Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Hosting guests overrides receiving the Shechinah

The Gemara discusses the halacha of oseik bimitzvah patur min hamitzvah, one who is engaged in the performance of one mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah. The question is raised with regard to Avraham Avinu who was receiving the Shechinah after he had been circumcised. When the angels came to visit him, Avraham left the Shechinah and went to attend to the guests. Why did Avraham not employ the principle of one who is engaged in one mitzvah, i.e. receiving the Shechinah, is exempt from performing another mitzvah, i.e. hosting the guests? I heard from Rav Chaim Uri Freund Shlita that Rav Noach Weinberg asked this questions and Rav Noach suggested that when Avraham was engaged in receiving the Shechinah, he then became aware of the necessity of performing the mitzvah of greeting guests. It is noteworthy that the Gemara in Shabbos states that from Avraham Avinu we derive the principle that receiving guests is greater than receiving the Shechinah. The Gemara should have challenged this principle based on the idea that one who is engaged in one mitzvah is exempt from other mitzvos. The mitzvah of receiving the Shechinah appears to be the mitzvah of uledavka bo, one is obligated to cleave to HaShem. According to the Netziv in Heemek Davar, Avraham was engaged in loving HaShem and receiving the Shechinah, and he was performing the mitzvah of loving HaShem. The Netziv writes that when one is engaged in the mitzvah of loving HaShem, he is obligated to interrupt his thoughts and perform another mitzvah, because the mitzvah of loving HaShem has no time frame. This, the Netziv writes, is the meaning of the Gemara in Shabbos that states that hosting guests is greater than receiving the Shechinah. This means that the action of hosting guests overrides the mitzvah of loving HaShem which has no time frame. (See there further). Receiving guests can be a number of mitzvos, such as gemilus chasadim (Netziv) or even vehalachta bedrachav, one should emulate HaShem. Just as HaShem is compassionate, also you must be compassionate.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 24 - Missile Attack

Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein in his sefer on Sukkah relates a question that came to him during the recent war in Israel with Hezbollah. A man purchased some items on credit from a store before Shabbos. Shabbbos morning, a barrage of missiles rained down on the city and this particular store was demolished, there was nothing salvagable left. The man wanted to know if he was still obligated to pay his debt. He claimed that if he would not have bought those items, they would have been destroyed anyways. The Rav ruled that he is obligated to pay for the debt was incurred before the missile attack.

Rav Zilberstain wondered as to what the halacha would be if the missiles were already launched when the fellow made his purchase.

[The connection to the daf is the Gemora states that there is a concern for the barrel bursting before Shabbos is over thereby preventing the person from separating terumah and maaser after Shabbos.]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 24 - Huff n' Puff and Blow those Walls Down

The Gemara states that the walls of a Sukkah have to be able to withstand a usual wind. The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnayos writes that the walls of the Sukkah must be strong enough that the wind will not blow them down. It would seem from the words of the Rambam that it is sufficient if the walls do not fall down, even if they sway in the wind. From Rabbi Yosef Kapach’s edition of the Rambam, however, it appears that the Rambam maintains that the walls cannot sway at all. The Ritva writes explicitly that the walls cannot sway. Sefer Emek Bracha understands the Rambam in Mishneh Torah to be in accordance with the opinion of the Ritva. There is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai that states that the walls must be sturdy enough that they do not sway in the wind. This would also be the explanation of the Magen Avraham’s ruling that if the Sukkah was enclosed and the walls were such that if the Sukkah was located outside, the walls would fall, the Sukkah is invalid. The reason for this is because there is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai that states that the walls must be strong and if the walls are not sturdy enough, the Sukkah is deemed to be lacking walls and the Sukkah is thus invalid. Based on this reasoning, we can resolve a question that is posed by some of the Acharonim. The Acharonim wonder what the Halacha would be if a Sukkah has sturdy walls but it cannot withstand an unusual wind. When an unusual wind blows and the walls sway in the wind, is the Sukkah still deemed to be valid while the walls are blowing? We can suggest that the Sukkah would be valid because the requirement of a Sukkah wall is that the wall can withstand a usual wind and a Sukkah with sturdy walls can certainly withstand a usual wind. Although the Sukkah sways in the wind, we are not concerned and the Sukkah is deemed to be valid.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 24 - Canvas

