BSD

Sukkah 29 b.(2) 

Kislev 19, 5782. November 23, 2021

1 – We began the third Perek in Sukkah where the Halachos of the Daled Minim are detailed. 

2 – The Chinuch explains that the reason for this Mitzvah is to connect the joy of the season with a Mitzvah. Sukkos is a happy time when the fruits of the year are harvested and we celebrate a successful season. .  To channel this joy into קדושה we were commanded to take samples of produce and vegetation (Lulav, Esrog, Hadasim and Aravos) and use them for a Mitzvah. 

3 – He also adds another reason being that these four Minim symbolize vital parts of the body. Esrog – heart. Lulav – spine. Hadasim – eyes. Aravos – lips. 

ועוד יש בארבעה מינין אלו ענין אחר, שהם דומים לאברים שבאדם היקרים (עי’ מדרש רבה ויקרא פ’ ל’ ומדרש תנחומא אמור אות יט). שהאתרוג דומה ללב, שהוא משכן השכל, לרמז שיעבד בוראו בשכלו, והלולב דומה לשדרה שהיא העקר שבאדם לרמז שיישיר כל גופו. לעבודתו ברוך הוא, וההדס דומה לעינים, לרמוז שלא יתור אחר עיניו ביום שמחת לבו, והערבה דומה לשפתים, שבהן יגמר האדם כל מעשהו בדבור, לרמז שישים רסן בפיו ויכון דבריו ויירא מהשם יתברך אף בעת השמחה.

4 – Lulav Hagozul. We mentioned that this Perk is ‘loaded’ with למדות, and if it were to be learned in the Yeshivah cycle they would barely manage to cover the first 2 דפים…….

5 – The Gemara says that on ‘Yom Tov Sheni’ the laws of Lulav change. Whereas on day one, one needs his own Lulav, לכם, on ‘Yom Tov Sheni’ we do not require לכם, and perhaps one would be יוצא even with a stolen Lulav. 

We discussed that ‘Yom Tov Sheni’ can mean two things. 

A- Literally the second day of Sukkos (and also the rest of Chol HaMoed). That would imply that the second day of Yom Tov, since we only observe it because of the old Minhag (when people were unsure when Yom Tov actually occurred) it is not like the first day.  

B- ‘Yom Tov Sheni’ means only Chol Hamoed, i.e. day 3 and on. It does not mean the second day of Yom Tov. Meaning that on the second day we must be as stringent as the first day, despite us knowing nowadays  that it is not Yom Tov.

6 – We mentioned the story with Eli Weisel when he erroneously said that when we take out 3 ספרי תורה, we prepare three ‘cholents’ instead of 3 kugels……

7- Our Gemara says that a Korbon must be owned by its donor. It cannot be stolen, as the פסוק says: אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן. 

Cow Abduction

Spoke about Reb Yehuda Eber (BK. 54) the famous מגיד שיעור in Tomchei Temimim of  Warsaw/Otwock. 

In his ספר – שערי יהודה he has an interesting query as to the definition of הפקר. 

Option 1- Does it mean that it has no owners at all. 

Option 2- Perhaps הפקר means that it belongs to everyone. But not ‘belonging to all’  in a sense of partnership, with everyone having a certain percentage. Rather it means that everyone has the right to come and claim it,  and whoever comes first and makes a קנין, becomes the owner to the exclusion of others. 

Just like לקט שכחה ופאה that only the poor can claim it. One cannot say it belongs to all, for if so, even the wealthy would be able to take it. The legal status of לקט שכחה ופאה means that it ‘belongs’ to the poor to the extent that it grants any poor person the right to claim it, and once claimed, it excludes all others.  

Similarly, הפקר means a state that it belongs to all (not as partners, but) to the extent that anyone has the right to claim it and own it. Once claimed, the rest of the world loses its claim. 

Abandoned property, come and get it!

