BS”D

Suka 4a.

Yud Shvat, 5780. February 4, 2020

Some topics discussed:

1- Continued from last week: 

 Reducing the height of a Sukkah that is more than 20 amos high.  

By placing pillows and blankets on the floor. The issue here is the fact that these items will not remain on the floor permanently. 

We mentioned the Meiri  (top line) that writes about expensive carpets that although a wealthy man would not care if they get ruined, nevertheless ‘his mindset is not in the majority’ and we follow what most people think. 

But see here. 

Speaking of the Meiri, we mentioned that the existence of  his manuscripts were unknown for many years. Many of the great פוסקים were unaware of his writings. 

We spoke about Reb Avrohom Soifer who published many of the מאירי manuscripts who was a frequent visitor by the Rebbe. 

2- Speaking of carpets….   we mentioned the prohibition of kneeling on a stone floor. From there we moved onto the ‘falling on our face’ נפילת אפים  while saying תחנון, and if one is permitted to do so on a stone floor that is covered with carpets. 

 

Having mentioned תחנון  we related the fascinating story quoted in the ארוחות חיים  Orchos Chaim. By ר’ אהרן מלוניל 

ארחות חיים

After שמונה עשרה  one says והוא רחום ..to be said in a loud voice while standing…….and the גאונים write that ‘we have accepted upon us and our children to eternity’……

..and this is the Minhag to say והוא רחום  and why it was enacted. The story is with a boat of Jews….that were exiled from Yerusholayim to a foreign nation. When asked by the king of this land what nation they belonged to they responded ‘from the Jewish nation’. 

The king then tells them that ‘if you are indeed Jewish then I want to test you just as חנני׳ מישאל ועזרי׳  were tested by being thrown into a burning furnace’. 

They responded to the king ‘give us 30 days’. The king granted their wish and they fasted the entire time. In the interim whatever they saw in their dreams they discussed with their colleagues.

 At the end of the 30 days, one of them, ‘an older G-D fearing man, who was not well versed tells them that ‘In my dream a Posuk was read to me. It contained twice the word כי and three times the word לא, but I have no clue what Posuk it is’. 

So another elder sage tells him that surely the following is the verse they showed you from heaven: 

כִּי תַעֲבֹר בַּמַּיִם אִתְּךָ אָנִי וּבַנְּהָרוֹת לֹא יִשְׁטְפוּךָ כִּי תֵלֵךְ בְּמוֹ אֵשׁ לֹא תִכָּוֶה וְלֶהָבָה לֹא תִבְעַר בָּךְ.

ישעי׳ מג, ב. 

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.

And, concluded the elder, ‘you should go into the furnace and you will surely be saved’!

At the order of the king a large new fire pit was built at a crossroad. The old G-D fearing man that had the dream entered the fire pit, he was unharmed and the fire split into three paths. He then saw three צדיקים  that came to greet him. They then recited והוא רחום. The first one said until אנא מלך. The second one said until אין כמוך. The third from there until the end. 

Based on this story the  חכמים established that והוא רחום should be said every Monday and Thursday. 

See OC 134 that it needs to be said while standing.

 

http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp?ArticleID=8245&CategoryID=1582

 

3- We began the Sugya of Dofen Akuma. דופן עקומה 

To be continued. 

4- Speaking of long and short walls we related the humorous saying of Red Yochanan Gordon. ‘If one has a short foot the other is a little longer’. 

 

                                                                                                                      BS’D

Suka Shiur #5

Suka 3b (2) 

Shvat 2, 5780. January 28, 2020

Some topics discussed. 

1 – Reducing the height of a Sukkah that is more than 20 amos high:  

 Raising the floor and thereby reducing the distance from the floor to the סכך to less than 20 Amos.

A-By placing pillows and blankets on the floor. The issue here is the fact that these items will not remain on the floor permanently.

B- By placing gravel or straw. The issues here is that although these are usually meant to remain on the floor for the 7 days, if one places them without the explicit thought to never remove them; ‘Stam’., is it sufficient.

C- By building a platform that is 7 x 7 טפחים. Thus the height from the platform to the סכך is now less than 20 Amos. The issue discussed is if the platform does not cover the entire  סוכה. To be continued. 

Other options are discussed in the Gemara further along. 

2- Issues with a Sukkah that is less than 10  טפחים which is פסול. 

A- Can one dig and lower the floor? To be discussed next week. 

B- If the  סוכה is 10 טפחים but some branches drop down into this tiny Suka. Does it invalidate it? 

