. Why? Because one who ties one tree is not a bundle. Bundle means he takes together separate things, but this is after all truly connected. He only makes the bundle so it should be easier to use it. And this is like one tree, for behold it’s a bundle by Heaven, the true bundle of it, the true… but what is one is by Heaven, and he only added, it comes out that it was already a bundle by Heaven, so he’s putting together one thing. Although on the other side it is indeed separated, but it’s still one thing, because he’s only adding to one thing.

A Tie That Is Not Forbidden to Carry

And likewise, another interesting definition, and likewise, says the Rambam, any tie that is not forbidden to carry. When there is indeed a bundle, a gathering together, how do you say the word tied? A connection, a bundle, ah, that is not forbidden to carry. Usually, the previous case when we spoke was that it was put together so that one could easily place it on the roof, one could dry it out. But a tie that is not forbidden to carry, but it stays there. Ah, he says, it’s a weak tie, so that as long as it lies there it won’t fly around. But if one will need to carry it around, one will need to make a new stronger knot, in any case, that’s not called a tie, and on this there isn’t the rabbinic decree that one cannot use it for s’chach.

There’s a dispute about this, there are those who say like we just explained, that it means it’s too weak, but there are those who say simply, he placed it there to keep it there, not in a way that it’s held, because then you go back to the reasoning that you said, that it’s not the kind of tie that is for drying, therefore there’s no problem.

Very good, that’s the topic. Yes.

Halacha 12: One Who Makes His Sukkah Under a Tree

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam further, we’ve finished with the tie, further. And one who makes his sukkah under a tree, someone makes his sukkah under a tree.

Speaker 2: Yes, under a tree.

Speaker 1: It stands, the tree makes shade on it. Under that he also placed more s’chach, yes? He placed s’chach, but it’s under a tree, where the real, before the s’chach, higher than the s’chach, there’s a tree that already makes shade. So it’s as if it’s forbidden like s’chach in a house, like he would have made it in the house, because… because there’s already something there to help. A tree is not valid s’chach, it’s attached to the ground. So it’s as if he made it inside the house, and we already learned last night that inside the house never means s’chach.

Speaker 2: Yes, not exactly learned, but because the ceiling, the house itself is not for the sake of s’chach, or it’s not valid s’chach.

Speaker 1: So… but everyone understands that valid s’chach, under invalid s’chach, is not good. That’s somewhat the reasoning of as if he made it inside the house.

Discussion: Does the Rambam Make a Distinction According to the Amount of Shade

But the Rambam doesn’t tell us that it’s only if the tree makes a lot of shade. Because if the tree still lets…

Speaker 2: No, the Rambam says nothing.

Speaker 1: If I remember correctly from the Gemara, there are some distinctions in this. Because if the tree still lets under it a lot of sun and the s’chach then makes the shade, what do I care that there’s a tree higher up? The main shade happens through the…

Speaker 2: The Rambam made such a lo plug that you don’t have to check if it’s…

Speaker 1: No no, it’s not so simple. Let’s learn the next halacha, and you’ll see that you have to think… Now it speaks when one used s’chach with two kinds of things. The Rambam doesn’t make any distinction in the tree though.

Speaker 2: The Rambam doesn’t state clearly, but it’s not clear that the… the… how do you say it. Not clear that if the tree is so little that it’s almost nothing, that means its sun is more than its shade, it will still all be valid. It doesn’t say one hundred percent in the Rambam that.

Speaker 1: Ah, but you can assume that it means when you sit in the shade of the tree, that the tree doesn’t make shade, there’s one branch, there are trees that aren’t very thick trees, where it’s a tree that makes a little shade, under that is not under the tree.

Speaker 2: Ah, okay. It’s not under the tree practically, okay.

Speaker 1: Okay, the Rambam doesn’t make that distinction. It could be that the Rambam held yes that the Sages decreed in every case. But it says, as if you made it inside the house sounds like it’s invalid from the Torah.

Speaker 2: Right. But this certainly speaks about such a manner.

Speaker 1: I don’t know if it says clearly. No, I’m not sure. We need to see the next piece, because there is indeed later… It could be that the Rambam held actually that there’s no distinction between what the shade is. But about this he says as if you made it inside the house. That doesn’t mean a place where one makes a sukkah. It could be that the Rambam only learned that you don’t have to go in here and judge whether it’s more shade or more s’chach, but this is not a place where one makes a sukkah, like someone makes a sukkah in the house and someone places s’chach under his roof. It’s not… I’m not convinced, what shall I tell you?

Speaker 2: Because “under” means it’s a big tree. Okay. We see by the story of Jonah that a tree, the kikayon, which was eaten up and doesn’t make shade, one mourns it. That’s not a tree that one thanks the Almighty for.

Speaker 1: I don’t know. Okay, you’re right as you say, other people, but I’m somewhat not one hundred percent. And the Gemara has investigations about this, and it’s not clear what you’re saying. Does Rava say something?

Speaker 2: No. In the next piece.

Halacha 12: One Who Bent Down Trees and Their Branches and Put S’chach on Top of Them

Speaker 1: Let’s learn further. What happens like this? One who bent down trees and their branches. We already learned last night that there are trees that one can easily maneuver. So he made it so the leaves of the tree and the branches of the tree should go down onto the sukkah. That means, the sukkah isn’t exactly… yes, the sukkah is under the tree, but not that it’s far away higher than the sukkah, but he bent it down so it should be right on the roof of the sukkah. And he put s’chach on top of them, and afterwards he cut them. What does “and he put s’chach on top of them” mean? Did he place more s’chach besides that?

Speaker 2: Yes, yes. Besides that he placed normal s’chach.

Speaker 1: Why does the normal s’chach fail? Read the Mishna. And afterwards he cut them, afterwards he cut down the tree, and now it’s no longer attached to the ground. Now supposedly the trees and their branches should be valid s’chach. But it’s not so. If the s’chach that he placed, the regular s’chach that he placed, is more than them, more than the tree and its branches, it’s valid. Very good. Why? Because it becomes nullified in the majority. The invalid s’chach becomes nullified in the majority, and supposedly then even if he didn’t cut them it should be simple. You don’t call it invalid s’chach, the s’chach that he didn’t place for the sake of sukkah. Let’s see. And if the s’chach that was valid from the beginning was not more than them, that was valid when he placed it, that’s the point. Now it’s valid, now it’s not attached to the ground, all these distinctions, but it’s invalid because it’s ta’aseh v’lo min ha’asuy (make it and not from what’s already made), it’s not made for the sake of sukkah. That means when he made it it wasn’t valid for the sake of sukkah. It’s interesting, because it was indeed for the sake of shade. Let’s see. He needs to shake them after cutting them. But he placed it on the sukkah.

Speaker 2: No, it’s invalid, I’m telling you.

Speaker 1: Yes, but what does it mean? Here it sounds yes like for the sake of sukkah has to be somewhat for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah. Because when he placed it up it was to make shade, but it’s not valid. And now it’s valid. He placed something that makes shade. He made something that places shade, but it wasn’t valid enough. And now he made it valid.

Speaker 2: That he placed a tree also, it’s no shade. It’s not shade, it’s not a sukkah.