When one uses a canvas Sukkah, there is a concern that the walls will flap in the wind and this will invalidate the walls. The Poskim suggest that one can tie ropes or reeds from one side of the Sukkah to the other. The ropes or reeds must be within three tefachim of each other, thus applying the principle of lavud, and this would obviate the need for the canvas walls. The Chazon Ish rules that the walls cannot sway more than three tefachim. One must wonder if this means that the walls cannot sway three tefachim in each direction or does it mean that the walls cannot sway three tefachim entirely.
I did notice an interesting discussion here and it continues here and concludes here.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 24 - Highlights

1. The Gemara concludes that Rabbi Meir maintains that we are concerned for the possibility of death and for this reason one cannot use an animal as the wall of a Sukkah. Rabbi Meir is not concerned, however, that a barrel will burst, and for this reason one can drink the wine in a barrel on Shabbos. He can then rely on the fact that he will separate terumah and Maaser from the wine after Shabbos. If there was a concern that the barrel might break, we would not permit such a leniency because he may never be able to separate the terumah and Maaser. (24a1)
2. Rabbi Yehudah does not allow one to drink from the wine and rely on the fact that he will separate terumah and Maaser after Shabbos because Rabbi Yehudah does not hold of the principle of breira, retroactive clarification. In this case the principle of breira would dictate that the wine that he will separate in the future for terumah and Maaser is already deemed to have been separated now. (24a1)
3. The Gemara cites two other reasons why an animal cannot be used as the wall of a Sukkah. One reason is because Rabbi Meir maintains that a wall that stands only because of breath is not deemed to be a wall. Alternatively, it is only deemed to be a wall if it is made by man. (24a3)
4. There are several halachos that the Gemara mentions regarding a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yose HaGlili maintains that a bill of divorce cannot be written on an animal. There is a halacha that states that a man can only divorce his wife with a bill of divorce but he cannot divorce her with money. A man cannot divorce his wife by stipulating a condition that will be in effect for her entire life because a conditional divorce of this nature is not deemed to be a separation between a man and his wife. (24b1-24b2)
5. The Mishna rules that if one constructs his Sukkah between trees and the trees are serving as the walls of the Sukkah, the Sukkah is valid. The Gemara states that the walls of the Sukkah must be able to withstand a usual wind. One must ensure that the trees do not sway to and fro because walls that sway are invalid. (24b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 23 - Highlights

1. The Mishna rules that if one constructs a Sukkah on top of a wagon or a boat, it is valid and one is permitted to enter the wagon or boat on Yom Tov. If one constructs a Sukkah on top of a tree or a camel, it is valid and one is prohibited to enter it on Yom Tov. (22b2)
2. The Gemara cites a dispute regarding a Sukkah on a boat. Rabban Gamliel invalidates such a Sukkah and Rabbi Akiva validates it. The Gemara relates an incident where Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva were on a boat and Rabbi Akiva constructed a Sukkah. The next day, a gust of wind blew the Sukkah off the boat. Rabbi Gamliel then said to Rabbi Akiva, “Akiva, where is your Sukkah now?” (23a1)
3. Abaye explains that if the Sukkah would not be able to withstand a usual wind on dry land, the Sukkah is invalid according to all opinions. If the Sukkah could withstand an unusual wind, it is certainly valid. The dispute is regarding a case where the Sukkah can withstand a usual wind blowing on dry land but the Sukkah would not be able to withstand a usual wind on the sea. (23a1)
4. The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah whether a Sukkah constructed on top of an animal is valid or not. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukkah must be fit to be used for all seven days and since this Sukkah cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Tov because of the Rabbinic injunction against riding on an animal, this Sukkah is invalid. Rabbi Meir, however, maintains that the Sukkah is valid because the Sukkah is Biblically fit for all seven days and the fact that it is not rabbinically fit does not invalidate the Sukkah. (23a1-23a2)
5. There is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah if one is allowed to use an animal as a wall for a Sukkah. Rabbi Meir maintains that such a Sukkah is invalid, whereas Rabbi Yehudah maintains that such a Sukkah is valid. Rabbi Meir enumerates many instances where the use of anything that is alive is invalid for use. (23a2)
6. There is a dispute regarding the reason Rabbi Meir invalidates a Sukkah where the animal is used as a wall. Abaye maintains that we are concerned that the animal will die and the Sukkah will be without one of its required walls. Rabbi Zeira maintains that we are concerned that the animal may run away, thus leaving the Sukkah without one of its required walls. (23a2-23a3)
7. Abaye understands that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the possibility of death. The Gemara questions this thesis from a Mishna in Gittin that states that if a daughter of a non-Kohen was married to a Kohen, we do not have to be concerned that her husband might die when he has traveled abroad and the woman is permitted to eat terumah. Abaye maintains that the Mishna in Gittin is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, and this would seem to contradict Abaye’s position in our Gemara. The Gemara answers that we reverse the statement of Abaye regarding the Mishna in Gittin and Abaye really answered that the Mishna in Gittin is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah who maintains that we are not concerned with the possibility of death. (23b1-23b2-24a1)

Read more!