3- The question of the Rashash. The height of a  person is 4 Amos which is 24 טפחים.  

So how can a person stand or sleep in a Sukkah that is only 10  טפחים high?

The חידוש  of the ערוך לנר. 

4- We spoke Shiurim and about the size of people in ancient times. Were they shorter than us contemporaries? Taller? 

See here about the growth of the Japanese in the last 50 years. 

We spoke about the ancient people of Cappadocia, Turkey. See here. 

This area and its people are actually mentioned in Chumash! They’re called the ‘button people’. Why? See ahead. 

בראשית (י, יד) וְֽאֶת־פַּתְרֻסִ֞ים וְאֶת־כַּסְלֻחִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָצְא֥וּ מִשָּׁ֛ם פְּלִשְׁתִּ֖ים וְאֶת־כַּפְתֹּרִֽים׃

דברים פרק ב פסוק כג

 

וְהָעַוִּים הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּחֲצֵרִים עַד עַזָּה כַּפְתֹּרִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִכַּפְתּוֹר הִשְׁמִידֻם וַיֵּשְׁבוּ תַחְתָּם.

But the Avim, who dwell in open cities, up till Gaza — the Caphtorites, who came from Caphtor, exterminated them, and dwelt in their stead.

The Targum translates כפתור as Cappadocia. 

תרגום אונקלוס:

וְעַוָאֵי דְּיָתְבִין בִּרפִיחַ עַד עַזָה קְפוּטקָאֵי דִּנפַקוּ מִקְפוּטקְיָא שֵׁיצִיאוּנוּן וִיתִיבוּ בַאֲתַרהוֹן :

In Yecheskel 27, 11 they are also mentioned. The Targum there translates it as ‘midgets’. See here from the נצי”ב. ‘They are called button because like a button they are thick and short’. 

Some of their cave dwellings still exist and the only way we can understand them living in these tiny homes is to conclude that they were very very short. See here. 

 

 

Reb Chaim Naeh, the famous Posek who established the commonly used Shiurim, also discusses this topic at length. See his bio here. 

His monumental book- Shiurei Torah. See here. And here. 

רבי אברהם חיים נאה

 

 

Sukkah 3b 24 Teves, 5780. Jan 20, 2020

Topics discussed. 

1- Our Gemara enumerates various places where the Torah uses the term בית and the minimum measurement is 4 x 4 Amos. 

‘A house in which there is not an area of four cubits by four cubits (about 6’ x 6’) is not considered a house. Consequently, it is exempt from the mitzvah of placing a mezuzah on its doorpost’. 

And that is the Halocho. Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 286:13. See here. 

2- We spoke about the opinion of the Rambam that the 4 x 4 Amos need not be square; meaning, that as long as it has 16 Amos squared it is considered a בית.  So a rectangular room or closet would be חייב במזוזה. 

However, some argue and say that it needs to be a minimum of 4 x 4 – length and width. See the ש”ך  there (23) that one should affix the mezuzah in a room that is not 4 x 4 square without a ברכה.

3- We mentioned the interesting dialogue between the בנין ציון and the מהר”מ שיק. See here. 

 יעקב אטלינגר- ערוך לנר 

The Binyan Tzion, AKA as the ערוך לנר lived in Altoona. See here a letter he wrote in German that was auctioned off. 

The case in question is where to affix a mezuzah on the entrance of a small foyer that leads to a large room. Right side or left side. 

What we discussed was the Binyan Tzion’s idea of affixing two mezuzas! One on each side of the door to alleviate the doubt as to which side to put it upon. 

The מהר”מ שיק countered that there is an issue of בל תוסיף. One may not do a mitzvah twice. 

The classic case of בל תוסיף is if one has a coat with five corners, we need to tie ציצית to four corners only. If one adds ציצית to the fifth corner that is בל תוסיף

On the other hand, we do put on two pairs of Tefillin? Why is that not בל תוסיף?

The answer is that only one pair is right. Rashi or Rabeinu Tam. 

• At least according to נגלה דתורה. We spoke many years ago about the amazing story in the סדר הדורות concerning this famous מחלוקת. 

So the second pair is – nothing. So there is no בל תוסיף.

The case of the 5 cornered coat, the four corners are kosher ציצית, so adding a fifth is בל תוסיף. 

Our case, of a doubt on which side of the door to place the mezuzah, if we put up 2 mezuzas, is that like the 5th corner of a בגד,  or is that like Rashi and Rabeinu Tam? 

