You are right – in the Sukkah and the Lulav
In the book of Sukkah 27:2, it is explained that the Rabbi learns from the commandment, “You shall make the Feast of Sukkot for yourself,” that a person may not go out to the tent of his friend, as if he were to plant a lulav tree, which would be his own, from the commandment, “And you shall take it for yourselves,” and “You shall take it from yourselves.”
And it is explained in the G.M. that the Sages admit that they require “do it for you” except that a person does not go out in a stolen sukkah, but they believe that it is permissible to go out in a borrowed sukkah, since it states, “All the citizens of Israel shall sit in a sukkah,” meaning that all of Israel goes out in one sukkah.
And I had a hard time with my answer. 1- In the opinion of the Reverend Father – and is it permissible that the son does not go out on a Sunday in his father’s tent? And he insists on saying that because of jealousy for each person, they cannot perform Kiddush and eat a kazeit together, at the same time.
2- In the opinion of the Sages, it is difficult to pronounce the words of the Lord Almighty in the reading: All citizens of Israel sit in Sukkots that are issued in a borrowed Sukkah, and this is not a disadvantage in that it is written “to you.” So why is it not written in the second verse of the verse in the Lull of his friend, and there is no disadvantage here because of “to you.” Is it a Sukkah that is used by the owner of the Sukkah, and does it mean “to you”/”to you”?
I add another difficulty that I encountered in the law of a borrowed sukkah that may be explained together with the same matter, and it is what is explained later in the tractate on page 31 that according to the method of the Sages, if a person lives in a borrowed sukkah, then the one who took the sukkah also becomes a slave because the land is not stolen (the sukkah is judged as land according to Rashi’s commentary “such as one who attacks his friend with force and removes him from his sukkah built on the land of the stolen one, and everything attached to the land is considered land”) “and it is a borrowed sukkah.” And I did not understand at all that it is certain that since it is not stolen, it is forbidden for a person to take control of his friend’s land even if it is said that the land is not stolen because his uses contradict his friend’s ownership of the land. And so it is clear that land is not stolen, that is, with regard to the body of land, since it is said that a thief does not have the right to steal land (and a thief who does not buy in desperation and change), but it is certain that the uses he makes of the land against the owner are uses that are not his right and are “stolen uses,” and so why do the Sages say 18:23?
- A son who is close to his father’s table goes out in his father’s sukkah. But a truly great son does not seem to go out according to the Rabbi. The sukkah belongs to the owner of the house, and in this “to you” is fulfilled.
- But this is only in the sukkah and not in the lulav, because the sukkah is a substitute for a house and therefore your law applies when it belongs to the father. But in the lulav, this is private property and not a place of residence, and there your law applies only if it is actually his (the son’s). Therefore, we found that it is necessary to give a lulav to his younger son, etc.
- I did not understand the question. Even if the use is considered theft, as long as the sukkah is not stolen, why would it be disqualified? After all, this is not a matter of the law of a mitzvah that results in a transgression, but rather of the law of “yours.” The fact that the person in question violates the prohibition of theft does not change anything regarding the question of whether the sukkah was stolen from him.
First of all, thank you very much!
But I still have difficulty because the definition that the Rabbi wrote in relation to question 2 seemingly cancels the explanation that the Rabbi wrote in answer to question 1.
That is, if according to the Sages, a fence “yours” in the sukkah is “my place of residence” and this can exist even in a borrowed sukkah (because even though the sukkah itself is not mine, since it is my place of residence), then the Rabbi who disqualifies even a borrowed sukkah believes that there must be substantial ownership of the sukkah itself. And so also a son who relies on his father's table will not enter his father's sukkah.
And likewise, in relation to question 3, I do not understand the Rabbi's words. Because if the Sages say “yours” Is that the sukkah will be “my place of residence”, so what they disapprove of in a stolen sukkah is a stolen sukkah, even though it is his place of residence and yet he will actually live there on the Sabbath, but rather they say; ’my place of residence” is the place where I have the right to live there.
And so also in stealing a sukkah, even though he is a thief with regard to the sukka itself, since his residence in the sukkah is not lawful and they are similar to anyone who steals wood and builds a sukkah, which even the Sages admit is not a crime?
I didn't understand the question. R”A disallows a borrowed sukkah but not a son in his father's sukkah. This is the division I proposed. The fact that the son has no financial ownership does not matter if his father does.
I explained that the sukkah should be his, and if the land is not stolen then the sukkah is his. Even if the residence is in violation, the place is his place.
By the R”A method.
“R”A invalidates a borrowed sukkah but not a son in his father’s sukkah. This is the division I proposed. The fact that the son does not have a substantial ownership does not matter if his father has one - why? Why is it considered that he has ownership? Does the rabbi mean that his father’s ownership is also important to him (“one pocket for both”)? So, too, in Lulav, we did not derive’ from the small one’s acquisition.
According to the method of the Sages.
“I explained that the sukkah should be his, and if the land is not stolen, then the sukkah is his. Even if the residence is in violation, the place is his place”. When I enter my friend’s yard, the place becomes mine? Rather, land is always under the ownership of its owner, and he does not even have the right to steal. What “place” is the rabbi referring to? To the air of the sukkah? To the place “Apartment” that has a sukkah? I don't understand what in the stolen sukkah is “borrowed” with him and not “stolen” with him. And especially why isn't the same “place” his also in stealing wood and building a sukkah?
Thank you very much!
According to the R”A:
The place of residence of his father is considered his own. In the Lulav, it is not a residence.
According to the Sages:
The Sages believe that it is borrowed, and if the land is not stolen, then it is a borrowed sukkah and it is considered his according to the Sages. The fact that the uses are in violation does not change the fact that in Haftza, it is a borrowed sukkah.
I did not understand in the Rabbi's method what the Rabbi meant by saying that being near his father's table is not a disadvantage because it is not his? And if the Rabbi meant that it is important to him since he is under his father's protection and they are "one pocket", then even with a lulav, he would not have to buy it near his father's table, since even before he bought the lulav, he was under his father's ownership and considered it his?
And in the Sages' method - what is meant by the phrase "if land is not stolen, then the sukkah is his". What is the "sukkah" that the Rabbi claims is indeed his? The space itself? The body of the sukkah's trees? The housing in the sukkah? After all, the land itself is certainly not his (and rather, he is a thief who has at least the right to steal from movables). And as for living in a sukkah, it is indeed stolen, since he has no right to use it. And a borrowed sukkah is a minus for which he has the right to live there, but here he does not use his own and does not use it lawfully.
We repeat ourselves. I explained everything. You may disagree, and that's perfectly fine.
Sorry about the last question. There was a glitch (on my part or on the site, I don't know) and my previous response didn't appear, nor did the rabbi's last response.
Thank you very much for refining things to the point!!!
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