What is the practical difference? Says Reb Yidel (as his Polish students would call him): if there was only one person alive in the entire world.  Any object that is הפקר, if we assume that הפקר belongs to no one, as option 1 above, then he would need to make a קנין to gain ownership. 

However, if הפקר means it belong to all as above, and a קנין is needed to exclude everyone else, then since he is the only human alive, there are no others to exclude, thus no קנין would be required. By default all belongs to him. 

8- He then quotes a Rashi in ויקרא in regards to  אדם הראשון, that הכל היה שלו. Everything in the world belonged to אדם הראשון. 

Now how is that possible? Surely he didn’t travel the entire world making a קנין on everything. 

If we assume the second option, it makes sense. Since הפקר, (which at creation included everything), potentially belongs to all until one person makes a קנין, then אדם הראשון, being alone in the world had no one to exclude,  so by default he acquired everything! 

A Freilichen Chanukka!

Sukkah 29 a-b. 

Kislev 12, 5782. November 16, 2021

1- We began with the rather interesting Psak of a Rav concerning a ספק ממזר. It surely takes a lot of guts to declare that a child is ‘like Moshe Rabeinu’ and will be born after 6 months only. Nu nu. 

Who are we to comment on Rabbanim and the tough issues they encounter. 

2- Lunar and solar eclipses. The Gemara states they occur when humans are not acting properly and the eclipse is not a good sign. 

Lunar Eclipse

The ancient question is how can something that’s predetermined be a sign or result of human behavior?

Explanation of the Rebbe. Here.  LK”S 15, page 7 and on.

The central point is:

The idea that “when the luminaries are stricken it is an ill omen” is: When an eclipse occurs it is a sign that this time is dominated by a “mazal ra” — bad luck, or literally, an evil constellation. It is a time that has a predilection for tragedy. That, in turn, causes it to be a time more prone to being punished for the “improper conduct”

Lunar Eclipse

The Rebbe writes in footnote 19 that his explanation is based on the words of (among others) the עיון יעקב which is the classic commentary on עין יעקב authored by Reb Yakov Reisher. 

His books span many subjects in addition to the above.  

2- Speaking of the עיון יעקב in regards to solar and lunar eclipses, we mentioned another interesting question posed to Reb Yakov Reisher. This is in his שו”ת שבות יעקב. Part 2, 10. 

He writes: ‘When I arrived in Worms in 1714 to accept the Rabbinical position, I was asked by some who claimed that a certain Rov decreed a fast day because they could not perform קידוש לבנה due to the clouds blocking its view’.

 He continues to debate this idea based on our Gemara’s parable, [that when rain occurs on Sukkos, causing the sitting in a Sukkah to be unpleasant] “like the master pouring water in the face of his unworthy servant, saying ‘I have no interest in your service’.”

The Maharil adds that when leaving the Sukkah during a rain downpour, one should not slam the door in anger.  Rather, should be humbled by the ‘slap’ received from his master and walk out silently. 

Using this משל, perhaps we should fast when clouds cover the moon and is not allowing us to perform the Mitzvah of קידוש לבנה. 

His conclusion however  is that we should not enact a fast for such a case. 

3- Speaking of Reb Yakov Reisher, we discussed his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch חק יעקב which in many prints appears at the bottom of the page. 

The Alter Rebbe quotes him frequently and we mentioned,  in one place of a peculiar occurrence, he disagrees with him. 

The case is about a person who didn’t sell or annul, מבטל, his חמץ before פסח. What happens if this person CV passes away in middle of פסח? The inheritors of his assets are now faced with an interesting problem. Do they have to burn his חמץ? Is it theirs? 

The חק יעקב says that since this chametz is a דבר אסור, they never inherited it. The איסור חמץ creates a situation that the חמץ, in a sense, becomes ownerless. Since it has no monetary value it  cannot be sold or passed on in a ירושה. Thus, there is no obligation for children to deal with it.  [although it’s best that they get rid of it but cannot make a ברכה, since it’s not their chometz]. 

See here. Orach Chaim 435, 2.