To be continued. 

 

Suka 3a (2) 17 Teves, 5780. Jan 14, 2020

Some points discussed:

1- The effect of a תקנת חכמים on a מצוה דאורייתא. This is a big topic. 

Famous Tosafos on our Daf where they state that a Takanah of  חכמים, once enacted, invalidates any other way it can be performed. Even מן התורה. Meaning that one must follow their ruling and if not, he is not יוצא even on a דאורייתא level. 

Example: our Sugya- (One of the 6 rare instances when) the Halachah is like Beis Shammai and sitting inside a Sukkah while eating out of a plate that is inside a house (or out if the Suka)  is prohibited lest one accidentally ‘follow his table’ and consume his food inside the house or out of the Suka.

This is a גזירה of the Chachamim. Now, says Tosafos, if one does it on the first night of Sukkos, he is not יוצא even on a דאורייתא level. His eating is as if he did nothing. 

The Ran and others disagree. Their opinion is that one is יוצא מן התורה. It’s just that he is not יוצא מדרבנן. 

What is the practical difference? Regardless, one would need to eat again (properly, meaning the plate being inside the Sukkah)   – whether מן התורה (Tosfos) or מדרבנן (Ran). 

We mentioned a few ideas. 

A- Sha’gas Arye (96) – If for example, there was a prohibition for him to eat in a Sukkah. Such as if one made a נדר not to eat anywhere outside a house. On the first night of Sukkos one would need to eat in a Sukkah regardless since the מצות עשה of Sukkah would outweigh the prohibition of נדר. 

Now that he ate in a Sukkah but didn’t follow the ruling of the Chachamim, according to the Ran he would not be permitted to eat another meal in a Sukkah, since he has already fulfilled his תורה obligation. Tosafos, on the other hand would say that his first act is considered nil. So he still has a Torah obligation to eat in a Sukkah. 

B- Minchas Chinuch. (10:2). The rule is that Beis Din must force people to observe Mitzvos. But that rule only applies to Mitzvos דאורייתא. 

ועשאג”א נ”מ אי א”י מן התורה או דרבנן אם מן התורה א”י ואח”ז נזדמן לו איסור תורה שעדל”ת מותר וחובה לאכול דעדל”ת אבל אכל דבר שיצא מן התורה רק מדרבנן ל”י ונזדמן לו אח”כ איסור כיון דמה”ת יצא אינו חייב בעשה ואדל”ת וערש”י כתובות צ”א דדוקא במצות דאורייתא כופין עד שת”נ אבל במצוה דרבנן אין כופין. אם כן נ”מ ג”כ אי מן התורה ל”י כופין אותו אח”כ עד שת”נ אבל אם מדרבנן ל”י אין כופין. אך התו’ כתובות פ”ו השיגו ע”ז.

ועיין בשאג”א (see above)  דאם אין לו מצה של היתר בגוונא דעדל”ת כגון חדש יאכל האיסור דעדל”ת. ולכאור’ יש לספק אם יש לפנינו חדש וטבל דרבנן וטבל דרבנן אינו נדחה מפני מצה ע’ בש”ס אם יכול לאכול החדש דעדל”ת כיון דקיימא לן כ”מ שאפשר לקיים שניהם אין ל”ת נדחה וכאן מדאורייתא אפשר לקיים בטבל דרבנן וא”צ לדחות הל”ת אם כן מיקרי אפשר.

So in our case according to Tosafos, Beis Din would need to force him to re-eat since his first meal amounted to nothing. According to the Ran, he basically fulfilled his Torah obligation despite transgressing the דרבנן edict. 

C- Perhaps there would be a difference if he would need to say a Brachah on the second time . According to Tosafos he surely would be obligated. According to the Ran- maybe not. 

D- Blowing the Shofar on ראש השנה that occurs Shabbos. Does he make שהחיינו on the second day?  

2- Discussed another aspect of the above. 

Kiddush Shabbos night. מן התורה one must sanctify Shabbos. זכור את יום השבת לקדשו- בדברים. Doing it verbally is sufficient. 

The Chachamin enacted that one should do it on a cup of wine (and drink it as well). 

In reality, once one says at Kabbalas Shabbos ברוך אתה ה’ מקדש השבת he is יוצא  מן התורה! 

So unless he has כוונה not to do the Mitzvah of מקדש את השבת, he is done! 

That means that his קידוש  before the meal is only דרבנן. 

