2

According to the Gemara the Rabbis maintain that a sukkah is a דירת עראי. There are many contextual indications to this fact within Masechet Sukkah. However, one of the most pointed statements regarding this is in Yoma 10b where it directly states: ורבנן לטעמייהו, דאמרי: סוכה דירת עראי בעינן. This being the case, there does not appear to be any מפרשים that explain the logical flow of the Gemara that clearly demonstrates how the Rabbis maintained their opinion that a sukkah is a דירת עראי in opposition to Rebbi Yehuda, when Rebbi Yehuda brings a מעשה on Sukkah 2b regarding Queen Helene’s sukkah that was over 20 amos high and the Elders were silent, as the Baraisa states: סוכה שהיא גבוהה למעלה מעשרים אמה — פסולה ורבי יהודה מכשיר עד ארבעים וחמשים אמה. אמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בהילני המלכה בלוד שהיתה סוכתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה, והיו זקנים נכנסין ויוצאין לשם ולא אמרו לה דבר.

Therefore, if the Rabbis who hold that a sukkah is a דירת עראי are assumed to be the Tanna Kamma of Mishna 2a, which states that a sukkah above 20 amos is invalid, what logical defense did they employ to avoid refutation by Rebbi Yehuda’s Baraisa regarding Queen Helene’s sukkah that was over 20 amos high and the Elders were silent?

Finally, I am not asking what the halacha is or how we poskim, but what is the logical defense of the Rabbis position that allows them to remain in opposition to Rebbi Yehuda which is evidenced in Yoma 10b and Sukkah 3a, 3b, 9a, ect.?

My conclusion of what the answer is requires re-framing several concepts in Masechet Sukkah and is located at https://sukkah.home.blog/. It's too lengthy post here.

My hope by posting this is to have either conformation that I have learned correctly or for someone to post an alternative answer that they are aware of that I could consider in my understanding of Masechet Sukkah. Thank you.

user28988
  • 71
  • 8
  • It bases it on the posuk "בַּסּוּכּוֹת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים" - i.e. 7 days and no more? – Dov Apr 10 '23 at 18:23

1 Answers1

2

[EDITED] I'm not sure your premise is correct that we hold a sukkah must be temporary. I have heard many people say that a sukkah needs to be temporary, and I agree that seems to be Rava's opinion, but I don't think that precisely fits the conclusion of the gemara and the poskim. (I'm unsure whether this means we reject Rava or not, as I will explain). You can build a sukkah out of stone and mortar or reinforced cement. Orach Chaim 630:1. And at least on a d'oraita level and possibly a d'rabanan level, you can also have a sukkah with very heavy wooden beams for a roof and lock them in place. See Sukkah 14a. According to Beit Hillel you can also leave your sukkah up year-round. Sukkah 9. L'hatchilah one should at least refresh the schach before the chag, though even that isn't strictly required. See Mishnah Berurah 636:4 and Beit Yosef 636:1.

The phrase "סוכה דירת עראי בעינן" appears twice in the Gemara. It is Rava's shita on Yoma 10b (consistent with his shita on Sukkah 2a) and is stated as the opinion of Rabbi Akiva on Sukkah 22b-23a. On sukkah 2a there are three explanations for why a sukkah over 20 amot is pasul. Rabbah says you need to be aware you are in a sukkah; Rabbi Zeira says you need to be in the shade of the roof and not of the walls; Rava says because such a sukkah cannot be made temporary. Rashi explains Rava's problem is that a 20 amah sukkah would require foundations. Rava's position seems ambiguous. He could mean (A) a sukkah must be temporary and a sukkah with brick walls is pasul or (B) a sukkah must be capable of being temporary, but a very tall sukkah is pasul because it cannot be temporary. Rava's statement on Yoma 10b that a sukkah never requiers a mezuzah seems to imply he means (A).