Speaker 1: But now it’s valid, yes? When he placed it he placed no shade, and now it’s valid. Let’s see. But if the s’chach that was valid from the beginning was not more than them, he needs to shake them after cutting them. That means like placing fresh, like he takes a name down and places it back. That means that’s what happens when one shakes it essentially. So that there should be a making for the sake of sukkah. Look at us how he now placed the tree owners. Perhaps he didn’t place it for the sake of sukkah? If it’s invalid, he can’t place it for the sake of sukkah. One can’t place any invalid thing for the sake of sukkah. For the sake of shade? We spoke about for the sake of shade, even when one makes it for animals, for… he knows at all, a gentile, a sukkah of gentiles. A gentile doesn’t know anything about sukkah. He only knows from… It’s actually a question.

Discussion: The Meaning of “For the Sake of Sukkah” in the Rambam

Speaker 1: Ah, so we need to understand here. It says here yes for the sake of sukkah, it doesn’t say for the sake of shade, you see? The Rambam wrote for the sake of sukkah. So that there should be a making for the sake of sukkah. The Rambam said for the sake of sukkah. It’s actually a question. Earlier he said that it doesn’t have to be for the sake of sukkah. That sounds yes, more for the sake of the mitzvah, for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah, for the sake of valid sukkah. Even here he doesn’t say so that there should be a making and not from what’s already made, he doesn’t say it for the sake of sukkah. Ay, earlier we learned that he doesn’t need for the sake of sukkah, one must say that there’s a distinction. Earlier one meant that one makes a sukkah for the sake of… as we learned, for the sake of a gentile makes a sukkah, but when he makes an invalid sukkah it does need to be for the sake of sukkah. That’s how it looks. It’s then earlier, for example by the law of… one who hollowed out in a haystack, he’s also…

Speaker 2: No. It wasn’t valid when it…

Speaker 1: Yes, but it’s not big enough. There’s not some problem with the side.

Speaker 2: No, I say was… even when he did indeed make a space of a tefach.

Speaker 1: Yes, yes, I understand. It’s not valid. It wasn’t valid when he made it.

Speaker 2: No, it’s not a big enough piece. Because the defect of it was only about the side. There wasn’t some external defect.

Speaker 1: That’s what I mean. Let’s learn the next topic still.

Halacha 13 (First Part): One Who Mixed Something We Use for S’chach with Something We Don’t Use for S’chach, When They’re Interwoven

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, the last two halachos basically. So, says the Rambam, one who mixed something we use for s’chach with something we don’t use for s’chach, when they’re interwoven from both. If one mixes simply, that means not half a sukkah like this, half a sukkah like that, but everywhere there’s a mixture of both, when they’re interwoven from both, then even though the valid is more than the invalid it’s invalid, even if the valid is more than the invalid it’s invalid. But that’s a contradiction with the previous halacha, a minute we said.

Speaker 2: No, it’s a contradiction with the halacha, but it’s also a contradiction with what we learned last night, that if one makes food together with leaves, yes, do you remember that? All dates together with the dates.

Speaker 1: No, because what do we say already that the minority invalidates? The minority invalidates. Here we see that the minority invalidates. So it was already such a big question. Not sure. But the piece is a difficult piece, and the holy Ra’avad is actually in dispute here. The Ra’avad says, not regarding the contradiction, the Ra’avad says that it’s taught twice in the Gemara. And the Rambam explained an interesting interpretation, that the Gemara asks the contradiction what helps s’chach mixed from, the Gemara answers when they’re interwoven. Says the Ra’avad that the Rambam understood what I only hope that the previous halacha that says it’s valid, it’s separate. If it’s separate, it’s somewhat valid. If it’s mixed, it’s bad. Says the Ra’avad, if it’s some decree of the verse, he has no problem. Although, there’s a contradiction. It says indeed explicitly that there’s such a case where the lower is valid and the upper is invalid. There’s no… it says in the Gemara there that one doesn’t combine for them from invalid s’chach. In short, the Ra’avad says, you have another interpretation. He doesn’t say what another interpretation is.

Speaker 2: What? And what happens with halacha one before the institutions under the tree? We did say yes if the s’chach was more than them it’s valid.

Speaker 1: That’s what we’re saying now, the Rambam understood that the distinction is, if it’s mixed, it’s worse than if it’s separate.

Speaker 2: No, but I think the point is something else, because here we’re speaking about something we don’t use for s’chach, even now we don’t use for s’chach, he mixed together something that doesn’t receive impurity. Here, by the previous one, it’s only at the time of placing it wasn’t valid. Once one cut it, the problem was only the ta’aseh v’lo min ha’asuy.

Speaker 1: But the holy Rambam, the Raavad at the end didn’t hold that the Rambam makes this distinction. He understood that… So the Maor Einayim also learns, that the Rambam makes a distinction when it’s on the side, but when it’s… mixed. Mixed is worse. Invalid s’chach, valid s’chach. But the Rambam invalidates, but on the side doesn’t invalidate. Apparently, because the Rambam didn’t say which way it is regarding the purpose of the world.

Speaker 2: Yes, but there it could also be mixed.

Speaker 1: No, there is mixed here. He didn’t say. He didn’t say. Very good. On top of it, and on top of that there’s more. Doesn’t that mean mixed?

Speaker 2: No. That doesn’t mean mixed. That doesn’t mean mixed. One on top of the other, that doesn’t mean mixed.

Speaker 1: That’s the problem. You’re asking me if it makes sense? I don’t have anything else. Not mixed means half a board this way, I don’t know, part of a board this way, half a board that way. But if everywhere there is from both, that means more. That’s certainly not true. That’s what the Rambam says clearly. One on top of the other, not one on the side, one on the far side. One on top of the other, that’s good. If it’s mixed it’s not good. But it’s not, when it’s one on top of the other, there are places where the invalid s’chach isn’t alone, I haven’t gotten around to it with help.

Speaker 2: You’re struggling with the Rambam, but the problem is, you’re struggling, I’m not struggling but you’re struggling, the Rav struggles, I’m also struggling with this. I’m not struggling with the Rambam, God forbid, I just want to understand. And I tell you, soon the next halacha will see zeh b’tzad zeh b’tzad zeh (this next to that next to that). That means, before it means mixed in the sense, not mixed means one on top of the other. Mixed is not good, one next to the other begins a new one, there’s a new halacha, as we’re now going to learn in the next half of halacha 13. That’s how the Rambam learned. It could be that the Rambam learned that when it’s mixed one can’t estimate if there’s more or if there’s less, and mah she’ein kein (unlike) when it’s not mixed one can easily estimate it. He says yes, af al pi shekasheh yoter (even though it’s more difficult), but you think there’s more, but since there’s more, it doesn’t comfort us.

Discussion: The Rambam’s Approach in Psak Halacha

Speaker 1: The Rambam says according to the Gemara, and the Rambam, unlike the Raavad, holds that the Gemara won’t make sense. We don’t follow the Gemara because it makes sense, we follow the Gemara because it’s written in the Gemara. The Raavad held that if the Gemara doesn’t make sense, one must learn a different interpretation in the Gemara. The Rambam generally isn’t afraid of that. He says it’s written in the Gemara, b’shichvatan (as they lie). That’s your problem. That’s what the Rambam’s way is… That’s how it’s told to me, that’s how I said it. Okay.