How can he then make Kiddush for his wife? He is doing it only מדרבנן (on wine) she, on the other hand, is still at the De’Oiraise obligation! YG says: Unless she greets him with a “Gut Shabbos”…. See below. 

Or, once the Chachamim enacted to be מקדש on wine, any other way is not valid at all –  one is not יוצא even on a דאורייתא level. Thus his Kiddush on wine is דאורייתא. 

See Mincahs Chinuch (31). 

אך עתה שתקנו חכמינו זכרונם לברכה הנוסח דהיינו להתחיל בשם ומלכות ולסיים והוא לא עשה כן רק אמר דברים מעצמו למעלת היום אפשר אף מן התורה לא יצא כמ”ש התוס’ סוכה גבי לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך

3- We discussed the famous Rav Akiva Eiger’s ruling that just by saying “Gut Sabbos” one is יוצא ! See here. 

See here as well. Humorous story at the end.

 

4- We spoke about Rav Akiva Eiger’s ‘Gut Shabbos’ ruling in Japan in 1941.  

To be continued. 

 

Sukkah 3a.

10 Teves 5780. January 7, 2020

We discussed these topics: 

1- Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel concerning the minimum width and length of a Sukkah:

Either 6 x 6 or  7 x 7 Tefachim. 

In inches that’s 18 x 18” or 21 x 21″.  A person takes up a square amah when standing or sitting, which is 6 x 6 Tefachim. 

All agree that a Sukkah needs to contain Rosho v’Rubo, ראשו ורובו.  Beis Shamai requires an extra Tefach for a table as to fit in as well. 

2- Explanation of the Rashash on how someone is supposed to sleep in 18” x 18”, as normal sleeping requires one to lie down. So how does Rosho v’Rubo fit while lying down? 

A- Rosho vRubo means the majority of one’s vital organs. Thus they can fin into an 18” x 18” space. 

B- One can sleep in a leaning position. 

3- Where do these measurements come from? The Pri Megodim writes that it is a Halachah LeMoshe miSinai. 

We discussed the question of how there can be an argument concerning such Halachos. 

Story of the 3,000 Halachos that were forgotten when Moshe Rabeinu passed away.

Temurah 16b

גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שלשת אלפים הלכות נשתכחו בימי אבלו של משה …

אמר רבי אבהו אעפ”כ החזירן עתניאל בן קנז מתוך פלפולו 

 

4- Sitting in  a large Suka but one’s table is out of the Sukkah or in a house. That is another Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel if the Chachamim enacted a Gezeira to prohibit this. 

The concern is that one may eventually move his body out of the Sukkah. 

5- We discussed 2 Takanos Chachamin which were historically enacted for fascinating reasons:

A- Chazoras Hashatz. No one less than the Rambam enacted (at least in Egypt) that there should be no Chazoras Hashatz!!!!

This was, as he writes,  because ‘no one listens anyway, people just schmooze. Our non Jewish neighbors mock us!!!

This Minhag lasted for hundreds of years until the Radvaz, the Rabbi of Egypt reinstated it. 

See here in Hebrew. And an excellent article here.  

English version.

B- The Avel (Mourning) wearing of a headgear to cover his eyes and face.  Despite this Halocho being mentioned in Tanach and Gemore (Mo”K 15,a) since “it causes a great mockery in the eyes of gentiles and our household servants, one should not wear this over one’s head”. 

See Shulchan Aruch, Ramo and Shach here. 

6- We mentioned the interesting idea of Tzizis. The only mitzva we know how to do it because of it’s Brocho!

According to The Geonim “Since the Brocho is להתעטף בציצית, we therefore know that a talis must wrap the person as the Yishmelim wrap themselves. Any garment that does not accomplish עיטוף, meaning a full warp, is פטור מציצית”. 

The Halocho is not like the Geonim’s reasoning. All four cornered garments require ציצית. 

See here for the Alter Rebbe’s SHulchan Aruch.

7- Discussed a case where the Chachamim say a Sukkah is Posul. For example using planks of wood for the Schach. The Gezeira is that one may conclude that sitting in his house and calling it a Sukkah will work as well. If one does use this Sukkah, is he יוצא min Hatorah? 

If he then enters a kosher Sukkah, does he make a Brachah? If he was יוצא min Hatorah then he doesn’t. If the Chachamim uprooted the entire Mitzvah than he should make a Brachah since he has yet to sit in a proper Sukkah. 

More on this in the future. 

 

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. 