Litveshe Kasha / Chasidishe Vort

Ben Azai maintains that "mehalech K'omed" one who carries an object four amos in a public domain does not violate the Biblical prohibition of carrying for every step he takes. The moment he places his foot down it is considered as stopping and therefore, he is not walking four amos continuously. The only way for him to transgress this prohibition is to jump four amos at one time.

Reb Akiva Eiger asks that according to Ben Azai, there should not be any injunction against blowing the shofer on Shabbos because the sages were concerned of one carrying the shofer four amos in a public domain and according to Ben Azai this would not be a violation of Shabbos. It is not logical to assume that one might take the shofer and jump four amos?

Reb Leibel Eiger answered that in the person's excitement to for the mitzva of shofar, how can he not jump!

Read more!

Practically Speaking

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Mikroei Kodesh (32) writes that Reb Akiva Schlesinger maintained that even nowadays there is an obligation to blow shofar in Yerushalayim when Rosh Hashana occurs on Shabbos. There are those who maintain that Rabbi Schlesinger actually practiced in accordance with his opinion and when Rosh Hashanah occurred on Shabbos, Rabbi Schlesinger blew shofar. Rav Frank wonders if there is any reason for one to hear shofar blasts nowadays if he knows of someone who was blowing shofar when Rosh Hashanah occurs on Shabbos. The first question that needs to be addressed is if Rabbi Schlesinger’s opinion is halachically valid. Even if the halacha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Schlesinger, perhaps one fulfills a biblical obligation of hearing the shofar blasts even if the one blowing shofar is violating a rabbinical prohibition. Rav Frank initially compares this issue with our Gemara. If one does not fulfill his obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah when sitting in a Sukkah that is on top of an animal, this would be proof that one cannot fulfill his biblical obligation if there is a rabbinical prohibition involved.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 23 - Shofar on Shabbos

The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah whether a Sukkah constructed on top of an animal is valid or not. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukkah must be fit to be used for all seven days and since this Sukkah cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Tov because of the Rabbinic injunction against riding on an animal, this Sukkah is invalid. Rabbi Meir, however, maintains that the Sukkah is valid because the Sukkah is Biblically fit for all seven days and the fact that it is not rabbinically fit does not invalidate the Sukkah. This issue of something that is biblically fit but is rabbinically unfit has halachic ramifications in other areas as well, such as regarding one who performs a mitzvah in a manner that was rabbinically prohibited if we can still say that he fulfilled his biblical obligation. This issue was previously discussed on Daf 3 here regarding sitting in a sukkah that has the table situated outside of the sukkah regarding sitting in a Sukkah where the table is placed outside the Sukkah. The question will arise regarding Rosh Hashanah that occurs on Shabbos where there is a Rabbinic injunction against blowing the shofar as one may come to carry the shofar four amos in a public domain to learn from an expert. What would be the halacha if one were to violate the rabbinical prohibition and blow shofar on Shabbos? Would one be rewarded for performing a mitzvah because he has fulfilled the biblical obligation or perhaps one does not even fulfill a biblical obligation when he is rabbinically prohibited form blowing shofar on Shabbos? This question would not present a problem according to the opinion of the Yerushalmi that maintains that one is biblically prohibited from blowing shofar on Shabbos. Rabbi Akiva Eiger rules that in such a situation one has fulfilled his biblical obligation of blowing shofar. Tosfos in Rosh Hashanah writes that blowing the shofar on Shabbos is rabbinically prohibited because it is considered a chachmah, an art, and not an act of labor. Rabbi Ezriel Cziment writes in a pamphlet called Zmanei Sasson that it is evident that even according to Tosfos, the Chachamim did not invalidate the shofar blasts, because then Rabbi Akiva Eiger would not have ruled that one fulfills his biblical obligation of blowing shofar. It is clear that if the only rabbinical injunction against blowing shofar on Shabbos was because of the concern that one may come to carry four amos in a public domain, the shofar blasts would not be invalidated. The novelty here is that even if the rabbinical injunction would invalidate the shofar blasts, this would be different than a Sukkah that the Chachamim invalidate when the table is outside.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 22 - Highlights

