לע"נ החבר ר' מרדכי צבי בן ר' אהרן מנחם שיום הפטירה שלו חל בשביעי של פסח, אביהם של ידידי נפשי האהובים הר"ר חיים שרעק שליט"א והרב הגאון רבי משה שרעק שליט"א.
יה"ר שזכות התורה תעמוד לר' מרדכי צבי ז"ל ויקויים בו בקרוב "הָקִיצוּ וְרַנְּנוּ שֹׁכְנֵי עָפָר" יחד עם כל מתי עם ישראל!
Says the Gemara [Sukka 4a]:
היתה גבוהה מכ' אמה ובנה איצטבא באמצעיתה אם יש משפת איצטבא ולדופן ארבע אמות לכל רוח ורוח פסולה פחות מארבע אמות כשרה
If the sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one built a platform in the center of the sukka, if there is from the edge of the platform to the wall in each and every direction a distance of four cubits, it is unfit, as the platform has no walls. If the distance is less than four cubits, then it is fit.
מאי קא משמע לן דאמרינן דופן עקומה
The Gemara asks: What is this halacha teaching us? Is it that we say that the halacha of curved wall applies to the halachot of sukka?
The Ran writes:
"ולפי שיטה זו ג"כ ע"כ כשהדפנות מגיעות לסכך עסקינן אבל אם אין דפנות מגיעות לסכך ליכא למימר דופן עקומה".
The Ran says that we can only say דופן עקומה if the walls reach the schach. But if the walls don't reach the schach and we need to say גוד אסיק [the walls magically-halachically extend upwards] then we can't ALSO utilize the rule of דופן עקומה. It would seem that the Ra"n holds that we can say ONE הלכה למשה מסיני but not two in one case.
The Tur [ריש ס' תרל"ב] argues:
"אבל פחות מד"א כשירה דאמרינן דופן עקומה אפילו אין הדופן אלא י' טפחים והגג גבוה ממנו הרבה שאנו רואין הדופן כאילו עולה עד למעלה ואז נאמר דופן עקומה".
He holds that we can say both גוד אסיק AND דופן עקומה at the same time.
The Magen Avraham [תרל"ב סק"א] learns that the Shulchan Aruch paskens like the Ran that we say דופן עקומה only when the walls reach the schach and we don't have to say גוד אסיק.
The Gemara says later [י"ח]:
Abaye said: If there is space measuring three handbreadths ... in a small sukka, if one diminished the space with branches it is an effective diminution; if he diminished the space with skewers, it is not an effective diminution and the sukka is unfit. The three handbreadths of skewers, while insufficient to render the sukka unfit, diminish the fit area of the sukka to the point that the measure that remains does not constitute a fit sukka.
Rashi explains that if one places branches thereby minimizing the gap of three tefachim, we can then say לבוד which allow us to view the remaining space as closed.
Continues the Gemara:
והני מילי מן הצד אבל באמצע פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר יש לבוד באמצע וחד אמר אין לבוד באמצע
The Gemara notes: And this applies only if the space is along the side of the sukka, in which case the principle of lavud applies. However, if the space is in the center of the sukka, Rav Acha and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling. One said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka. And one said: The principle of lavud is not applied in the center of the sukka. Even if one diminished the space, the two sides of the roofing are not considered joined.
The Ran writes:
"והא דנקט פלוגתא דאין לבוד באמצע גבי מיעטו, היינו לומר דלמאן דאמר אין לבוד באמצע כי אמרינן יש לבוד מן הצד דוקא כי מיעטו מצד הסכך אבל מיעטו מצד דופן לא, דלא תימא כיון דפחות מארבע אמות סמוך לדופן אמרינן דופן עקומה אפילו מיעוט מן הדופן הו"ל לבוד מן הצד קמ"ל דלא, משום דלא אמרינן דופן עקומה ולבוד כי הדדי".
Once again we see from this Ran that we may not utilize two unique Halacha Li-Moshe Mi-Sinai's in the same instance. Therefore, if there is an empty space less than three tefachim at the edge of the schach next to the wall we can use the rule of לבוד to kasher the sukka. But if there is an empty space between the wall and the schach and one places branches next to the wall thereby leaving a space in between the branches and the rest of the schach, according to the opinion that holds that לבוד in the middle of the sukka is not kosher, this would not be kosher. For the only way to kasher it would be by seeing the branches as an extension of the wall - דופן עקומה - and then we would have to utilize together with that [i.e. דופן עקומה] the rule of לבוד [in order that it should be considered the end of the sukka and not the side]. Says the Ran - "Sorry - that doesn't work! You can't have two 'Hilchisas' [i.e. Halacha Li-Moshe Mi-sinai's] at work in one case".
Rebbi Akiva Eiger [ח"א סי' י"ב] points out that the Ran here is consistent with his opinion earlier [on daf dalet]. There he says that you can't make a shidduch between דופן עקומה and גוד אסיק and here he says that you similarly cannot make a shidduch between דופן עקומה and לבוד. The same principal is at play: No utilizing two Halacha Li-moshe Mi-sinai's together.
AWE-SOME!