Either way, as OP notes the subsequent gemara does not fit with Rava's shita. As Sukkah 2b explains, according to Rabbah you can solve the problem by having walls go all the way up. According to Rebbi Zeira, you can solve the problem by making the sukkah large. But according to Rava, there appears to be no way to make a kosher 20 amot sukkah. The Gemara then brings the baraita you mention regarding Queen Heleni. And the Gemara explains this according to Rabbah or Rebbei Zeira, which seems to imply it's a rejection of Rava. (I have not found any mefarshim addressing this issue).

Elsewhere, the Gemara certainly concludes that a sukkah does not need to be keva. (See Sukkah daf 7). But the Gemara (other than Rava) does not say that a sukkah can be pasul for being too permanent. (There does seem to be an assumption that you must be in a sukkah and not a "house," see Sukkah 14a right below the mishnah and Rashi there, but it's not clear if there is an objective distinction between a house with a wooden roof and a kosher sukkah). The only exception is on Sukkah 23a when the Gemara explains the machloket between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva whether a sukkah on a ship needs to be able to stand up to a sea wind. L'fi aniyut daati the gemara does not mean Rabbi Akiva requires davka a temporary sukkah; rather, he means we only require it be able to stand temporarily and we do not require it be able to stand permanently.

The big tzarikh iyun on all this is that it seems even a permanent sukkah doesn't require a mechitzah. See MB 626:21; but see Sharei Teshuvah 626:7 citing some opinions that could imply the opposite. Perhaps there is just a general klal that since the sukkah's primary function is temporary and/or most sukkot are in fact physically temporary they do not need a mezuzah.

Avraham
  • 1,588
  • 1
  • 16
  • While Sukkah (3a) "explains how the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Yehudah: that the Queen's sukkah was in fact not kosher", that was only in regards to her personal sukkah, as it states: רבנן סברי: בניה בסוכה מעליא הוו יתבי, ואיהי יתבה בקיטוניות משום צניעותא, ומשום הכי לא אמרי לה דבר. The Rabbis defense was that her sons were sitting in the larger sukkah which was over 20 amos. The question is how is it possible that the Gemara can conclude דירת עראי when Rebbi Yehudah brings a מעשה of a +20 amos sukkah that was somehow kosher according to the Elders. – user28988 Apr 10 '23 at 05:26
  • You are right. The maasei cannot be squared with Rava's opinion. I've significantly edited my answer. – Avraham Apr 10 '23 at 18:09
  • Based on the response I posted another question titled "What is the definition of a דירת עראי?". This was posted in order to specifically provide an answer as to the definition of what a דירת עראי is according to Rava on Sukkah 2a. This definition is an alternative option (C) to the two possible definitions of (A) and (B) above and which is capable of addressing this issue which seems to not have been addressed. – user28988 Apr 11 '23 at 01:48
  • I don't understand exactly what you mean. Are you saying you have a third pshat on what Rava means on Sukkah 2a? If so can you please post it because this inyan has always puzzled me too. – Avraham Apr 11 '23 at 05:36
  • I posted it here https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/134228/what-is-the-definition-of-a-%d7%93%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%a2%d7%a8%d7%90%d7%99. – user28988 Apr 11 '23 at 05:46
  • I see and commented there. I think your other answer is similar to what I called pshat (B): regardless of whether the sukkah is in fact temporary permanent what matters is that it be of a size that can be temporary. But it's difficult because Rava himself says you could build a sukkah over 20 that was temporary. – Avraham Apr 11 '23 at 06:00
  • To clarify the difference between option (B) and (C) is that with (C) the material makeup of the sukkah has no bearing all. The sukkah is either in a temporary dimension or not. The concept of "capable of being temporary" does not apply. – user28988 Apr 11 '23 at 15:46
  • I agree with you, that the simple understanding of the Gerama's language is that Rava himself believes you could build a materially temporary sukkah above 20 amot. And he is answering the halachic status of such a sukkah. However, for those that want to read the Gemara through the lens that it is impossible, it is enough to state that he only theorizes the halachic status if it were possible. The result is the same. Rava is proving his point that it needs to be within the abstract dimension of עראי – user28988 Apr 11 '23 at 15:47