The Alter Rebbe disagrees with this פסק. In short, a  דבר איסור is not ownerless at all. No one can take it away from the owner. It’s just that the Torah prohibits the use and הנאה from such items. Therefore this חמץ, upon the passing of this שלומזל, is automatically transferred to his inheritors and they must deal with it. 

This topic is a very complicated Sugya and much discussed by many.

 4- Our Gemore ends the second פרק enumerating actions that are not in accordance to Torah, not civil or mentshlich and cause RL for people to lose everything and become impoverished. 

One is פוסקי צדקה. Simply meaning to pledge to donate to charity and not paying.

We related the humorous story of the chosid of the Rupshitzer Rebbe who was looking for a way for his wife to go to Gan Eden….

The Maharshah says it refers to the community leaders that start a charity campaign with a high number to reach. They then assess how much each member should give to charity and end up not giving their share. The high number was to entice others to give!

 In other words it means:

Pledging with no intention of actually paying themselves but just done in order to entice others to give. 

We mentioned some Poskim that discuss this issue. Can one bid, for example, at an Aliya auction, when the intent is for others to raise their bids?

The Minchas Yitzchok 3,77, rules that it is prohibited and quotes an interesting story with Reb Shimon Ben Shotach.

Here it  is from Medrash Rabo. Breishis 91. 

תָּנֵי שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת נְזִירִין סָלְקִין בָּעֲיִין לִמְקָרְבָה תְּשַׁע מְאָה קוּרְבָּנִין בְּיוֹמֵי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח, לִמְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין מָצָא לָהֶם פֶּתַח וּמְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין לָא מָצָא פֶּתַח. 

סָלֵיק רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח גַּבֵּי יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּלַת מְאָה נְזִירִין סָלְקוּ בָּעֲיִין לִמְקָרְבָה תְּשַׁע מְאָה קוּרְבָּנִין וְלֵית לְהוֹן, אֶלָּא יְהֵיב אַתְּ פַּלְגָּא מִן דִּידָךְ וַאֲנָא פַּלְגָא מִן דִּידִי וְיֵזְלוּן וִיקָרְבוּן, יְהַב יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא פַּלְגָא מִן דִּילֵיהּ וַאֲזַלּוּן וְקָרְבוּן. אֲתוֹן וַאֲמָרִין לִשְׁנָא בִּישָׁא לְיַנַּאי מַלְכָּא עַל שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח, תֶּהֱוֵי יְדַע דְּכָל מַה דְּקָרְבוּן מִדִּידָךְ קָרְבוּן, בְּרַם שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח לָא יָהֵיב מִן דִּידֵיהּ כְּלוּם. 

כָּעַס יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא עַל שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח. שְׁמַע דְּהוּא כָּעֵס עֲלוֹהִי, צְרַת [נסח אחר צרח] לֵיהּ וַעֲרַק, לְבָתַר יוֹמֵי הֲווֹן בְּנֵי אֱנָשָׁא רַבְרְבִין מִן מַלְכוּתָא דְּפַרְסָאֵי יַתְבִין נָגְסִין עַל פָּתוֹרָא דְּיַנַּאי מַלְכָּא, אֲמַרוּן לֵיהּ מָרִי מַלְכָּא נָהֲרִין אֲנַן דַּהֲוָה הָכָא חַד סַב וַהֲוָה אֲמַר לָן מִילֵי דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲמַר לַאֲחָתֵיהּ שְׁלַחִי בַּתְרֵיהּ וְאַיְיתִיתֵיהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ הַב לִי מִלָּא וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ עִזְקָתָךְ, וְהוּא אָתֵי. יְהַב לָהּ מִלָּא וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ עִזְקָתֵיהּ וַאֲתָא. 