Rebbi Akiva Eiger adds that the Ran only asserts this opinion when the two "Hilchisas" are interdependent and they need to work in tandem. Like in the latter case - we first have to say דופן עקומה and only then can we say לבוד. Or in the former case - first we need to employ the rule of גוד אסיק [which is GREAT because גוד אסיק was looking for work.....] and only then can we say דופן עקומה. But if the two "Hilchisas" are essentially independent of one another, and they just happen to both apply in this case, we can use both of them.
Rebbi A"E wonders about the ruling of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch [תר"ל ט]:
If the walls are seven tefachim and change high and he placed them within three tefachim of the ground [making it ten tefachim all together with the help of לבוד], even if the roof of the sukka is much higher it is kosher provided that the schach is either directly above or at least within three tefachim of being directly above.
Now, in order to get to לבוד, we first have to see the walls as extending upwards - גוד אסיק. Without גוד אסיק, the לבוד is meaningless [because it is a wall without schach above it]. So how can the Shulchan Aruch kasher a sukka where there are two "Hilchisas" that are interdependent?? This is against the rule of the Ran!! So why did the Beis Yosef not mention that this is a מחלוקת? And how could the Magen Avraham quote the Ran li-halacha without saying that this ruling is against his opinion?
Maran Rosh Hayeshiva ztz"l HaRav Hutner questioned Rebbi A"E's understanding of the Ran that we don't say two "Hilchisas" [which the Ran never actually said but was extracted from his words by RA"E] from an explicit Gemara that teaches that if a sukka that has two kosher walls, the third may be even a tefach wide and it is kosher not only with regard to the laws of sukka but with regard to the law of Shabbos as well.
Rashi writes:
"מיגו דההוא טפח אגמריה רחמנא למשה במחיצות סוכה דליהוי ליה דופן שלימה לסוכה הוי דופן נמי בשבת דסוכה לענין שבת".
Rashi writes "דופן שלימה" ["complete wall"] which would lead one to believe [correctly] that he sees the tefach wall as extending further and being a complete entity. Therefore, even as far as the laws of Shabbos are concerned we have a full, valid wall.
A simple use of logic would further lead us to assume that this halacha would include even a case where he placed the schach two tefachim away from where the actual physical tefach wide wall stands. How so? Elementary my dear Watson!! לבוד!!😊 It would emerge then that we have a case of לבוד [one Halacha LiM"M] working in tandem with the law of the kosher tefach wide wall [a second Halacha LiM"M]!! So we have a case of TWO "Hilchisas" that are interdependent working together!! Not like, it would seem, the understanding of RA"E?!!
Rabbeinu Chaim Halevi [פ"ד מהלכות סוכה] explored the question as to whether the law that a רשות היחיד extends to the sky [Shabbos 7a] is because of גוד אסיק מחיצתא - the walls of the רשות היחיד extend to the sky or because we say that if there are walls ten tefachim high, the רשות היחיד itself extends to the sky?
He proves that the רשות היחיד itself extends skyward and not the walls from the law of תל המתלקט עשרה מתוך ארבע וזרק ונח ע"ג חייב - the case of a mound that gradually attains a height of ten tefachim over a horizontal space of four amos, and one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop that mound, he is liable [Shabbos 100a]. Even though there are no recognizable walls that would allow us to utilize the rule of גוד אסיק, we nevertheless say that the רשות היחיד extends skyward. This proves that the רשות היחיד itself extends and not the walls.
Sounds GREAT!!
But Maran ztz"l was skeptical.... Rashi there writes:
"תל המתלקט - שהוא מדרון והולך ומתלקט מעט מעט עד שמגביה י' מתוך ד"א הרי הוא כאלו זקוף כולו והוי רה"י במקום גובהו"
In other words, when the hill slopes [or inclines] upwards over 4 amos and then reaches a height of ten tefachim, we view this slope as if it were NOT slope but completely upright. Why is that necessary? Why can't we see it for what it is - a slope, and then consider the surface that is ten tefachim a reshus hayachid?! Maybe because we need straight walls in order to say ..... גוד אסיק! Not like Rabbeinu Chaim!!
Nevertheless, for our purposes, it would seem to emerge from Rashi that we can only say גוד אסיק when the walls are upright but not when they are diagonal.
If what we said is correct then we have a novel explanation of the Ran when he says that we can't say גוד אסיק and דופן עמוקה in tandem. It is NOT because we don't utilize two "Hilchisas" in one instance [as RA"E understood] but for a completely different reason - דופן עקומה is literally a "crooked [not upright] wall" while גוד אסיק only works in a straight line! So OF COURSE they can't work together!! However, the laws of לבוד and גוד אסיק can work together even though they are two "Hilchasas" and there is thus no conflict between the law of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch [סימן תר"ל ט] and the opinion of the Ran. That would explain why the Beis Yosef made no mention of any מחלוקת and why the Magen Avraham also neglected to mention that anyone argues with the Ran.
We still have to explain the Ran where he says that we don't employ the rules of לבוד and דופן עקומה in tandem.
ועוד חזון למועד בעז"ה בל"נ!!
[עפ"י שיעור מרן רה"י זצ"ל משנת תש"ל]
