Suka 2b (2)  –  Gimel Teves, 5780-  12/31/20

We discussed 3 points concerning the story of Queen Hilni (Helena)

First the story and the dialogue. From Sefaria

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Queen Helene in Lod where her sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and the Elders were entering and exiting the sukka and did not say anything to her about the sukka not being fit.

The Rabbis said to him: Is there proof from there? She was, after all, a woman and therefore exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Consequently, the fact that her sukka was not fit did not warrant a comment from the Elders.

Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: Didn’t she have seven sons and therefore require a fit sukka? And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.

Before analyzing the objection being raised from the baraita, the Gemara seeks to understand its content. Why do I need Rabbi Yehuda to teach: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages? His first contention was sufficient.

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying to them: If you say that Helene’s sons were minor sons and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and that is why the Elders said nothing; since they were seven sons, then it is not possible that there was not at least one among them who no longer needed his mother to look after him. The halakha is that a minor who no longer needs his mother has reached the age of training and is required to fulfill the mitzva of sukka by rabbinic law. Even if she gave birth to them in consecutive years, the oldest would be seven years old, and at that age a child does not need his mother to constantly look after him.

And if you say that a child who no longer needs his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukkah only by rabbinic law, and Queen Helene did not observe rabbinic law, come and hear that which Rabbi Yehuda said: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.

1- Chinuch means performing the Mitzvah 100%. 

Hilni was educating her children – Chinuch – חינוך, her Suka was higher than 20 Amois  and R’ Yuhuda says that it proves that 20+ Amos is kosher. So it seems to imply that she was required not only to have them sit in a Sukkah but a Kosher Sukkah. 

The Ritvah points this out and says that indeed, Chinuch means ensuring the child performs the Mitzvah 100%. “And many have erred on this”. 

So buying a non Kosher Esrog for a child to use is not חינוך. 

We mentioned that this may not be the opinion of everybody. As one example we cited the Halachah that on the first day of Sukkos one should bentch on the Lulav first and only then give it to a boy under Bar Mitzvah. That is because a katan can acquire but cannot gift or sell. 

[parenthetically we related what Rabbi Marlow OBM said about Bar Mitzvah boys who are not Halachicly גדולים and the issue of them standing on line to bench on the Rebbe’s Lulav and Esrog.]

The Shulchan Aruch adds that another solution is to hold on to the Lulav together with the Koton. Thus, the child is not  קונה and it remains the property of the father. 

But doing that means that the קטן is not using a lulav that is his- לכם!! Meaning that his father is being מחנך him to do the Mitzvah in a way that he is not יוצא. More on this bl”n in another Shiur. 

2- The Chachomim tell Rabbi Yehudah that the Sukkah was פסול since it was 20 Amos+. But there was no need to tell Queen Hilni that it was Posul since she was a woman that has no obligation to sit in a Suka. 

But what about a brachah? If Hilni was under the impression that the Suka was kosher surely she would be making a Brocho. So there surely a point in informing her that the Suka she was in was Posul and that she should not make a Brocho. 

The Chacham Tzvi  (שו”ת ח”צ עם ליקוטי הערות ח”ב ע’ 18) brings proof from our Gemara that indeed, the Rambam and others were correct in their famous argument against the other Rishonim, and that women are not allowed to recite a brachah on מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. 

 

We discussed this famous machlokes and what the practice is today. Sfardim and Ashkenazim.  See here. 

See    ישועות יעקב סימן יז

End of ס”ק א:

3- In passing we mentioned the topic of the custom of many Rabonim (primarily Sefardim) who would ad the letters ס”ט after their signature. Common knowledge say it means ספרדי טהור.

But the Chacham Tzvi was a pure Ashkenazy and yet he also added ס”ט after his signature.

So perhaps it means סוף טוב. As it is customary to finish off all letters and publications on a good note.

Or, as some say, it ‘s an acrostic of סין טין, which means in Aramaic ‘dirt and mud’. The signer would add this to the end of his letter as a sign of ביטול and humbleness.  Much like the many who add the word הקטן right before their signature.

4- We spoke about:

A-  the Gemara in Nazir 29a. That states explicitly (according to most opinions) that women are have no  to obligation to be mechanech their children. 

B- The Tosfes Yeshonim in Yuma 82  asks about Hilni and our Gemara. 

C- The question of Reb Akiva Eiger.

5- We mentioned the Maharil who wrote that the Maharsh ruled that one should write numbers on the walls of the Suka and the following year he should place them in the exact same position. The Baer Heitev (630, 6) brings this in Shulchan Aruch. The reason is because we compare the Sukkah walls to the walls of the Mishkan that were always placed in the same position. 

6-  From here we mentioned the Halacha of Tzitzis that the Shalo HaKodosh writes that a Talis needs an Atarah so it will be placed on the body in the same way. It needs to be identified with a front and back. 

The Ariza”l, on the other hand, says that it is not necessary. See here Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch Siman 8. 

The Minhag Chabad is a bit complicated. We don’t have an Atara but we do have a piece of cloth under the part of the head. To be continued. 

See here for discussions on this topic. Here.