Speaker 2: One can yes. One can think that the distinction is about there the prohibition is only lo ta’aseh v’lo ma’aseh mishhu (a prohibition and not from doing anything). And here we’re dealing with something that’s invalid in and of itself. One can think it, and the Rambam’s son wrote at length to speak about all these difficulties. In short, and he says… that the grasshopper, I want to show a piece, yes? Someone asked me the question, that there’s a contradiction from the locusts that were mentioned earlier, he says, very good, that’s a question on the Gemara, not on my father. That brings out that I say, you understand? Well, it’s true that the Rambam says that one must follow the rabbis, because they are the beit din shel chayav klal Yisrael (the court obligated to all of Israel), and not because it’s logical.

Speaker 1: Yes, good. One does, one does try to understand. That’s the whole idea.

Speaker 2: Yes, but the Rambam doesn’t need to understand before he rules. That’s the chiddush (novelty) of the Rambam. That means, someone who needs to understand, I’ll say a derech efshar a tzad (a possible approach), the Raavad or others, who need to understand the Gemara, if the Gemara doesn’t agree that a contradiction from the two Gemaras comes out and he makes an okeimta (forced interpretation), one can’t rule the Gemara k’pshuto (literally), because it doesn’t agree. One must add more things to it in order to be able to rule.

The Rambam doesn’t need it, he almost never makes any okeimtas in the Gemara. If two Gemaras don’t agree, he brings both of them, and you should rack your brain to figure out what to do with it, because what do you owe me to say an interpretation. He will bring perhaps the version that…

The Rambam’s Method in Ruling

Speaker 1:

That’s the chiddush of the Rambam. That means, someone who needs to understand, I’ll say a derech efshar a tzad, the Raavad or others, who need to understand the Gemara, if the Gemara doesn’t agree, a contradiction from the two Gemaras comes out and he makes an okeimta, one can’t rule the Gemara k’pshuto, because it doesn’t agree. One must add more things to it in order to be able to rule.

The Rambam doesn’t need it, he almost never makes any okeimtas in the Gemara. If two Gemaras don’t agree, he brings both of them, and you should rack your brain to figure out what to do with it, because what do you owe me to say an interpretation. He will bring perhaps the version. Never. Rambam, there isn’t a single piece in the Rambam where there’s a contradiction in the Gemaras, and because of that all the commentators come and say the Rambam should bring this one and the Rambam should bring that one and the Rambam should bring the Rambam. That this was the Rambam’s version in the Gemara. He had a version, he already knew that he once searched for a version. He already had more than one version he searched perhaps what pleased him. They saw in Hilchot Berachot such a thing, but I don’t know if he went searching. Maybe, if the Rambam tried to understand the Gemara.

I’m just saying that I don’t see that the Rambam, when the Rambam would have needed to do that, let’s understand, when the Rambam would have needed to answer all the Gemaras before he rules… On Mishnayot he made Perush HaMishnayot, on Gemara he didn’t make Perush HaGemara, he made Halachot that come out from the Gemara.

Speaker 2:

No, but also Perush HaMishnayot doesn’t do that. He just says according to the conclusion of the Gemara what it says.

Speaker 1:

If the Rambam would have needed to answer all the Gemaras before he writes a psak halacha, he would never have written his sefer, it would have taken a thousand years. How he tries to make sense of the Gemara, the Gemara is what he brings in the Moreh, more Gemara is from Aggadah. Also not, also not in a systematic way, he doesn’t try from before the Gemara. Many times he shows that the genius of the Gemara is one and a half, but he doesn’t try… I tell you, in short, it has nothing to do with it. Already. On the contrary, the Rambam should need to learn Gemara against. I’m just saying that it’s not possible to write a sefer like the Rambam if one must first calculate all the Tosfot.

Halacha 13 (Continued): Invalid S’chach Separate

Speaker 1:

Let’s say what it says here is, I think, because it says here above, that when the invalidation is about when one placed it so it wasn’t valid, and the problem is lo ta’aseh v’lo ma’aseh it’s valid if it’s the minority, but something that’s invalid in and of itself is even the minority invalid, but that’s when it’s mixed.

The next halacha says, when it’s not mixed. Unfortunately, all the Rambam commentators agree that the Rambam understood that there’s a distinction between mixed and not mixed. What should I do? Here there’s going to be a distinction between mixed and not mixed.

Speaker 2:

No, no, the next one is worse, even worse. It’s a different thing.

Speaker 1:

No, there’s completely a piece where there’s only invalid s’chach. It’s not the… mixture in the Rambam. S’chach zeh l’atzmo v’zeh l’atzmo (this s’chach by itself and that by itself). He placed on the s’chach, parts of the sukkah are valid and parts not valid.

If there is in the invalid s’chach three tefachim in one place, if there is in one place, invalid s’chach, three tefachim in one place, whether in the middle or on the side, it is invalid, because invalid s’chach more than three tefachim invalidates the entire sukkah.

Speaker 2:

Ah, when? Even on the side also, because…

Speaker 1:

Okay, we’ll see. Let’s see.

Small Sukkah

Speaker 1:

Says the Rambam, bameh devarim amurim? B’ketanah (when are these words said? In a small one), by a small sukkah that… a small sukkah you know is only seven tefachim by seven tefachim, and he has here three tefachim that’s invalid. That means, almost half the sukkah is invalid s’chach. Then, we don’t go according to majority, we don’t say that the majority of the sukkah is valid, we say that there’s here a large portion in the sukkah that’s invalid. Two tefachim will still be valid. That means even if it’s a third of the sukkah.

Speaker 2:

Half a sukkah, Gemara. If it’s more than perhaps it’s worse.

Speaker 1:

Yes, because everywhere isn’t good. Aha, okay.

Large Sukkah

Speaker 1:

Bameh devarim amurim? But in a large sukkah it’s like this: invalid s’chach, if it’s invalid s’chach in the middle, if it’s in the middle of the sukkah, it invalidates at four tefachim, if it’s four tefachim it invalidates. Less than that, if it’s less than four tefachim, it’s valid. That means, I mean automatically, I mean one may not sit under it. The Rambam doesn’t say it, but it doesn’t become valid, it doesn’t become valid, but it doesn’t invalidate the sukkah.

But on the side, by the side it’s much easier. On the side it invalidates at four amot, only if the invalid s’chach is four amot, a very large piece of sukkah, it’s invalid. And less than that it’s valid, and the reason is, say the commentators, because on that one can say dofen akumah (curved wall), because it’s by the side, we can look at it as if the wall comes until the valid s’chach.

Speaker 2:

Yes. Very good. I don’t understand, the Rambam has… the Raavad wrote that. What does the Raavad want? I don’t know. Okay.

Speaker 1:

Already, says the Rambam further.

Halacha 13 (Continued): Examples — House That Collapsed, Courtyard Surrounded by Exedra

Speaker 1:

And how… ah, further, keitzad (how so), the Rambam is explaining. But even… very good. I’ll give the Rambam an example of what we’re talking about here.

A house that collapsed in its middle, a house where one opened the roof in the middle of… one removed the roof in order to be able to make a sukkah, but one didn’t remove it until the wall. So a part still has a roof, and a part has s’chach. And one covered the open place, that one placed s’chach on the place where it’s open, the place where one removed the roof.