מִדַּאֲתָא יְתֵיב לֵיהּ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לְמָה עֲרַקְתְּ, שְׁמָעִית דְּמָרִי מַלְכָּא כָּעֵיס עֲלַי וּצְרַח לִי מִינָךְ דְּלָא תִקְטְלַנִּי וְקַיְימַת הָדֵין קְרָיָא (ישעיה כו, כ): חֲבִי כִּמְעַט רֶגַע עַד יַעֲבָר זָעַם, 

אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמָה אַפְלֵית בִּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לָא אַפְלֵית בָּךְ, אֶלָּא אַתְּ מִמָּמוֹנָךְ וַאֲנָא מִן אוֹרָיְיתָא, דִּכְתִיב (קהלת ז, יב): כִּי בְּצֵל הַחָכְמָה בְּצֵל הַכָּסֶף. 

Free translation:

It was taught, 300 Nazirim came to sacrifice 900 Karbanos in the days of Shimon Ben Shotach. (Each Nazir needs to bring 3 קרבנות).
For 150 of the Nazirim he found a way to annul their נזירות.  For the other 150 he could not.

He went to King Yannai (his brother in law) and told him 300 Nazirim needed to sacrifice 900 karbanos but they didn’t have the means. He suggested that he will give half and King Yannai will give the others. Yannai gave half (450) and the (150) Nazirim offered the sacrifices.

Someone then told Yannai about Shimon B Shotach, how all the sacrifices were from Yannai and none from Shimon. Yannai became angry and yelled at him, Shimon then ran away.

After a time, some dignitaries of the Persian Kingdom were eating with Yannai and they said to him, “Dear King, we remember that there was an elder sage who would say ideas of Torah?”

Yannai then told them the episode of the sacrifices, they then asked to bring Shimon back. Yannai gave his word that Shimon would not be harmed and Shimon returned and sat between King and Queen.

Yannai asked Shimon why he had fled. He replied that he heard the king was angry at him and did not want the King to kill him, thereby fulfilling the verse in Yeshaya 26:20 ‘Hide inside for a small moment, until the anger passes’. Yannai then asked him why he had fooled him. Shimon responded that he had not fooled him – “you gave the for 150 from your money and I the gave the 150 (an annulment) from (my) Torah”.

We see from this story that only because Reb Shimon Ben Shotach fulfilled his part by using a Torah ‘fulfillment’ was it acceptable to induce Yannai to give his share. If just to raise the bids of others, with no intention of winning the bid and paying up, it would not be acceptable.

BSD

Sukkah  28b

Kislev 6, 5782. November 9, 2021

Short notes. 

1- Don’t remember how we got to talk about this…..

Related the story of the time following the Rebbe’s heart attack in 1977. A woman in Crown Heights wanted to tell the Rebbe to watch his health.  So she sent the Rebbe a few letters the previous Rebbe sent to her father, the Kapishnitzer Rebbe (or Kopycznitzer). It seems her father was ill because of not eating properly (fasting?). 

In one, the previous Rebbe writes: I hear that your doctors instructed you on what to eat and what not to eat. But you are only following half of their regiment….what not to eat….

2- Discussed the story with Shammai who created a Sukkah by opening a hole in the ceiling. All this was done so that his infant grandson would be inside a Sukkah. 

As to what the Halachah is, see here from the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. OC 640, S’3

אע”פ שהקטנים פטורים מן הסוכה מן התורה עד שיהיו בני י”ג שנים מכל מקום מדברי סופרים כל קטן שאינו צריך לאמו  דהיינו בן שש שנים  שלימות.

 ואם הקטן חכם וחריף בענין שאינו צריך לאמו אפילו כשהוא בן חמש שנים שלימות חייב בסוכה כדי לחנכו במצות.  אבל כשעדיין הוא צריך לאמו כשם שאמו פטורה כך הוא פטור אפילו מדברי סופרים כיון שהוא צריך לה:

Seems to say that a child over 7 must eat in a Sukkah. However, if he is ‘smart and sharp’ and ‘does not need’ his mother, the age for Sukkah for him is six and up. 