 

 

Kislev 19, 5780. December 17, 2019

Suka 2b

1- We created a chart to understand the 3 reasons and the three scenarios concerning  the opinion of the Chachomim that a Sukkah that is 20 Amos plus is Posul. 

 

2- Tosfos seems to imply that there is a fourth reason. That of Rav Chanan. A small Sukkah measuring only 7 by 7 Tefachim when it is over 20 Amos high is more like a chicken coop than a house. Even a temporary house. 

3- We mentioned the two opinions as to why (according to Rav Yoshia) when the wall(s) of a 20 Amos + Suka reach the Schach it is Kosher. Rashi says that one’s eyes roll up to the Schach and thus is aware of it. The Ritvah says that it is because of the ‘cozyness’ one feels in an enclosed Suka.  

The difference between these two reasoning is when only one wall reaches the Schach.

According to Rashi it would seem that it is sufficient. According to the Ritva one full wall does not create a closed environment. 

4- Yosi Greenberg sent this PDF in regard to the question we posted last week of how it it possible that the Schach would not create a shade in a tall Suka at 12 PM. 

GovaSucca2

5- The story of Hilna haMalka (Queen Helena) and her tall Sukkah she shared with her children. The Sukkah was more than 20 Amos high, which would be Posul according to the Chachamim in our Mishnah. 

There are many big topics here and we just touched on one of them. We will BL”N discuss other topics in the next shiur. 

~ Hilni was being מחנך her children that were under Bar Mitzvah. 

We mentioned an original חידוש from the Rebbe on the topic of חינוך בקטן. 

How does the Torah expect a young boy to begin to observe Mitzvos properly if מן התורה neither the father nor the son have a chiyuv to train prior to his Bar Mitzvah?   

The Rebbe discusses the various opinions.

Of course there is the chiyuv מן התורה for a father to teach Torah to his son, but the training of a קטן in the practice of Mitzvos, that is only  חינוך מדרבנן. 

To teach a child to be in the position upon his Bar Mitzvah to be observe Mitzvos properly is not Biblical. The training is something that was instituted by the רבנן. 

So how does the Torah expect a 13 year old to be proficient enough to be fully observant? Surely he will transgress due to his lack of knowledge and training. 

One can perhaps say that it’s on the father to train him as part of the chiyuv to teach him Torah. 

Or perhaps that’s it’s logical for him to train his son to be able to observe Mitzvos properly. 

That would make it דאורייתא. [in  footnote (26) he brings the famous  פני יהושע that things that are logical are מן התורה, even if it is not written in the Torah! see here] 

All the above is problematic as it would imply that Chinuch in Mitzvos [in addition to the teaching him Torah] is also מן התורה. We do not find any opinion that Chinuch is De’Oraiso. 

So again, how does the Torah expect a 13 year old to be proficient enough to be fully observant? There is no way one can learn everything on the first day! 

The Rebbe tries another approach. He quotes the various opinions about the chiyuv of a person to place himself in a position (prior to the זמן קיום המצוה ) that when the time of a Mitzvah arrives he is able to be מקיים the Mitzvah. [such as ensuring that when Pesach arrives one has Matzah]

The צל”ח ,ומנחת חינוך and more. See footnote 32.  

So perhaps the same would apply to a קטן while he is still under the age of Mitzvos. A child is obligated to ‘be in the position to observe all Mitzvos’. Meaning that he needs to learn and practice before his Bar Mitzvah. 

But that would imply that the chiyuv is on the minor, [such as הכשר מצוה] before his Bar Mitzvah. But that is also problematic   since הכשר מצוה cannot apply on a non בר חיובא, such as the קטן.

The Rebbe concludes that (despite him not finding any precedent for this idea) one must say that indeed there is no chiyuv מן התורה prior to his בר מצוה to train himself!

The קטן, only upon reaching Bar Mitzvah is obligated to learn and train himself to be able to observe Mitzvos properly. And if that causes any transgression, the Torah accepts it as part of the learning process.  

ואף כי זהו חידוש גדול בהלכה, מ”מ נראה דמסברא מוכרח הוא, דאיך יחול איזה חיוב באופן שמעצם טבעו א”א לקיימו, ומכיון שהאפשריות של קיום ה­מצוה כדבעי אינה אלא ע”י הקדמה של לימוד וחינוך הדורש זמן מסויים, לכן צ”ל דכל זה נכלל בעצם החיוב. ולכן אין סברא שהתורה תחייב לחנכו בעודו בקט­נותו כדי שיוכל לקיים כל המצוות כשיג­דיל, ואדרבה, התחלת חלות החיוב אינה אלא ברגע שנתגדל, ואם צריך זמן 

של חינוך והכשרה, הרי זה כלול בעצם חלות החיוב שחלים אחרי שנתגדל.  

