THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
SUKAH 21-25 - my brother Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored one month of
Dafyomi publications for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
1) "TOVIM HA'SHENAYIM"
QUESTION: In the Beraisa, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue about a Sukah
built atop an animal. Rebbi Meir says that the Sukah is valid, and Rebbi
Yehudah says that it is Pasul. RASHI explains that the case is referring to
when one takes doors and places them flat on top of two horses, in order to
serve as the floor of the Sukah.
2) A SUKAH THAT WALKS
Why does Rashi say that the case is talking about two horses? The Beraisa
says that the Sukah was built "on top of *an animal*," and not two animals!
(TOSFOS in fact discusses the case as a Sukah built on top of a single
animal.) (ARUCH LA'NER)
(a) The ARUCH LA'NER answers that we find later on this Amud another
argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, concerning a case of an
animal used as a wall for a Sukah. Rebbi Meir invalidates such a Sukah.
Abaye suggests that Rebbi Meir's reason is because he holds that "we must be
concerned for death;" that is, the Rabanan decreed that such a Sukah is
invalid because we are afraid that the animal will die and then one will be
left without a Sukah with which to perform the Mitzvah (Rashi, DH Gezeirah).
In the case of a Sukah built atop an animal, Rashi was bothered by Rebbi
Meir's opinion that we are concerned that the animal might die. Why does
Rebbi Meir permit such a Sukah? Maybe the animal will die and the Sukah will
collapse! Therefore, Rashi explains that in this case, there are *two*
horses. We are not afraid that *two* animals will die, as the Gemara in Yoma
(13a) says, "for the death of one we are afraid, but for the death of two we
are not afraid." If one of the two animals dies, then he will still be able
to set the Sukah atop the animal that remains.
This answer is difficult, because in this case, even without the animal
below, there is an entire Sukah. If the animal dies, one can simply take the
Sukah and put it on the ground, and thus there is no reason to invalidate
the Sukah just because of a fear that the animal will die. (And if the Sukah
must be resting on an animal, he can find another animal in the barn and set
the Sukah atop it.) Furthermore, the Mishnah (22b) says clearly that a Sukah
upon "a [single] camel" is valid, and the Gemara says that the Mishnah is
Rebbi Meir's opinion. Why, then, does Rashi say that the Beraisa is
referring to a Sukah built on two animals?
(b) Perhaps Rashi was bothered by a different problem. The Mishnah discusses
a Sukah built upon a *camel*. Why did it not use the same wording as the
Beraisa, and discuss a Sukah built upon an *animal* ("Behemah")? Why did it
specifically mention a camel?
The answer might be that a Sukah is only valid if its floor is strong enough
to support the people and furnishings inside (Sukah 10a). An animal is not
normally strong enough to support an entire four-walled Sukah, along with
the Sechach, beds, table, and people. Usually, the only animal strong enough
is a camel. The Mishnah emphasizes this point by mentioning a camel, in
order to teach that the animal must be strong enough to support the Sukah.
If so, why does the Beraisa say "on top of an *animal*" and not on top of a
camel? The answer is that other animals *are* valid, if one finds a way to
support the Sukah and all that is in it on top of the animal's back. Rashi
explains that this is feasible in a case where one uses two horses instead
of a single horse. (The word "Behemah" is also used for the plural form, as
in Yona 4, "Behemah Raba.") (M. Kornfeld)
QUESTION: Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah built on top of an animal is
Pasul. The Gemara says that his reason is because of the principle derived
from a verse that a Sukah must be fit for all seven days of the festival. A
Sukah built on top of an animal is not fit for seven days.
We know that Rebbi Yehudah requires that a Sukah be a "Diras Keva" (7b,
21b), a permanent structure. A Sukah that moves, though, is not a "Diras
Keva," as Rashi mentions (7b, DH b'Rosh; 21b, DH sh'Ein Lah Keva; and 22b,
DH ha'Oseh). If so, why does the Gemara give a different reason for why
Rebbi Yehudah invalidates a Sukah built atop an animal? The Gemara should
say that his reason is because such a Sukah is not a "Diras Keva!" Why does
he need the verse that teaches that a Sukah must be fit for all seven days?
(a) The RAMBAN (Milchamos, 21b) argues with Rashi and says that the fact
that a Sukah moves does not make it into a "Diras Arai" and not a "Diras
Keva." Wherever the animal goes, the entire Sukah goes with it, and thus it
is considered "Kavu'a" in its place, atop the animal.
It could be that Rashi agrees that it is considered a "Diras Keva" even
though it is moving (as Rashi implies on 7b, that it only *looks* like it is
"Arai" but it is not actually "Arai"). Even though Rashi elsewhere (loc.
cit.) states clearly that a moving Sukah is not considered "Keva," Rashi
might hold that this is the subject of a Machlokes Amora'im. Two Amora'im
argue (21b) concerning Rebbi Yehudah's reason for invalidating a Sukah built
atop the legs of a bed. According to the first Amora, the reason is because
such a Sukah is not a "Diras Keva" because it moves. The other Amora, who
gives a different reason, perhaps holds that a moving Sukah *is* considered
to be a "Diras Keva." The Gemara here is gives a different reason for Rebbi
Yehudah (why a Sukah atop an animal is invalid) in order to satisfy that
second opinion there.
(b) Alternatively, perhaps this verse itself is the source for Rebbi
Yehudah's opinion that a Sukah must be a "Diras Keva." Since the Torah
requires a Sukah to stand for seven days, we see that it must have a quality
of permanence. (M. Kornfeld)
(c) TOSFOS (DH Al Gabei) suggests that the case of a Sukah atop an animal
refers to when the Sechach is supported by poles that reach the floor. The
animal is only supporting the floor and the walls of the Sukah. If the
animal walks away (with the floor and walls of the Sukah), the Sechach of
the Sukah will still remain in place, and thus there is no problem of the
Sukah moving and being a "Diras Arai" (since the *Sechach* is stationary).
Therefore, the Gemara gives another reason why it is Pasul according to