Monday, September 11, 2006

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 9 - Intentionally nullifying a prohibition

The Gemara states that if one placed s’chach that is invalid for use on a Sukkah, such as branches that are still connected to the ground, the Sukkah can still be valid. This can be effected if he places valid s’chach on the Sukkah and there is more valid s’chach than invalid s’chach. The valid s’chach will thus nullify the invalid s’chach. The Taz to Orach Chaim 626 wonders how one can nullify the invalid s’chach by placing more valid s’chach, as there is a principle of ain mevatlin issur l’chatchila, one cannot nullify a prohibited matter outright. For example, one cannot place kosher food items into a pot that contains forbidden food items, thus attempting to nullify the prohibited food. The first answer that the Taz offers is that prior to the onset of the festival there is no prohibition in effect, as one is not obligated to dwell in a Sukkah until the festival commences. For this reason one would be able to validate the s’chach and he is not deemed to have nullified a prohibition outright. The Taz follows his reasoning with regard to nullifying chametz prior to Pesach. Alternatively, the Taz suggests that the principle of ain mevatlin issur l’chatchila, that one cannot nullify a prohibited matter outright, is only a rabbinical restriction that was instituted so that one would not derive benefit from his nullification of the prohibited matter. Regarding the mitzvah of Sukkah, however, one does not actually derive benefit from dwelling in a Sukkah, as there is a principle that mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu, the commandments were not given to derive benefit from. Thus, one is not deriving benefit from the validated s’chach.

8 comments:

Big Moish said...

One could cook food intentionally with chametz in it before Pesach if it will become batel in the other ingredients intentionally and eat it before pesach? Are you sure about that?

ohad yishai said...

this is explicitly forbidden by the teshuvot haran. see pri megadim in yoreh deah 99 that discusses this at length

Ohad Yishai said...

the difference is that chometz on pesach is chozer veneor since the laws of bittul are suspended on pesach. on sukkot however the laws of bittul are not suspended thus once it was nullified at a state where it was permissible one at that point didn't violate ein mevatlin, but regarding chometz the bittul is ineffective once peasch comes.

Avromi said...

the Taz in 626:2 rules that by a taroves chometz lach b'lach and there is no shishim, one is allowed to add to it before pesach to maske it batel.

Avromi said...

ohad:
the taz in 447:5 rules the same way and he is going on the rama that rules by pesach lach b'lach we do not say chozer vneor and that is why it is permitted.

Ohad Yishai said...

Thank you for your comment. See Siftey daat 99:11 s.v. matzinu who lists examples when lechatchila one may nullify. He cites Taz o.c. 626:2 regarding lach belach where there'e no chozer veneior. He distinguished there if the chometz already fell then one may add more than sixty to nullify it. however to intentionally (ligrom) cook food even lach belach and rely on bittul he doesn't permit. (this is analogous to taz in y.d. 95 who prohibits ligrom nat bar nat lechatchila). See also Mishna berurah 453 and shaar hatziyon 30 with the taz. and see also responsa of rashba 485

Reuven L said...

Don't we say that "Mitzvos lav Lehanos nitnu" only means the hana'ah of Kiyum hamitzva, such as being tovel in a mikva of isurei hanaa on a cold day. But on a hot day there is physical pleasure in addition to hana'as kiyum hamitzva. Wouldn't it then be assur to sit in the tzel of a sukka on a hot day?

Avromi said...

should be a machlokes rishonim ran and rashba but i hear your kasha on one of them - ill have to check. come back later to see if i found anything on that.