תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף ב עמוד ב
כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבי יאשיה אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך,
R. Yoshiya/Rav: The machloket between Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda in our mishna is only in a scenario in which the walls don’t reach the סכך – in that scenario, TK says that the succah is פסולה since a person won’t lift his eyes so high – and he will lack the awareness at the time he is sitting there, that he is in a succah commanded by Hashem
אבל דפנות מגיעות לסכך - אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה.
- But when the walls reach the סכך, it’s kosher (even according to TK) if the succah is higher than 20 amot
כמאן – כרבה, דאמר: משום דלא שלטא בה עינא, וכיון דדפנות מגיעות לסכך – משלט שלטא בה עינא.
- This statement of Rav’s is in accordance with Raba, who said that the problem of the 20 ama high succah is that one’s eyes won’t focus on סכךthat high…once the walls reach the סכך, a person’s eyes will be aware of the (even very high) schach…
כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאין בה אלא ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות,.
R. Huna/Rav: The machloket between Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda in our mishna is only in a scenario in which the succah measures only 4 x 4 amot,
אבל יש בה יותר מארבע אמות על ארבע אמות - אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה.
- but if there is more than 4 x 4 amot in the succah, the succah is kosher even if above 20 amot in height
כמאן - כרבי זירא, דאמר: משום צל הוא, וכיון דרויחא - איכא צל סוכה
- This statement of Rav’s is in accordance with R. Zeira, who said that the problem of the 20 ama high succah is that the walls, and not the סכך, are providing the shade. Once the succah is roomer, then the סכך provides the shade even with a 20 ama high succah
כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב חנן בר רבה אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאינה מחזקת אלא כדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו,
Rav Chanan/Rav: The machloket between the Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda in our mishna is only if the succah only holds his head, the majority of his body and his table
אבל מחזקת יותר מכדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו - אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה.
But if it holds more than this, then it’s kosher even according to TK if it’s over 20 amot high
כמאן? דלא כחד.
Who is it according to? Not like any one of the Amoraim – and here’s why:
Not like Raba: Since, according to Raba, the problem is that a person’s eyes will not focus on the סכך, in a succah higher than 20 amot, he will not all of a sudden focus on the סכך if the succah is larger than 4 x 4!
Not like R. Zeira: Since, according to R. Zeira, the problem is that the walls and not the סכך is providing the shade, in a succah higher than 20 amot!
Not like Rava: Since, according to Rava, the problem is that such a height requires permanent walls, and the Torah insisted on a height that could support temporary walls, this problem will not be alleviated by a succah that has an area of over 4 x 4
-
The Gemara then makes the following statement:
בשלמא דרבי יאשיה פליגא אדרב הונא ורב חנן בר רבה, דאינהו קא יהבי שעורא במשכא, ואיהו לא קא יהיב שעורא במשכא.
As we mentioned in our shiur on Monday evening, it is clear that there are different citations of Rav’s view at work here. Whenever a talmid reports a view in the name of his teacher, it is possible that he will have a different understanding of the teacher’s view than another talmid. This could be for a number of reasons….
The Gemara initially states that it is clear that Rav Yoshiya (view 1) disagrees with the rendition of Rav Huna and Rav Chanan, since their focus is that the area of the succah expanding would prompt the TK to declare the succah kosher. According to Ritvah, it is clear that he heard a fundamentally different principle from Rav than the other Amoraim. He didn’t hear a halacha from Rav, and then offer his own interpretation
אלא רב הונא ורב חנן בר רבה, נימא בהכשר סוכה קמיפלגי; דמר סבר: הכשר סוכה בארבע אמות, ומר סבר: הכשר סוכה במחזקת ראשו ורובו ושולחנו?
However, Rav Huna and Rav Chanan (according to Ritvah):It’s possible that they don’t fundamentally disagree as to what their Rebbe said, because they both actually heard Rav say that the disagreement between TK and RY in our mishna takes place when the succah does not have its minimal shiur and they went on subsequently to apply their own specific views as to what the minimal shiur of a succah is Rav Huna: 4 x 4; R. Chanan, head, most of body, table…
I tried to suggest why this step in the Gemara is considered a קושיא- why this part of the Gemara is phrased as a בשלמא and אלא…
My suggestion the other night was that the Gemara had a hard time believing that these Amoraim would make a statement without attributing their approaches back to the Tanna whom they were quoting… After seeing the Ritvah, however, I would like to suggest the following: What was bothering the Gemara was that R. Huna would be ruling like the lone view of Rebbe, while R. Chanan rules like Rabanan (the majority view). The Gemara is not pleased with an approach which has R. Huna agreeing with a minority view…
This propels the Gemara to conclude:
- לא, דכולי עלמא הכשר סוכה ראשו ורובו ושולחנו. והכא בהא קמיפלגי; דמר סבר: במחזקת ראשו ורובו ושולחנו פליגי, אבל יותר מראשו ורובו ושולחנו - דברי הכל כשרה. ומר סבר: מראשו ורובו ושולחנו עד ארבע אמות פליגי, אבל יותר מארבע אמות - דברי הכל כשרה.
According to Ritvah: Both Rav Huna and R. Chanan rule like Rabanan (the majority view) that the minimum measurement of a succah is head, most of body etc, and they are each claiming that they heard EXACTLY THAT MEASUREMENT from Rav…not, as we said earlier, that they heard “minimal measurement of Succah” from Rav, and then offered their own interpretation.
In shiur, we can discuss the question: What was gained by the Gemara in approaching the machloket between R. Hunan and Rav Chanan this way?
No comments:
Post a Comment