1. The Mishna states that a Sukkah that is meduvleless is valid. There is a dispute regarding the meaning of the word meduvleless. One opinion maintains that it means a Sukkah that is covered with only a small amount of s’chach, whereas the other opinion maintains that it means that the s’chach is placed with one reed up and one reed down. (22a1)
2. Even if there is three tefachim open space between the upper reed and the lower reed, the Sukkah will only be invalid if the top of the reeds is not a tefach wide. If the top level of the reeds is a tefach wide, however, then the Sukkah will be valid. The reason for this ruling is because we say chavot remi, lower and place the top reeds on the space below. (22a2)
3. The Mishnah in Oholos states that if the beams of a two-story house do not have plaster on them, and the beams are placed corresponding to each other, if there is corpse tumah beneath one of the lower beams, any vessel that is underneath that beam will be tamei. If the tumah is between the lower and upper beam, however, a vessel that is between the beams will be tamei. If the tumah is above the upper beam, a vessel that is opposite the tumah above the beam until the heaven is tamei. (22a2)
4. Regarding a mavoi that requires an adjustment of a korah or a lechi, if a korah extends from one wall of a mavoi and does not extend to the other wall of the mavoi, or two korahs extend from two opposite walls and the korahs are not long enough to reach each other, there is a dispute. The Tanna Kamma maintains that if the space between the beams is less than three tefachim wide, we apply the principle of lavud and the space is deemed to be closed and one can carry within the entranceway. If the space between the beams is more than three tefachim, however, one must fill in the space with another korah. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that if the space between the two korahs or between the korah and the wall is less than four tefachim wide, one is not required to bring another korah. If the space is more than four tefachim, however, one must bring another korah to close off the space. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that we apply the principle of lavud to a space that is les than four tefachim. (22a3-22b1)
5. We learned previously on Daf 2a that a Sukkah that has more sunlight than shade is invalid, implying that if the sunlight and shade were equal, then the Sukkah would be valid. Yet, the Mishna here states that if the shade is more than the sunlight, the Sukkah is valid, which implies that if the shade and sunlight are equal, then the Sukkah is invalid. The Gemara answers that our Mishna refers to the shade and sunlight above, i.e. the thickness of the s’chach itself, which means that there is more solid s’chach than open space. This implies that if the solid part of the s’chach is equal to the open space, the Sukkah is invalid because there will be more sunlight than shade on the floor of the Sukkah. The Mishna on Daf 2a, however, refers to the shade and sunlight on the floor of the Sukkah. When there is more sunlight than shade, the Sukkah is invalid. Yet, if the shade and sunlight on the Sukkah floor are equal, the Sukkah is deemed to be valid because equal sunlight and shade on the Sukkah floor indicates that there is more solid s’chach above than opens space. (22b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 22 - A wedding under the stars

The Mishna and Gemara rule that a Sukkah that is covered as thick as a house, even if the stars cannot be seen from inside the Sukkah, the Sukkah is nonetheless valid. Why is it preferred that one see the stars while dwelling inside the Sukkah? There is a custom by Jewish weddings that the chupah take place under the stars, because this symbolizes that the couple should bear children who are as many as the stars of the heavens. The Vilna Gaon writes that the Clouds of Glory departed after the Jewish People sinned by fashioning the Golden Calf. Hashem forgave the Jewish People on Yom Kippur, and the Clouds of Glory retuned on Sukkos. The Giving of the Torah is referred to as the marriage between HaShem and the Jewish People. Perhaps this is the reason why it is preferred that one dwells in a Sukkah beneath the stars. Sukkos symbolizes that HaShem retains His love for the Jewish People, and by dwelling beneath the stars, we are likened to the bride who stands with the groom under the chupah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 22 - Keep the rain out