Or a courtyard surrounded by an exedra, it’s surrounded with an exedra. But by the sides there’s still something like a little roof. Exedra means a roof apparently. Exedra is around and around the courtyard there’s an exedra, and then… ah, in the middle the open pit, the space that’s around in the middle of the exedra.

And similarly a large sukkah… perhaps you want to read in the picture? And similarly a large sukkah that was surrounded with something that one doesn’t cover with around, by the walls from above. Or a large sukkah where around and by the walls one placed invalid s’chach, but in the middle one placed valid s’chach.

It’s like this: If there is from the edge of the valid s’chach to the wall four amot, it’s invalid. And less than that it’s like this: says the Rambam here, why is it valid? And we view it as if the wall is curved. That we look at it as if the wall becomes curved, and this invalid s’chach is considered part of the wall itself, and we look at it as if this would have been part of the wall. And it’s valid, because the s’chach itself is valid, the wall itself goes with the calculation that the wall is made.

Eh, says the Rambam, it doesn’t make sense? He says, what is halacha l’Moshe miSinai? Why should one say such a thing? Where does it come from? Halacha l’Moshe miSinai, there is such a thing as dofen akumah.

Speaker 2:

It seems that the Sages wanted to help that people should be able to make sukkot, it shouldn’t be so difficult.

Speaker 1:

No, halacha l’Moshe miSinai, not Sages. The first Sage, Moshe Rabbeinu. No, and all of them means from the Torah, that’s the word. The Almighty told him, he just didn’t write it. That’s the point. Chanukah isn’t written in the Torah. By the way, there’s no chanukah in the Torah that’s derived from a sukkah. It’s not written that there’s invalid s’chach. I mean nothing, it’s written. So exactly here there must be a law in the law of invalid s’chach. It’s only a law in the law of invalid s’chach. We have so many levels further from the holiness that’s written.

Discussion: May One Sleep Under Invalid S’chach by Dofen Akumah

Speaker 1:

The Rambam hasn’t yet said if one may sit under the s’chach. Under the s’chach, because he doesn’t sit under the wall. He doesn’t say. And also before, because the three tefachim, what’s less than three tefachim is valid, he also didn’t tell him. He doesn’t say.

Speaker 2:

And above, in halacha 7, it was implied so, right? He said before, ah, a decree lest one sit under a ceiling.

Speaker 1:

No. V’ein yesheinim tachtav (and one doesn’t sleep under it). By the boards it said “v’ein yesheinim tachtav”. Why does it say? Perhaps he means perhaps that there he revealed it. And that I already understand. He’s not talking here about whether the piece is valid, he’s talking about whether the sukkah becomes invalid. The sukkah doesn’t become invalid. That’s what he brings here, I’m just saying, the Acharonim certainly say no, but dofen akumah says ka’ilu hit’akmah hadofen (as if the wall curved), one may not sleep something. And if so it’s obvious that here is also a part of the valid sukkah, go be curved. So why when I sleep here shouldn’t one say go also be curved, and I am under the sukkah?

Speaker 2:

Because the person doesn’t become curved, on the person there’s no adam akum (curved person). A curved person is invalid, a curved roof, a curved wall.

Speaker 1:

The question is what you interpret dofen akumah, right? That we calculate as if there’s no roof there. So what does under mean? Under can be straight, can be curved. If you look curved, one still comes under the s’chach, you understand?

Speaker 2:

Yes. The valid s’chach doesn’t become wider than it is.

Speaker 1:

No, actually it remains the valid s’chach, it doesn’t need to, but I’m now also under the valid s’chach. But why then by the boards did he say “v’ein yesheinim tachteiha”? That was in the middle, no? Not any dofen akumah those boards. What was written by the boards?

Speaker 2:

Another being. Natan lah nesar echad sheyesh b’rochbo arba’ah tefachim, kesheirah (If one placed on it one board that has in its width four tefachim, it’s valid). Already in the middle.

Speaker 1:

That’s because in a board it’s only a decree. Again, d’rachmana arbayim v’sachmana (the Merciful One said forty and the Merciful One said), what’s a decree? The decree that it’s invalid, and that doesn’t mean.

Speaker 2:

Well, there in that place actually Rabbeinu Manoach says that the natan aleihem nesar echad (placed on them one board) must speak by the wall, because it’s not a contradiction with the seifa 13.

Speaker 1:

Perhaps not, perhaps because it’s only a decree and one doesn’t disturb. Perhaps four tefachim means up to four tefachim? Can’t be. It’s actually a problem, because if it’s invalid, it’s invalid, there’s no distinction between Torah law and rabbinic law. He’s standing there a large sukkah, a Klal Yisrael sukkah, he doesn’t say at all what he’s talking about in the previous halacha. We don’t know.

I don’t know, it seems very strange to me to say that it’s a dofen akumah but one shouldn’t be able to sleep there. And he brings here that the Levush explains, yes, that let’s say it’s a partition, one may not sleep under the partition, one must only sleep under the s’chach.

To that I say, Yitzchak, that I don’t understand very well, because the partition is curved, so now it looks curved to me, and I’m under the s’chach. It’s also difficult to say that one may not sleep under the s’chach, because we learned that if one makes a wall, a slanted wall, if there is on it what? Three tefachim, I don’t remember the measure, one may.

Speaker 2:

Eh, you’re lying under the wall? What are you talking about? By lavud?

Speaker 1:

By lavud, one leans a… ah, very good, very good. One sleeps under the wall. Okay, there there’s three tefachim, it’s called a piece of roof. But there the entire wall is s’chach. The wall is valid s’chach, but it’s still not a roof.

Speaker 2:

True, fine, but that’s a different law, that a sukkah must have a form of a tent with a roof and a thing.

Speaker 1:

A different topic, but it’s not a proof that one can sleep under the partition.

But certainly the halacha must be like the Mishnah Berurah, because the Chazon Ish says that one may not. But I would have thought that perhaps yes. Let’s see, there should still be more halachot that can clarify this for me. I don’t know, yashen tachat hamitah (sleeping under the bed) one needs to think about.

Speaker 2:

No, not any dofen akumah. The problem with all these halachot is, that he’s not under the roof of the sukkah.

Speaker 1:

Yes, obviously, one can’t make any violations, and truly it’s optional. Another violation, next chapter. Okay.

Halacha 14: Measure of Small and Large Sukkah

Speaker 1:

English Translation

And where did we finish? What is a large sukkah and a small sukkah? The Rambam says, “And what is a small sukkah, where we say that a small sukkah is invalid? Any that has only seven tefachim by seven tefachim. And a large one,”

Law 16: Invalid S’chach and Valid S’chach Side by Side – Half and Half

Speaker 1: There must be somewhere a minimum valid sukkah, so that three tefachim doesn’t make the whole thing invalid. Okay.

What is… yes, the Rama says further, “S’chach with invalid material and valid material side by side,” he made half a sukkah this way, half a sukkah that way, not half, whatever, side by side, not mixed. “And there is not in any one place of the invalid s’chach a width of three tefachim but less,” there is, the invalid s’chach is not three tefachim wide. So, “if all the valid s’chach is more than all the invalid s’chach, it is valid.” It must be, yes, because if there is only less than three tefachim, it must be that there must be seven tefachim.