The Rebbe compares this to the Giyur process where we do not find any obligation for a Ger prior to his conversion to be בקי בכל המצוות. 

Here is a link to the entire piece. 

6- We tied what the Pnei Yohoshua says to Yud Tes Kislev. The Sicha of Tof Shin Beis. Page 52. 

At the first celebration of Yud Tes Kislev (which occurred three years after the year of the imprisonment and release) the Alter Rebbe said in the name of the Ba’al Shem Tov: “To be a fool, sadness and the feeling of self importance are by Chassidim an Issur m’De’Oraisa! 

Conversely, being smart, being happy by emphasizing the joy found everything and acting tactfully are by Chassidim a Mitzvah De’Oraisa! 

Wow! 

Now,  obvious question: We only have 613 Mitzvos. Is this a new mitzvah? Or, to which one of the 613 Mitzvos is this directive associated with? 

With what the Pnei Yohoshua writes it is quite easily understood:

Such obvious and logical ideas (such as not to be a fool and to be smart and happy) need not be written in the Torah to be דאורייתא! 

 

Sukkah 2a (2)

12 Kislev 5780. December 10, 2019

1- We explored the reason as to why a Sukkah cannot be higher than 20 Amos. 

A- Rabah: Learns from the posuk

למען ידעו דרתיכם כי בסכות הושבתי את בני ישראל

The mitzvah of Sukkah is unique in the sense that not only does one need  awareness that he is doing a מצות עשה, one also needs awareness, feeling and understanding of the meaning of the Mitzvah. Thus, one needs to be aware that he is sitting in a Sukkah. Therefore if the Sukkah is over 20 Amos this cognizance is lacking. 

See here the Alter Rebbe’s preface to Hilchos Suka. This topic is something the Rebbe emphasized many times. 

B- Rav Zeira – Learns from this Posuk in ישעיהו

 וסכה תהיה לצל יומם מחרב

The definition of a Sukkah is Schach. And Schach, as per the Pasuk above is one that provides צל or shadow. A Sukkah that is taller than 20 Amos the shade will be from the walls rather from the Schach. 

We had a tough time understanding this as it would seem to us that at 12 PM the sun would cast a shadow because of the Schach and not the walls.

One suggestion is that in countries away from the Equator the sun is not directly overhead. Another explanation is that even if the sun at midday is directly overhead most of the day it is not.  

C – Rava – The Pasuk בסכת תשבו שבעת ימים seems to say that the Suka needs to be a temporary structure. A seven day structure.  But surely it cannot mean that a Suka should be a structure that will last only 7 days, for how would one be able to build a Suka that will crumble exactly on the 8th day.  So what is the Pasuk telling us? 

Says Rava, it’s advising us that the structure needs to be one that is constructed in such a way that it can be built as something temporary or permanent. 

Now for a 20-Amos Sukkah one would need to build foundations for it to last. Meaning that such a structure can only be something permanent. That is what Torah does not want. 

[YG asked why a Sukkah made of huge stone blocks (not on a foundation) is Kosher. ] 

2– We discussed the Tosfos and the different opinions if rain needs to be able to penetrate the Schach. More on this in upcoming Shiurim BL”N. 

3-  We discussed the various reasons given for the Torah choosing the 15th day of Tishrei for the beginning of Yom Tov Suka. Mentioned the explanation given by the Ramban, Rashbam and the Ran. 

We mentioned the reason offered by Ibn Suib. In short, from Nisan until Yom Kippur they were busy with the preparation for and then Matan Torah itself and afterwards they were occupied with Teshuva for the golden calf incident. 

The day following Yom Kippur,  when all was forgiven, Moshe Rabeinu tells them to build the Mishkan. That was the 11th of Tishrei. 

That Charidy campaign took two days as it says “we are live“. That took place on the 12th and 13th day of Tishrei. (2 times ‘boker’)

וַיִּקְחוּ מִלִּפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה אֵת כָּל-הַתְּרוּמָה אֲשֶׁר הֵבִיאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִמְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָהּ וְהֵם הֵבִיאוּ אֵלָיו עוֹד נְדָבָה בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר.

 

So the first available day to tell Klal Yisroel about Sukkah was on the 14th. So the Sukkos were indeed built on the 14th and Yom Tov began the night of the 15th! 

