Q&A: The Definition of the Condition for Sekhakh
The Definition of the Condition for Sekhakh
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I worked out a brief line of reasoning in the passage in tractate Sukkah, and I wanted to ask what you think.
According to Rashi’s approach in the case of a sukkah under a tree, it is explained that when the intrinsically valid sekhakh is not sufficient, one may bend the tree branches over and nullify them within it, and if it now turns out that its shade exceeds its sunlight, the sekhakh is valid.
Seemingly, it follows from here that nullification by majority transforms the minority into having the same status as the majority (even though this is not regular nullification by majority; I’m not sufficiently familiar with the passage). I thought to reject that and say that this is not necessary, because one could say that the conditions for the validity of sekhakh are not positive requirements, but only disqualifications; and therefore here the sekhakh is merely nullified from what it had been and remains “neutral,” and therefore valid. Is that possible?
Answer
Rashi’s specific view is that one does not need a majority of valid sekhakh. It is enough that there not be a majority of invalid sekhakh. Therefore, an even split is valid. The later authorities infer from his words at the beginning of tractate Sukkah that even a minority would be valid were it not nullified by the majority of sunlight. The only reason that “its sunlight exceeds its shade” is disqualifying is that it nullifies the minority shade. Therefore, according to Rashi’s view, one cannot infer from here anything about the parameters of nullification by majority. The later authorities discuss this at the beginning of tractate Sukkah.
Discussion on Answer
The reasoning you suggested depends on what I wrote, that is, on the question whether a valid majority is required or whether it is enough that there not be an invalid majority.
If I understood correctly, according to the Rabbi’s explanation, the reason that in the case where he mixed in the tree branches there is valid sekhakh is that there is a minority of valid sekhakh, and there is no majority of sunlight to nullify it?
And what about the actual reasoning I suggested? [Afterward I saw in Har Tzvi, Yoreh De'ah 93, that he discusses something somewhat similar, distinguishing between a mixture of matzah among a majority of supervised matzot, and a mixture of a vessel belonging to a non-Jew that requires immersion among a majority of Jewish vessels].