The Rishonim debate what the halacha would be if one constructed his Sukkah and placed the s’chach in a manner that rain would not be able to enter the Sukkah. Rashi is quoted as maintaining that the Sukkah is still valid and Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and maintains that this would be similar to a house and the Sukkah would be invalid. There is a question that is asked on the opinion of Rashi. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 640:4 rules that one should not use branches from a thornbush for s’chach because if the leaves fall into the Sukkah, one will be distressed and this will cause him to exit the Sukkah. Similarly, one cannot construct his Sukkah in a place that has a fetid smell because this will cause him to be uncomfortable and he will be exempt from his obligation. Following this logic, according to Rashi who maintains that a Sukkah is still valid if the rain cannot enter, it would seem to be preferable that one should place the s’chach in a manner that the rain cannot enter into the Sukkah. Thus, even if it does rain, he will be protected and he will be able to remain in the Sukkah. The answer to this question can be that there is a distinction between the cases. Using s’chach from a thornbush or positioning a Sukkah in a location where there is no smell is not prohibited, so logic would dictate that one build his Sukkah in a way that will not cause him distress and anguish. It is not preferable to place thick s’chach on a Sukkah, however, because then the Sukkah is similar to a house. Although Rashi validates the Sukkah ex post facto, it is still preferable not to build it in such a manner.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 22 - "Take a chill" out of the Sukkah

The Mishna states that if the s’chach that one placed on his Sukkah is thick like a house and the stars cannot be seen from inside, the Sukkah is still valid. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 631 rules that it is preferable that one should place the s’chach in a manner that the stars should be seen. Mishna Berura states that if the stars can be seen in one section of the Sukkah, that is sufficient. Rabbi Braun in his sefer Shearim Hametzuyanim B’Halacha writes that many Gedolim did not construct their Sukkahs in a manner that the stars would be seen from inside. The reason for this was that these Gedolim resided in extremely harsh climates and they preferred to be able to sleep in the Sukkah without having to leave the Sukkah because of the harsh elements. For this reason they covered their Sukkahs with thick s’chach to keep out the cold and precipitation, even though this did not allow them to sleep under the stars.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21- Lekavod Shabbos and Rosh HaShanah

The Gemara states that even the casual conversation of Torah scholars requires study. The Zohar states that a Torah scholar is in the category of Shabbos. One should be careful to minimize his speech on Shabbos. This idea is alluded to in this Gemara, because a Torah scholar, who is in the category of Shabbos, is careful with his speech.

To read more inspirational thoughts regarding Shabbos, please visit www.torahthoughts.com

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21 - Highlights

1. Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim debate whether an ohel not made by man is deemed to be an ohel regarding tumah or not. Rabbi Yehudah derives from a gezeirah shavah regarding the Mishkan that only an ohel that is made by man is susceptible to tumah, whereas the Chachamim maintain that the word ohel that is repeated regarding the mishkan comes to include even an ohel that was not man-made. (21a1)
2. There is a dispute regarding the children who were brought to the Shiloach spring to fill up water for the purpose of sprinkling on the sequestered Kohen who would perform the service of the Parah Adumah. The Tanana Kamma maintains that the children would descend into the water to fill up the cups whereas Rabbi Yose maintains that the children would remain sitting on the doors that had been placed on top of oxen and they would lower the cup by using a rope. (21a1-21a2)
3. Rabbi Yehudah agrees that an ohel that is not made by man but is as large as a fist is deemed to be an ohel regarding tumah. (21a2)
4. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that that they did not place doors on the oxen because a child would then be over-confident and he would stick his head or one of his limbs beyond the door and then he would become tamei from the kever hatehom, the grave in the deep. Rather, the child would ride directly on top of the ox and he would be afraid to lean over and thus he would not stick his head or limb out. (21a3-21b1)
5. The thesis that Rabbi Yehudah agrees that an ohel that is non man-made will be deemed to be an ohel if it is the size of a fist is challenged from our Mishna regarding sleeping under the bed in the Sukkah. The Mishnah implies that Rabbi Yehudah did not deem the bed to be an ohel because one who sleeps under the bed has fulfilled his obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah. Yet, if Rabbi Yehudah maintains that an ohel that is the size of a fist or more is an ohel, the one who sleeps under the bed should not be able to fulfill his obligation. The Gemara offers several answers to solve this difficulty. (21b1-21b2)
6. Rabbi Shimon maintains that a temporary ohel can negate a permanent ohel, whereas Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a temporary ohel cannot negate a permanent ohel. (21b2)Rabbi Shimon said that from the sichah of Rabban Gamliel we learn two things. The Gemara infers from the fact that Rabbi Shimon used the word sichah, casual conversation, and not the word dibbur, which means his words, that one must study even the casual conversation of Torah scholars. Proof to this is from the verse that states valeihu lo yibol, whose leaves do not wither, which can be interpreted to mean that even the leaves, i.e. the speech of a Torah scholar, do not wither, but his words contain teachings. (21b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21 - A bed without shade