Suka 2a

5 Kislev , Dec. 4th 2019

Welcome all to Meseches Sukkah,

Our Gemara deals with these Pesukim in Parshas Emor-  ויקרא פרק כג פסוק לט:

לט    אַ֡ךְ בַּֽחֲמִשָּׁה֩ עָשָׂ֨ר י֜וֹם לַחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י בְּאָסְפְּכֶם֙ אֶת־תְּבוּאַ֣ת הָאָ֔רֶץ תָּחֹ֥גּוּ אֶת־חַג־יְהֹוָ֖ה שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֑ים בַּיּ֤וֹם הָֽרִאשׁוֹן֙ שַׁבָּת֔וֹן וּבַיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֖י שַׁבָּתֽוֹן:

מ    וּלְקַחְתֶּ֨ם לָכֶ֜ם בַּיּ֣וֹם הָֽרִאשׁ֗וֹן פְּרִ֨י עֵ֤ץ הָדָר֙ כַּפֹּ֣ת תְּמָרִ֔ים וַֽעֲנַ֥ף עֵֽץ־עָבֹ֖ת וְעַרְבֵי־נָ֑חַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּ֗ם לִפְנֵ֛י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֖ם שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים:

מב   בַּסֻּכֹּ֥ת תֵּֽשְׁב֖וּ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֑ים כָּל־הָֽאֶזְרָח֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יֵֽשְׁב֖וּ בַּסֻּכֹּֽת:

מג   לְמַ֘עַן֘ יֵֽדְע֣וּ דֹרֹֽתֵיכֶם֒ כִּ֣י בַסֻּכּ֗וֹת הוֹשַׁ֨בְתִּי֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּהֽוֹצִיאִ֥י אוֹתָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:

In Parshas Re’e:

דברים פרק טז פסוק יג

יג חַ֧ג הַסֻּכֹּ֛ת תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה לְךָ֖ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֑ים בְּאָ֨סְפְּךָ֔ מִגָּרְנְךָ֖ וּמִיִּקְבֶֽךָ:

1- Spoke as to why the Mesechta begins with the Halachos of Sukkah rather than the Halachos of the Daled Minim which are mentioned in the P’sukim first. 

Some explanations:

A- Sukkah begins at night as opposed to the Daled Minim. 

B- Although Sukkah is mentioned last, in Parshas Re’e it says חַ֧ג הַסֻּכֹּ֛ת תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה לְךָ֖. This seems to indicate that building a Suka is a Chiyuv. And that would be before Sukkos even starts. (See Aruch Laner).

We will learn further ahead about the SheHechiyunu on the putting up a Suka. 

2- We mentioned the Machlokes between the Bavli and Yerushalmi. Whereas in Bavli we do not find that building a Sukkah is a mitzvah in Yerushalmi it states that one even makes a Brachah when building a Sukkah! 

More on this topic as we move along. 

3- We mentioned the Vort of the Izbitzer. See here. 

בית יעקב בראשית, הקדמה, עמוד ו.

In his Sefer Beis Yakov he explains the perplexing fact that in regard to the Lechem Haponim a reason and explanation for this Mitzvah eluded both the Rambam and the AriZal. 

The Rambam is in Moreh Nevuchim and the AriZal in his famous composition we sing every Shabbos at the day meal:

Y’galei lan ta-amei,

d’visreisar nahamei

d’inun as bish’meih

k’fila uklisha.

יגלה לן טעמי. דבתריסר נהמי. דאינון את בשמיה. כפילא וקלישא

May He disclose to us the reason for the twelve breads which symbolize a letter of His name both in the combined and the single form.

4-  We spoke about the wording in the Gemara concerning Schach that is above 20 Amos that is Posul due to its height. The Gemara seems to be saying that one may add another level of Schach below the one that’s Posul. (and then remove the top layer). 

Some infer from this that one may build a Sukkah with Schach inside a house and then remove the roof. Or to build a Suka under an awning and only retract it after the Schach is placed. 

That is actually the Halachah. See here. Ramo 626.2. 

5 –  We suggested a ‘siman’ to remember the number 56, which is total amount of Dafin in Meseches Suka. 

When going around the Bima saying Hoshai’nos it’s inevitable to shout “NU”!

NU equals 56……

 

Mikvaos, Siman 201, Shiur 16 – August 13, 2019

Shiur notes #16

Here are some notes from the past few Shiurim.