3- The next Mishna states the general concept of תשבו כעין תדורו and the idea that “on Sukkos one makes his Sukkah as his permanent home and his house the ‘temporary’ one”. 

We discussed how far this goes. Some people take this seriously and practically move into the Sukkah for the entire Yom Tov. 

We mentioned the אליה רבה, a fundamental book on the שלחן ערוך. He writes that on Sukkos one should not cover the dining table of the house with a tablecloth!  The reason for this is that doing so would show that the Sukka is not the permanent living quarters during Sukkos. OC 5639

Here is the פרי מגדים with many interesting points: 

תרלט סעיף א (א) וישן. עיין ט״ז. על״מ בשם מהרי״ל ובמהרי״ו הרוצה לשחוק בקוביא ישחק בסוכה. 

If one wants to play cards – do it in the Sukkah.

ראוי שלא לדבר בסוכה כ״א ד״ת, וכ״ש דברים בטילים שזה אסור אף בסוכה. 

Preferable to speak only תורה in the Sukkah! Idle talk, which is prohibited regardless, is prohibited in the Sukkah. 

עיין אליה רבה ראוי שלא לדבר חוץ לסוכה. וקוביא בדרך שאין איסור הנזהר תע״ב. 

See the אליה רבה that says not to schmooze outside the Sukkah. [not only דברי תורה] Card paying, when permitted, is best in the Sukkah. 

אין לכסות השולחן במפה בשבת וי״ט בבית כ״א בסוכה. ומשמע בח״ה אין מכסין כלל השולחן (אף בסוכה) ובשמע״צ יכסה גס בבית החורף יע״ש.

One should not cover the table of his house on Sukkos!! It seems that on חול המועד one does not need to place a tablecloth on the table. On Shmini Atzeres, one should cover both tables, in the house and in the Sukkah. [This is what the אליה רבה writes]

 וכמדומה שאין העולם נוהגין כך רק מכסים השולחן אף בביתו גם ח״ה מכסין השולחן דיו”ט מקרי.

Comments the פרי מגדים: 

It seems that no one does it. [not to cover the house dining table. They cover both tables] 

On חול המועד, one should indeed cover the table because it is called יום טוב days.

4- We spoke about the issues of sitting in a Sukkah, as is מנהג חב”ד, even when it is raining. 

A – בל תוסיף. 

B – Having הנאה of the Sukkah when one is פטור. [If it’s windy, the walls and Schach provide some protection] 

C- Being called a הדיוט. 

D- Is it בכלל a Sukkah when it rains? 

BSD

Suka  28 a-b

Cheshvan 28, 5782. November 3, 2021

1- We began with the Mishnah of the double מחלוקת between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. 

A- Someone sitting in a large Sukkah with his plate of food outside the Sukkah or inside a house or overhang. Beis Shammai says that one is not יוצא. Beis Hillel has no issue with it. 

B- The minimum size of a Sukkah. 

These two points we discussed at length on Daf 3a. 

See here and here for Shiur Points. 

2- The Mishna relates a story:

In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beis Shammai deem it unfit, and Beis Hillel deem it fit. 

The story: 

Beis Hillel said to Beis Shammai: 

And wasn’t there an incident where the Elders of Beis Shammai and the Elders of Beis Hillel went to visit Reb Yoḥanan ben HaChoranit and they found him such that he was sitting with his head and most of his body in the Sukka and his table in the house, and they said nothing to him? Even Beit Shammai did not object. 

Beis Shammai said to them: Is there proof from there? That is not what happened; rather, they said to him: If you were accustomed to act in this manner, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of Sukkah in your life.

3- We discussed this story where it seems that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are arguing about what happened at that visit to Reb Yoḥanan ben HaChoranit. It is unusual to find an argument about a historical fact. 

Some suggested that perhaps Beis Hillel left this Sukkah prior to the מחאה made by Beis Shamai. 

4- Another point mentioned is that this story was told by Beis Hillel. Yet, they give respect to their opponents and mention their name after Beis Shammai’s! 