Ah, it’s not clear, the Rama doesn’t say whether he’s talking about a small sukkah, and about a large sukkah the Rama already asks. I say, even by a small sukkah it comes out that it’s a majority. “Or the valid s’chach is more than all the invalid s’chach.” Ah, but there is earlier, the Rama says, let’s talk about a large sukkah. There’s no difference how large the sukkah is. There is every three tefachim, and there isn’t anywhere more than three tefachim at once.

But… “half and half exactly equal,” approximately the same, “even though there isn’t in one place three.” Not approximately, exactly means precisely. “It is invalid.” Why? “Because the invalid s’chach is considered like an open breach.” Ah, it’s automatically considered that its sun is more than its shade, as it says by s’chach, right?

Speaker 2: Ah, right.

Speaker 1: The same thing. By a sukkah itself it’s not always invalid, more open than standing is valid, by the walls we learned, except if there’s an opening of ten amos and the like. But… and here is a problem, because more than a majority of invalid s’chach, even if you say it’s less than three tefachim, and less than three tefachim doesn’t invalidate by a large sukkah. So one must say that it’s talking about a large sukkah, and still it’s a problem.

Why? The Rambam says, because invalid s’chach is like an open breach, so it becomes even exactly equal. Why does exactly equal matter? One cannot be exactly equal. That’s perhaps the point. We say there’s a majority invalid, and there’s more sun than shade. That’s the secret. And why isn’t half good? In the Gemara it says something that half becomes still, the sun somehow squeezes in so it becomes a majority. The Rambam says no, simply it’s impossible to be exactly equal.

In short, the Rambam says apparently that it should be a doubtful invalid, or like a battle invalid, because perhaps something is so.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes. Okay.

Law 17: Spread Over It a Cloth – Invalid S’chach Above or Below the Sukkah

Speaker 1: Now we’re going to learn what one places of invalid s’chach for some need. Yes?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: “If one spread over it a cloth from above.” Above the sukkah he spread out cloths, which cloths are invalid, yes? Because it’s something that receives tumah.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: “Or if he spread beneath it because of falling leaves,” or under the s’chach he spread out a sheet to catch the leaves that fall down. One, good. “It is invalid.” Why? Like under a tree. Here there’s another layer which is like s’chach.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: One must actually think, because earlier it sounded like one above it, would yes be valid like by the tree. About that I still think that that one was only above it. He cut the tree a bit, yes? It’s not mixed. It was yes valid.

Speaker 2: No, but it’s a majority.

Speaker 1: Yes, here there is completely. It covers completely.

But “if he spread it for its beauty,” if he only spread it to make the sukkah more beautiful, doesn’t mean like… he doesn’t look at it like that is the… it’s not s’chach. It’s beauty. It becomes nullified, it’s a servant to the valid sukkah. “It’s valid.”

So the Rambam says, if he put s’chach according to law, he made proper s’chach. “With types of fruits, with types of cloths, and with hanging vessels.” He made decorations, which the decorations would have been invalid, because it’s food. But it’s a beautiful vessel, right? There’s no difference what you did, by my walls, or even by s’chach. That means, by vessels apparently means that… ah, let’s see. Perhaps the decorations, hanging, it’s like a vessel. Means that it becomes smaller the heavier. But that’s the next assumption that one must learn. Okay.

Speaker 2: Yes, so I don’t know what that means.

Speaker 1: Perhaps he means to say that afterwards one sits under it? He doesn’t say that one sits under it. Ah… it was hung on the wall, but still it takes from above. He placed a sheet. He hung it on the two walls, but it’s not clear. Perhaps he says it’s not clear, the commentators know it.

Law 18: Sukkah Decorations – Reduce Height and Width

Speaker 1: But the next law we’ll see that there is yes a way that specifically the wall decorations make a problem. Why? Because sukkah decorations, perhaps the Rambam says, “Sukkah decorations do not reduce the height.” When one makes the sukkah it must have a certain size, it must be ten tefachim. Or it may not be too high. If it hangs in, it becomes less than ten tefachim. We say from another place, it doesn’t mean reduces the height. The same thing in reverse, if it’s more than twenty amos and hangs sukkah decorations, also it doesn’t become less. Must do what we learned earlier, must place the bed and nullify it.

Speaker 2: Yes, okay, let’s see.

Speaker 1: “But they do reduce the width.” In the width it does count. He says, “If the sukkah decoration hangs from the wall, more than a tefach.” Another law. Reduces the width means… “But they reduce the width,” because one cannot sit there. That means, if it becomes less than seven tefachim because he placed too much sukkah decoration, then the sukkah is invalid. Why? In both cases he doesn’t have enough space to be there. It seems that the roof doesn’t disturb so much. I don’t know what the secret is. Okay. I don’t know what… the secret is… a new thing.

Discussion: Why Do Decorations Disturb Width But Not Height?

Speaker 2: If we have… eh, he says a good explanation, because… because it’s not valid for s’chach. So we don’t look at it like there ends the s’chach, but it is valid for what? We look at it like there ends the wall, and now you don’t have the measure of a sukkah, because the decoration now becomes the wall. You don’t have a space of the whole measure. I already the s’chach it’s nothing. I don’t have valid s’chach, so it’s something extra that lies there.

Speaker 1: Interesting. Not a bad explanation.

Here they learn however something a certain invalidation of sukkah decorations, when they can yes disturb. “If the sukkah decoration hangs from the wall much more than a tefach,” if it hangs really deep in, it’s not connected to the roof, but it hangs strongly in. Then it is yes invalid. Why?

Speaker 2: Why?

Speaker 1: “Because one sitting there is found as if he is not under the s’chach,” he is under the decoration. “Which is food and vessels that one doesn’t put s’chach with them.” That means, the sukkah doesn’t become invalid only according to the laws of invalid s’chach, but the person may not sit under it. That’s the point, right? The s’chach becomes invalid. When it’s sukkah decoration close, it doesn’t disturb us. Because it becomes nullified to the s’chach. If it’s far, it’s an extra thing, it doesn’t become nullified, and therefore one who sits under it doesn’t sit under the s’chach, so he must…

It’s interesting, it seems that the nullification is not only because it’s there for beauty, but it must also be nullification in place, that it should be a place where it’s close enough.

Speaker 2: Less than… no, it’s not lavud, it’s not…

Speaker 1: No, it’s something a new measure, a new measure. If it’s an extra thing for the sukkah decoration from the s’chach, it becomes a problem.

Laws 19-20: More Sun Than Shade – Holes in the S’chach

Speaker 1: Now we’re going to learn a new thing, how thick must the s’chach be, how thick must the s’chach be, this is called in the Gemara “more sun than shade.” Let’s see it.

The Rambam says, “S’chach that had in it windows, windows,” he means windows openings, yes? Windows on the roof, he means holes. It seems one also calls them windows, “windows of heaven” is such a thing, yes. There are there holes in the s’chach, “that the air is seen from them,” one sees the air. So, “if there is in all the air as in all the covered place,” if the open places are as much in total, when one puts together all, as much as the s’chach, “it is invalid because its sun is more than its shade,” it comes out that the sun will be more than the shade, and it won’t be a sukkah.

