Q&A: Do We Apply Lavud Stringently?
Do We Apply Lavud Stringently?
Question
With God’s help,
Hello Rabbi,
What is the Rabbi’s view regarding applying lavud stringently? I mean, suppose there is a metal mesh whose sun exceeds its shade, and they want to place sechach on top of it—would there be a problem because of lavud?
As far as I know this is a dispute, but what is the reasoning behind the distinction? Especially if there is some connection between sechach and the laws of partitions, as it seems to me.
Answer
Simply put, lavud is not applied stringently. The reasoning can be formulated in several ways. For example, one can discuss whether a lavud-sized gap is considered as though it is closed, or whether I simply do not care that it is open (because it is a small opening). According to that formulation, there is certainly room for the reasoning that we do not apply lavud stringently. In order to invalidate a sukkah, it has to be something that matters to you. To validate it, it is enough that it does not matter to you.
As for a mesh over which you place sechach, I have not heard of anyone who invalidates it because of lavud. When there is valid sechach in between, there is no lavud. Lavud applies to empty space. Otherwise, why not say regarding the valid sechach that it is as though the metal mesh strips are not here?
Tosafot in Sukkah, if I remember correctly, on 17a, says that we do not apply lavud stringently—that is, lavud in the sense of “as if it were filled in,” where I want to treat it as though it has been filled in. But lavud in the sense of “as if it is not there” {there are clear proofs that support both formulations, and most of the later authorities agreed}—Tosafot there is uncertain; see there. Indeed, this requires examination, since we do see that we apply lavud stringently regarding the Sabbath and eruvin, and many resolutions have been offered for this difficulty. But in my humble opinion there is a need to distinguish between sukkah and Sabbath, if you would like to hear—and the reasoning also points that way.