The Mishna states that one who sleeps under a bed inside a Sukkah does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara explains that this is referring to a bed which is higher than ten tefachim, which creates a barrier between the person and the Sukkah. The Rishonim question this, as we find elsewhere that something which is even a tefach high is considered an ohel. Why, then, is there a concern only regarding a bed that is ten tefachim high? The Rif writes that the reason one does not fulfill his obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah is because the bed is ten tefachim, and this would constitute a Sukkah within a Sukkah and for this reason one does not fulfill his obligation. There are various challenges to the explanation of the Rif. The Baal HaMaor disagrees with the Rif. The Ramban in Milchamos offers a novel approach that explains why one who sleeps under a bed inside the Sukkah does not fulfill his obligation. The Ramban writes that the s’chach on top of the Sukkah is deemed to be invalid with regard to the space under the bed. The reason for this is because the s’chach cannot provide shade under the bed as the bed is providing shade. One would assume that the Sukkah should be valid, but one cannot fulfill his obligation. Thus, according to the Ramban, the Sukkah is invalid with regard to the one sleeping under the bed, because the Sukkah is not providing the person with shade.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21 - Halachic Article

I linked to this halachic article in the post regarding supports for the s'chach, however after looking at it again, I saw how comprehensive this article is regarding many halachos and specifically pertaining to a canvas sukkah. He deals with the s'chach, walls, maris ayin and many other halachic issues. It is well worth it to look there and my suggestion is to print it out as well.
I am not stating that this should be the psak halacha for you, however it is well written, extensive and cites many sources that will give you an extremely informative background and more on many sukkah related halachos. Enjoy.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21 - Supports for the S'chach

The Gemara states that one should not support the s’chach with something that is susceptible to tumah. Since many people are currently engaged in constructing their Sukkah, it would be appropriate to mention some of the halachos pertaining to the support for the s’chach. These halachos are quoted with sources in the Sefer Nitei Gavriel from Rav Gavriel Zinner. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 629 rules that it is preferable not to place the s’chach on something which is susceptible to tumah. It is also preferable that one should not place something which is susceptible to tumah on top of the s’chach in order that the s’chach should not scatter or fall. This issue was discussed previously on Daf 13 regarding kernels of grain here. This Halacha is true even if it is only rabbinically susceptible to tumah.There are authorities who maintain that the supporting beams for the s’chach should not be more than four tefachim wide whereas other opinions maintain that this is not a necessary requirement. One is allowed to place the s’chach directly on a stone wall but some opinions rule stringently and maintain that one should place reeds on top of the wall under the s’chach. Most halachic authorities rule that one does not have to be particular regarding the supports for the supporting beams of the s’chach. The Pri Megadim, however, rules that one should not attach his supports to the Sukkah with nails and pegs in a manner that without those supports the boards would fall. The Chazon Ish rules similarly. If one would use screws in order that the beams should not move from their positions, this would not be a concern.Even if one supports the s’chach with something that is susceptible to tumah, and certainly if he has no other option, it does not invalidate the Sukkah.

I noticed this halachic article pertaining to a canvas sukkah and regarding supporting the s'chach and I think it is worth looking at.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 20 - Food Under a Bed

The Mishna rules that if one sleeps underneath a bed, he will not fulfill his obligation of sukkah. Rashi states that the primary things one does in a sukkah is eat, drink and sleep. Sheorim Mitzuyanim B'halacha points out that it is obvious to him as to why the Mishna didn't state eating under a sukkah because it is forbidden to eat under a bed as is learned in Gemora Pesachim 112a 'food or drink which is under a bed will have an evil spirit hovering over it'.

The Toras Chaim writes that it is well known that sleep is 1/60th of death because the soul of a person leaves him at night and that is the reason there is an obligation to wash one's hands in the morning to remove the tumah which was on him during the night. It is for this reason that one shouldn't leave food under a bed because when the person is sleeping on the bed, it constitutes a 'hel hames', as if the food is situated in the same room with a corpse. It is evident from here that the concern is food under a bed only at night and only when the person is sleeping there.

The Poskim do permit the food expo-facto.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 20 - Not my Post Dear by David

Rashi q.v. “or sheratzim” gives, as an example, an “ishus”. Now it is very interesting to observe that in Hebrew the same word “ishus” can refer to a woman or to a shrew, for in English we find the same thing (and a pity to all the men who understand this all too clearly). Also interesting, the biblical source for this word can be found in Psalms 58:9, where the commentators debate if the word “aishes” therein refers to a woman or to a shrew.

Read more!