1- Seif 44-49 discuss the Halochos of Hamshocho המשכה.

Basically, the Halochos of  שאובין (like tap water) are twofold:

A- Even 40 full סאה of it is not considered a kosher Mikva. [  פסול מן התורה according to the רמ”א or מדרבנן according to theמחבר  ]

B- מדרבנן  three Lugin of שאובין invalidates a Mikvah that lacks a full  40 סאה of מי גשמים.

That is the פסול of שאובין. To Kasher this פסול one can do זריעה, השקה or המשכה.

 

2-  We are discussing המשכה. In order to remove the שאובין designation, one can let this שאובין water flow, prior to its reaching the actual Mikvah, on the ‘ground’ for 3 טפחים, thereby causing the water to be considered non שאובין.

3- One can even fill up to 49% of a Mikvah with שאובין using this method (המשכה) as long as the 51% of rain water was in the Mikvah first.

A full Mikvah of שאובין using המשכה will not work.

4- We discussed the ש”ך  that quotes the ראב”ד  that if the המשכה was done unintentionally, (like a water tank – a כלי – that burst and its water ran along the ground and into a Mikvah) then it will be Kosher even if this water fills 100% of the Mikvah.

5- From there we learnt the ר’ עקיבא איגר  who says that he does not see this in the ראב”ד.

6- We discussed (at the BBQ) the history of the דרדעים, which were a small group of Yemenite Jews that had an issue with קבלה. See here in Hebrew.

The grandson of the leader of this sect, Rabbi Yoseph Kafia, (or Kapach) was famous for publishing lost manuscripts. He also translated the פירוש המשניות להרמב”ם from Arabic.

In the manuscript of the ראב”ד that he published it ןindeed states as the ש”ך writes.

7- We discussed the suggestion of Reb Shlomo Kluger in  regard to a particular Mikvah, to use the ש”ך’s lenience that an unintentional המשכה is good even for filling a full (100%) Mikvah by using a child to do the המשכה since קטן אין בו דעת.

 

8- What is the definition of letting the water run along the ‘ground’? So we have two opinions on whether this ground has to be able to absorb the water. We follow the opinion of the רמ”א  that it does indeed need to flow on ground that can absorb.

We discussed if cement is considered an absorb-able material and if it is, then how can we build a mikvah with cement. Do we use a less dense mixture of cement than the walls?

9- From here we went on to discuss the רמ”א who states that water running along a stone floor (like marble) is not considered proper המשכה. This is because marble and the like do not absorb any water.

We began with the Halocho in Eiruvin (86b) about the spilling of water inside a house or garden on Shabbos and the water flows  out to a רשות הרבים. One is permitted to do so if the area one is spilling the water in is large enough that the water may be absorbed into the ground and not necessarily run into the street. Shulchan Aruch, Shabbos 357.

The Alter Rebbe adds that this only applies when one does not spill the water with force at the perimeter of his land. By moving back into the center of the yard and then pouring the water on the ground we consider the overflow into the street  כח כוחו. However if he spills it next to gate or the border of his land then it would be prohibited. That would be הוצאה מן התורה.

In the footnotes of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch it says that the source to this is סנהדרין סז ע”ב.

What is the meaning of this source. At first glance there is nothing there about this topic.

10- We mentioned the letter written (Igros 19, 7-242) by the late Rosh Yeshiva of 770 Reb Yisroel Piekarski to the Rebbe. See picture here.

Reb Yisroel writes that he thinks the footnote is a typo. It should say סנהדרין ע”ז ע”ב  where indeed there is a discussion about when a person is liable for causing the death of another CV if he opens a stream of water and causes a person to drown. This rule applies only when the victim is close to the water source. If however he is far away, then the water caused his death is only כח כוחו.

The Rebbe responded that there is no typo and explains what is on page סז is applicable to this Halachah. We spoke about this at length.

11- Coming around full circle-  this Halachah, of water that can (in theory) be absorbed into the ground and therefore can be poured inside a רשות היחיד  , despite the fact that it may flow out to a רשות הרבים is even on covered ground. Such as a stone floor.

Even if the floor is marble one is allowed since we say that it can be absorbed and the water will not necessarily flow out. See there AR # 8.

12- So asks the Tzemach Tzedeks’s nephew (see shiur #14) why does the רמ”א, who is stringent here in  מקוואות, and says that marble or stone do not absorb,  lenient in הלכות שבת. He makes no mention of this in Hilchos Shabbos.