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 is 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 sates 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 ^