Equal to equal, yes? “In all the air as in all the place.” Because in practice it will come out that the sun will be more, because sun spreads out, that’s what he says. I don’t know how that works, but that’s how he explains it. I don’t believe that’s the point, because then it would be even a minority, when you think into it, even if there are only small windows, the sun sprays in. But I don’t believe that will be the point, because even a few small holes can come in enough and more sun, the whole sukkah will be good.

The Gemara says that half on half is not enough, it must be really, it must be more. So it says in the Gemara exactly equal, like we learned earlier regarding s’chach. The Rambam says yes, the Rambam says that if it will be half on half, it will be more sun, so says the Rambam.

“And whenever sun is more than shade it is not s’chach,” s’chach is shade, for the purpose of shade, and here there is no shade, there’s only a bit of sukkah. “If there is more s’chach than air.” There is at night, we say air, and the point is however about the sun. He means to say that it will be also invalid at night. Perhaps that’s what he means to say. Not when there’s shade, when there’s… air means in place of s’chach. According to how the s’chach is there is air. Air doesn’t come in, the problem is that sun comes in. Then it’s valid, a majority is enough. Just like in all the rest of the entire Torah, a majority is enough.

“In what case are we speaking? When there wasn’t in one place air of three tefachim, but windows, windows. But if there was air of three tefachim,” if there is a large hole in one place of three tefachim, “whether in the middle or on the side, it is invalid,” even on the side.

Discussion: Curved Wall Doesn’t Work By Air

Speaker 1: We don’t say in such a case curved wall. Curved wall we only say when it’s the same material as a wall, it’s a thing. But air doesn’t become a wall. Yes? From here is a proof that curved wall doesn’t work that we say like the… that as if we look how the wall comes up, but on the contrary, we say how the s’chach becomes a part of the wall. Why? Because if the wall comes up, the wall can come up also by the air.

Speaker 2: No, it must be a wall, there must be something.

Speaker 1: If it’s invalid s’chach, it’s like a wall.

Speaker 2: No, it’s more straightforward to say the other way, that we look at it like the invalid s’chach is a part of the wall.

Speaker 1: Who can’t say for a wall? But what then? Whether we say that the wall comes up, or we say how the s’chach becomes a wall? I don’t have the difference.

Speaker 2: I’m confused. I don’t know what you’re saying anymore. It sounds like the same thing to me.

Speaker 1: It’s not, because… why don’t we say the way that the s’chach becomes a wall?

Continued Discussion: Curved Wall and Invalid S’chach

Speaker 1: There must be something. If it’s invalid s’chach it’s like a wall.

Speaker 2: No, it’s more straightforward to say the other way.

Speaker 1: I don’t understand the… that we look at it like the invalid s’chach is a part of the wall.

Speaker 2: Who can say otherwise?

Speaker 1: I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Speaker 2: But what then?

Speaker 1: I’m speaking in… whether we say that the wall comes up, or we say how the s’chach becomes a wall?

Speaker 2: I don’t understand the difference. I’m confused. I don’t know what you’re saying anymore. It sounds like the same thing to me.

Speaker 1: It’s not so, because… why don’t we say curved wall on the air? Why don’t we say curved wall on the air? The air becomes… an air is not a wall!

Speaker 2: That’s the exact reason!

Speaker 1: By you you say that the wall comes up, the wall covers the air, yes? It comes up because there’s a cover there, because of that. A wall is also invalid s’chach, I mean, it may be valid, but the wall is a closed thing, and this is also closed.

Anyway, it must be less than three, there is no hole of three tefachim anywhere in the sukkah. That’s the important thing. It’s not the simple meaning that the sukkah may not be… overall in the sukkah there may not be… the s’chach. The walls, the sukkah is completely hot and it’s full of… the walls can be more open than standing. The s’chach must have… yes, yes.

Speaker 2: No, I’m saying about this, what we talked about the angle. I say, it must be that it’s not a practical problem that there’s a lot of sun in the sukkah. Because there can be a lot of sun in the sukkah because the walls are not closed walls.

Speaker 1: Why do you keep looking at me?

Speaker 2: I don’t understand, sun doesn’t come in from the walls, it only comes from the top.

Speaker 1: When it goes down, when the sun shines from the side.

Speaker 2: So I want to do, one must believe me in the laws of sukkah.

Reduced With Invalid Material

Speaker 1: No, I say, the s’chach has a law that it must be s’chach that makes shade.

Speaker 2: Yes, further.

Speaker 1: Reduced with invalid material. There where there is air in the sukkah, light comes in, he reduced, he placed there things to plug the holes, but he didn’t place there valid s’chach, then he would have been good. He placed there vessels and coverings. Ah, then one goes back to the original law of minority of invalid s’chach, which has to do with how large it is and how it lies, a large sukkah is valid. Because it’s less than four tefachim, as we learned invalid s’chach, by a large sukkah can be up to four tefachim, but by a small sukkah invalid, because there doesn’t remain enough a measure of sukkah, until he reduces it with something that one puts s’chach with.

Speaker 2: No, good.

Speaker 1: May you do it on Yom Tov?

Speaker 2: I don’t know what comes in here.

Speaker 1: Erev Yom Tov.

Speaker 2: Already.

Law 20: If Most of the S’chach — Its Shade is More Than Its Sun

Speaker 1: If most of the s’chach, what happens so? Most of the s’chach is its shade more than its sun, and its minority is its sun more than its shade. So we say, we look at the total over the whole roof, “if the shade of all is more than the sun of all it is valid.”

Speaker 2: Ah, very good.

Speaker 1: That means, one calculates the whole sukkah at once. We don’t go in the middle there is such a place. We wouldn’t say so like it says like mixtures, yes? When it’s mixed together it’s worse.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Law 21: The Way of S’chach is to be Light — S’chach Too Thick

Speaker 1: Now we’re going to learn, what is something opposite? Something there is too much s’chach.

Speaker 2: Already.

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “The way of s’chach is to be light”… the manner, I mean the recommended way, I don’t know if the optimal way is… it doesn’t say that it’s recommended, it says that it’s normal.

Speaker 2: What does he say with this?

Speaker 1: Read further.

Speaker 2: That most people do so.

Speaker 1: “So that the large stars can be seen from it.” This is the regular way, but apparently, it seems like the Rambam recommends, like this is the optimal way, that one should yes be able to see the large stars.

“If it was thick like a house,” but if it is yes made thick s’chach, “even though the stars are not seen from it,” regarding validity it is also valid.

Speaker 2: Yes. Yes.

Speaker 1: It’s a whole difficult task, because we want that it should be its shade more than its sun, but we also want to be able to see through the stars, so one shouldn’t put too much.

Speaker 2: The optimal way he says, yes.

Speaker 1: If it’s actually… the Rambam doesn’t say it clearly, but it’s an interesting language, the way of s’chach.

Law 21 (Continued): If the S’chach Was Uneven — Unequal S’chach

Speaker 1: If… the Rambam says so: “If the s’chach was uneven.” What they are not… they are mixed, they are not in a straight equal level. And he, he explains, “the s’chach that some of it is above and some of it below,” instead of one straight line it’s up and down. It is also valid, “provided that there not be between the rising and falling three tefachim,” but there shouldn’t be three tefachim between the s’chach that is… lower to the sukkah and the higher part.

Speaker 2: Why?

Speaker 1: Because it’s lavud, it must connect, the two pieces must connect. It doesn’t mean like one large thing of s’chach.

