Q&A: A Question in Tractate Sukkah
A Question in Tractate Sukkah
Question
Blessings and peace to the honored gaon, may he live a good long life.
Last Sukkot I was asked about a case where there is one sukkah and from within it another sukkah extends outward: does one violate using it as a shortcut when going in and out for the sake of the second one? Or similarly, in a case of a sukkah standing in the middle of a public thoroughfare (for example, of a synagogue, where people regularly enter and exit through it) — where seemingly one should distinguish between the cases.
By reasoning, I said no:
A. Because the whole idea of a shortcut is disrespect, as explained by Rashi in Yoma; and what is written here, that it is because of “you shall dwell [in the sukkah] as you dwell [in your home],” is really in a case of actual dwelling. That is, the essence of a shortcut is changing from the normal route; but if this is his route, there is no disrespect, and seemingly he violates nothing. (Perhaps this principle could be expanded through the definition of “for the sake of,” as explained in the Talmudic passage in Bava Metzia regarding a worker whose employer had two fields some distance apart, whether he may hoe while walking, and it emerges that something done “for the sake of,” meaning “on the way to…,” is not prohibited, and perhaps this can be proven.)
I would be glad to know his opinion on this matter.
Many blessings,
One who esteems him according to his exalted worth
Answer
At first, when I read his words, I didn’t understand what a shortcut has to do with a sukkah. Does it have holiness? The prohibition on making use of sukkah wood is not because of holiness (aside from the initial possibility raised by the Rashba in Beitzah 30a, and even he is speaking about use of the sukkah wood as an object, not passing through it).
However, I have now looked around online and found that they have indeed already invented such a prohibition among the halakhic authorities (Rabbi Ovadia). See a survey here: https://www.srugim.co.il/217413-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%9A-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9B
But this seems absurd to me. It should be buried and not said.
Still, by the rule of “you shall dwell as you dwell [in your home],” one could argue that a person objects to others using his house as a shortcut, but that applies only to others, not to he himself. And even regarding others, if he does not object, then it is perfectly permitted, just like in his home.
And that is what seems correct to me.
Discussion on Answer
That is exactly what I wrote: for the person himself, the concept of a shortcut does not apply.
At one point I checked where the phrase “to the Lord” is said in the Torah, and found that the only place not dealing with the Temple or sacrifices is sukkah — “the festival of Sukkot to the Lord.” So there is room for the Rashba’s initial possibility. And seemingly Tosafot there as well, in Beitzah 30b s.v. “But,” indicates that the holiness of the sukkah is Torah-level, according to Rabbenu Tam in his view and Rabbi Isaac in his view.
“Still, by the rule of ‘you shall dwell as you dwell [in your home],’ one could argue that a person objects to others using his house as a shortcut, but that applies only to others, not to he himself. And even regarding others, if he does not object, then it is perfectly permitted, just like in his home.”
That is exactly what Rabbi Ovadia’s son explained as his father’s view.
As best I understand, they mean the same thing.
The prohibition is Torah-level according to almost all the medieval authorities (Rishonim), and is derived from the verbal analogy on the word “festival.” But nobody understands this as holiness, except for the Rashba there, who discusses whether inherent sanctity does not lapse on its own.
Regarding what he wrote at the end of his words: “Still, by the rule of ‘you shall dwell as you dwell [in your home],’ one could argue that a person objects to others using his house as a shortcut, but that applies only to others, not to he himself. And even regarding others, if he does not object, then it is perfectly permitted, just like in his home” —
I don’t understand what he wrote. Is there even an initial thought that there is such a thing as using one room to another as a shortcut?
He lives life in a house in the normal way, and as part of that he passes through rooms; that isn’t a “shortcut,” it’s just living…
In any case, thank you very much for his reply, as is his way.
Even though I too, the “small one,” agree with his “elevated” opinion and don’t need it for myself, still it’s not really appropriate to say “they invented,” because there is indeed some basis for comparison, though only to a very limited extent.
Awaiting salvation