Beis Hillel said to Beis Shammai: 

And wasn’t there an incident where the Elders of Beis Shammai and the Elders of Beis Hillel went to visit Reb Yoḥanan ben HaChoranit. 

The Gemara in Eiruvin 13 b mentioned this as a reason that we mostly follow the opinion of Beis Hillel. 

מפני מה זכו ב”ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן? מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו, ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב”ש, ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב”ש לדבריהן .

Why is being polite a reason to rule like them? Isn’t an argument in Torah decided on it’s merits? Good question. Any comments? To be continued. 

5- We discussed that Beis Shammai says that sitting in a Sukkah with the plate outside the Sukkah is prohibited. The reason is that one may move his body towards the plate and eat outside the perimeter of the Sukkah. 

But why would that invalidate the Sukkah? Part of the Mitzvah is to sleep inside the Sukkah as well. And this inadvertent movement will not happen when sleeping. 

Mentioned the Ragatchover who say that eating in the Sukkah ‘creates the Sukkah’. Until one eats there it is a ‘hut for shade’. 

Thus, if one cannot eat in the Sukkah, according to Beis Shamai, because he may unintentionally move out of the Sukkah, then this ‘structure’ is not a Sukkah! 

Hut for Shade

6- Our Gemara states that one would think that women need to eat in a Sukkah, despite the fact that Sukkah is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא.  

Why would one think so? 

The reason is that we need תשבו כעין תדורו. Meaning that we move into the Sukkah for the 7 days and make the Sukkah our home. The logic follows that just as in a home a woman lives together with her husband, a Sukkah should be no different. Based on this, women should indeed be obligated to be in  a Sukkah.

The הלכה למשה מסיני  comes to teach you that women do not need to eat in a Sukkah. 

The Ramo OC 639, 2 writes that perhaps the reason people do not sleep in the Sukkah nowadays is because the Sukkahs we have are small and there is no place for all the couples who eat there to also sleep in privacy, husband and wife. 

The Mogen Avrohom (8)  says that Ramo’s source is apparently from our Gemara where it says that women need to be in a Sukkah because of  תשבו כעין תדורו. A couple is usually together year round and a Sukkah is not different. 

But, asks the Mogen Avrohom, that is only a הוה אמינא in the Gemara. The conclusion in our Gemore is that despite logic telling us  תשבו כעין תדורו and requiring the woman to be in the Sukkah, nevertheless the הלכה למשה  מסיני tells us that נשים  are פטור! So what does the Ramo mean? 

He suggest that the Ramo meant to say that, true, women do not need to be in a Sukkah. It’s the husband, who is חייב  to sleep in the Sukkah, and due to the lack of privacy, his wife cannot join him, so he is מצטער and therefore he does not need to sleep there!

7 We mentioned the Tosfos in Psochim (108, b) that discusses that although מן התורה there is no obligation for woman to sit in a  Sukkah, why didn’t the Rabanan obligate the woman to sit in a Sukkah just as they did with the ד’ כוסות because woman were also part of the miracle of פסח. 

————————————

יש לעיין במאמר זה וכי מפני שהיו משפילים את עצמם הלכה כמותם והלא אין ההלכה צריכה להיות אלא כמי שדבריו נכונים.

אלא התשובה לכך היא שמדות אלו הם סיבה אמיתית להיות דבריהם נכונים כי מי שכועס הרי הוא רוצה שיחזיקו את דבריו בכח וביד חזקה ולכן הוא סר מן האמת אבל מי שהוא נוח דבריו נמשכים אחר האמת .

וכן ממה שהיו מקדימים דברי בית שמאי לדבריהם נראה שלא היו שונאים אותם ולא היו חולקים עליהם מחמת תאות הניצוח ואם היו שומעים מהם סברא נכונה שמכוחה אין סברת עצמם נכונה היו מודים לדבריהם ולכן ראוי להיות ההלכה כדבריהם

מהר”ל באר הגולה תחילת הבאר החמישי ^