“And if this upper section was a tefach wide or more, even though its height is twenty-three tefachim”

Even though there is no lavud with the other pieces of s’chach, “we view it as if it descended below and touched the edge of this descending one”. We look at it as if it’s enough, as if it touches the lowest s’chach, “and touched the edge of this descending one”. “And this is when it is aligned opposite the edge of the descending one”, if it is right next to it, aligned, there is no space between them. This is similar to the pi tikra, that is chavut rami, as if it’s the same place, such a similar principle or such a type of thing. Without lavud, it’s a new type of chiddush how we say that it means the same thing. Even without lavud, very good.

Halacha 22: One Who Makes a Sukka on Top of a Sukka — A Two-Story Sukka

Speaker 1: Good, another halacha. “One who makes a sukka on top of a sukka”, he builds one sukka on top of the second one, a two-story sukka. He lives in Brooklyn, there the custom is that they make high-rise buildings, so he also makes such a sukka. So “the lower one is invalid”, because “it’s like one who made his sukka inside a house”, because the lower one, he doesn’t sit under one sukka, he sits under two sukkos. And it’s like “one who makes his sukka inside a house”, because he doesn’t sit under the shade of a sukka. Just as one who sits in a sukka in a house doesn’t sit under the shade of the sukka, so too him.

Speaker 2: Under a house, because the upper one is also kosher.

Speaker 1: The upper one is indeed kosher, not also.

Speaker 2: But I’m saying, the upper one is also kosher.

Speaker 1: The lower one, what do I care, in a house he sits under the shade of something not kosher. But here he sits under the shade of two kosher sukkos. So why is it invalid?

Speaker 2: One may not sit under two sukkos, only in the actual sukkos.

Speaker 1: Good, because the Gemara says so, it must be “basukkos,” “basukka teshvu,” in one sukka, one doesn’t sit under two sukkos. Yes?

Speaker 2: Right.

Speaker 1: He probably means a pious person, he’s thinking now, if one sukka is holy, imagine if one sets up ten sukkos one on top of the other, like the one who goes with ten tzitzis. He says, no, one sukka.

Conditions When the Lower One is Kosher

Speaker 1: When are these words said that the lower one is invalid, he says, that the lower one is invalid, is when the height of the upper one was ten tefachim or more, when the upper sukka is a sufficiently high sukka, it’s ten tefachim or more, and the roof of the lower one was able to hold, the roof of the lower one, meaning the s’chach of the lower sukka, is able to hold the pillows and blankets of the upper one, it can hold upon itself vessels, pillows and blankets from the upper sukka, even with difficulty, even if it holds them only weakly, it doesn’t hold very strongly, then we view it as if there are actually two sukkos one higher than the other. But if the height of the upper one is not ten, or if the lower one was not able to hold the pillows and blankets of the upper one even with difficulty, even the lower one is kosher, because it doesn’t mean he sits under two sukkos. It means one is a real sukka and the other is not a real sukka.

The Measure of Height — Twenty Amos

Speaker 2: Rabbi Avishi says, the height of both together should not be more than twenty amos. The height of both together cannot be twenty amos. Because the lower one by the s’chach of the upper one is permitted. Then when we permit one of the two conditions how we permit it, we don’t view the lower s’chach as the s’chach, because the lower s’chach is not at all exposed to the sun. It’s not that one that makes the shade, the upper one makes the shade. So, the upper one may not be higher than twenty amos.

Speaker 1: It must be, it becomes like one thick s’chach or something like that, but it can be… But I don’t understand why, because we learned that if s’chach goes in under the twenty amos it’s enough. The main thing is the space of the sukka. That’s what we learned earlier, right? Do you understand my question? What does it matter? What does “the lower one by the s’chach of the upper one is permitted” mean?

Speaker 2: Let’s say, but there is also s’chach below. We already learned that…

Speaker 1: Yes, but the lower s’chach is not s’chach that means s’chach, because it’s not shade. It doesn’t make shade. Always the lower part of the s’chach doesn’t do anything.

Speaker 2: Okay, that one is one big bunch of s’chach. So the lower one can be viewed as if it’s not there at all, because the upper one makes the shade.

Speaker 1: He actually says that we’re talking about if there isn’t enough s’chach from below, it’s “chamaso meruba mitzilaso.”

Speaker 2: The people really don’t understand.

Halacha 23: A Bed Inside the Sukka — A Bed in the Sukka

Speaker 1: Yes. All these halachos, one must say, as the Ketzos HaChoshen said about them, all these halachos are a continuation of the previous things where one puts too much s’chach, right? As if two layers of s’chach, or one overcomes from a house, afterwards one now learns about a bed under the sukka. Yes? Yes. Let’s learn 23. Yes.

Further the Rambam says, a bed that is inside the sukka. A bed that is in the sukka, if it is ten tefachim high, one who sits under it has not fulfilled his obligation, because ten tefachim is the measure of an ohel, he sits within the ohel, he sits as if… not in the sukka, sukka within sukka.

Speaker 2: Ah, it’s already even if the bed will have kosher, even if the wood above the bed will be kosher, it will mean like a sukka within sukka.

Speaker 1: If the bed is not kosher, seemingly the bed is not kosher, because it’s a sheet.

Speaker 2: If it’s not ten tefachim, then it’s not a problem, because it’s nullified, it’s not an interruption.

Speaker 1: Right, I’m talking here about ten tefachim high, but the… but the sukka is made from things that receive tumah and the like.

Speaker 2: No, but they spoke about sukka within sukka.

Speaker 1: The Rambam said that sukka within sukka is also within sukka invalid. The same problem.

Speaker 2: Is also kosher?

Speaker 1: No, when there is an invalid sukka, it still means sukka within sukka, like making within sukka within sukka. The same idea.

Speaker 2: Aha.

Sukka Within Sukka – Continuation

Speaker 1: No, but I’m talking here about ten tefachim high, but the sukka is made from things that receive tumah and the like. What does it help that it’s a tefach sukka within sukka?

The Rambam said that sukka within sukka is also tefach tefach tefach, all of it is the curtains that bring a top of a bed. Sometimes one makes it like the tent, it’s straight, it’s pointed, then it doesn’t have a roof, then it’s not a problem. But if it has a roof, even a tefach, as we learned by the sukka that doesn’t have a roof, a tefach is a minimum ohel, then if it’s ten tefachim high, one sleeps in a sukka.

Also this is the same thing, it means sukka within sukka. And similarly, one who sets up four posts, and spreads a sheet upon them. One sets up four poles, and he puts upon them a sheet. Also this is the same, if it’s ten high, a real sukka.

But this is when it’s four posts, but two posts upon which he spread a sheet, and similarly anything where the roof doesn’t have a tefach, even if they are high any amount – even if it’s high, “any amount” here doesn’t mean upward, however high it is, right?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: However much, so obviously one sleeps in the sukka, because we don’t make a sukka within a sukka, since it doesn’t have a roof – it doesn’t have a roof. A sukka means something that has a roof, and it becomes nullified, it becomes proper sitting in the sukka, and the person sits under his canopy.

Explanation: Why Sukka Within Sukka is Invalid

The problem of the bed sukka is not because it’s covered with something else, that doesn’t matter. A person may go here, or he may go with something low, he may go to the roof, and so on. The problem is that it becomes an extra ohel, then it’s like you’re in a sukka within sukka. Now one can learn your sukka, and so on.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Halacha 25: A Borrowed Sukka and a Stolen Sukka

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, a borrowed sukka – a sukka that you borrow from someone’s sukka – is kosher. One doesn’t need one’s own sukka, one can borrow someone else’s. It doesn’t say “take for yourselves” or something. Therefore the stolen one – is also kosher. This is different than by lulav where one will soon learn that one needs one’s own lulav.

So the Rambam explains, how so, if he overpowered his friend – he strengthened himself against his friend – and expelled him from the sukka – he will drag him out from the sukka – and stole it and sat in it. He fulfills. Because land is not stolen. What does this mean? A theft of land, one cannot steal land, did you know?

Speaker 2: Right.

Discussion: What Does “Land Cannot Be Stolen” Mean

Speaker 1: This means, there is a halacha about this that one must pay for what one took, but one doesn’t have to return the land.

Speaker 2: Yes, that’s the word?

Speaker 1: No, land one cannot steal. This means, it never became your domain. It doesn’t leave anyone’s domain. To pay, damages, whatever, that’s a different topic. But this is when he stole the land.

He Stole Wood and Made It S’chach

Speaker 1: But if he stole wood and made it s’chach – seemingly he would indeed hold that there is a new chiddush, a new halacha, that even though here he did acquire, it has now become yours, it’s such a mitzva haba’a ba’aveira, but there is a new thing, he fulfills, why? It is a decree of the Sages that the owner of the wood has only the value of the wood alone. There is such a halacha, called takanas hashavim, that the Sages said for the sake of tikkun olam that one doesn’t have to now throw down the house, rather one must pay for the wood that one stole from him. Therefore it doesn’t mean that you sit under someone else’s sukka.

He says, even if he stole boards and placed them, and didn’t attach them and didn’t change them at all – if one acquired through a change it’s obvious that it became yours, but even if it’s still completely someone else’s, it’s also good, he fulfills, because one can fulfill with someone else’s sukka.

Speaker 2: No, because… yes, but then one goes back to…

Speaker 1: It doesn’t say that one can fulfill with someone else’s sukka. Someone else’s sukka is borrowed. By theft it’s always a problem, but the answer is… that even boards, meaning that there is a decree that one doesn’t have to break down your house if wood was stolen that was made into your house, you don’t have to break it, you just return the money, so even in such a manner. Even though it’s easy to throw away, he didn’t make any change, because the reason is not because of no change, the reason is because it’s used for building. That’s the decree.

One Who Made a Sukka in the Public Domain

Speaker 1: For the same reason, another type of theft, one who made a sukka in the public domain – like rabbis conduct themselves, you stole not from one person, but you stole from the entire public – there is also permission it is kosher. Why? Again because land cannot be stolen. We’re not talking here about mitzva haba’a ba’aveira.

Discussion: Mitzva Haba’a Ba’aveira in the Public Domain

Speaker 2: Perhaps there really is no way? Perhaps l’chatchila is not l’chatchila?

Speaker 1: Eh, mitzva haba’a ba’aveira usually we say that one doesn’t fulfill the mitzva. But since… one cannot. That’s the point. Because one cannot.

Speaker 2: No, the aveira is still there. It means, you did acquire, you didn’t acquire, you gave up on the doctor.

Speaker 1: No, no, you didn’t give up on anything. There must be some action like theft from which to speak.

Speaker 2: No, one cannot steal land.

Speaker 1: It’s certain that it’s an aveira. It’s an aveira. If one grabs a person and expels him from the sukka it’s an aveira. No one should do it.

Speaker 2: No, it’s not an aveira.

Speaker 1: He only says that it’s not a kinyan. You didn’t acquire the doctor. So you didn’t take anything from your friend. You remember that you caused him suffering, there must be within the time of fulfilling the mitzva some theft. Here you… there is nothing… the aveira you did when you pushed him out, not when you sit inside.

Speaker 2: No, the lav… no, it can be he receives a punishment. It can be it’s a lav of… I don’t know what… so I’m thinking now according to this, the halacha from yesterday that we learned that a person can be a wall. If a person is a thief nearby, he steals a person and he makes him into a wall, will he also…

Speaker 1: No, one must understand this, but I think that land cannot be stolen means as if it doesn’t leave his domain, there are no laws of theft on land. What does one do with the one who settled and sends away the other certainly?

Speaker 2: That’s not the topic.

Speaker 1: The other one can come back and send away, still. You’re asking now about fulfilling the sukka, he’ll send the police, they’ll push him out. That’s not the question.

L’chatchila and B’dieved

Speaker 1: They bring here that it’s still not l’chatchila to build the sukka in the public domain. It doesn’t say here that one should do it this way. If one does it one fulfills. With disturbing the public, I mean with the sukka it’s a good sukka, with good character traits in Hilchos Deos it’s very looked down upon. We’re talking here always with the sukka, one fulfilled the k’zayis in the sukka.

Practical Discussion: Public Domain and the Custom

Speaker 1: The reality is that… you must understand, public domain means that everyone has a right to go there. Why shouldn’t I have a right to make my sukka there?

Speaker 2: Because everyone has a right only to go there.

Speaker 1: That’s actually the answer. Everyone has a right to use it a little. No one has the right to make it only his. But on Sukkos everyone understands that one makes a sukka in the public domain. One doesn’t even need to ask permission. So says the holy Piskei Teshuvos. I don’t know, there is Mishna Berura.

In short, the custom is that one makes sukkos in the public domain. Why? Because a public domain is made for public use. One of the uses is Sukkos, to make sukkos there. What’s the problem? You can understand, there is a Jewish city, everyone puts in the piece… If one makes a center in a place where it prevents people from passing through, then it’s actually different.

Speaker 2: No, but it will be connected with the sukka, but there is the same thing, because it’s a permit.

Speaker 1: It means, and here for example in Lakewood, I already know, there is something that makes a permit. You know a permit? I may now build not to speak. Why? Because the decree of the environment is that that’s how one conducts oneself. And if one makes without a permit, it’s not something that makes sense. You need to build something, they’ll let you block for four hours. If you’re now going to block for a patient. A whole week. Obviously he doesn’t get a permit. Okay. For Sukkos.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: I mean to say that if one may with a permit, one may also set up a permit. Permit, if the police will come, one must give advice with them. Good, very good. We have finished.

The Bnei Yissaschar’s Reason for the Custom

Speaker 1: The custom of all Israel in all generations was to make sukkos everywhere, and the holy Bnei Yissaschar says… but perhaps one must let everyone use the sukka? It’s made in the public domain, it should be a sukka of the public. In general one must let everyone. “All Israel is fit to sit in one sukka,” it says in the Gemara. But this is with hospitality that we learned after Yom Tov. Guests! But one who locks the door of his courtyard is exactly one who locks his sukka.

But the Bnei Yissaschar says why does one conduct oneself to make sukkos in the street? Because Sukkos is a remembrance of the sukkos. The Sukkos teach Torah, Mashiach will come. When Mashiach comes everything belongs to the Jews. It may be a gentile city, we hold that it’s already a Jewish city. Good, so may Hashem do.