Shade of Sukka
TALMUDIC
METHODOLOGY
By Rav Moshe
Taragin
Lecture
#12: Shade of
Sukka
The
gemara (2a) provides an additional reason why a sukka taller than
twenty amot is invalid, pasul. Rabbi Zeira notes that if the walls are
that high, the sekhakh no longer provides shade; instead, the shade is
provided by the towering walls.
Citing a pasuk in Yeshayahu describing an apocalyptic
sukka which will "provide shade," Rabbi Zeira claims that a sukka
whose sekhakh does not provide shade - in this instance because the walls
are too high - is pasul.
Rabbi
Zeira seems to remind us of a basic and essential part of the mitzva of
sukka. Although the
architecture and material of a sukka may be appropriate, if a person does
not sit under the SHADE of the sekhakh, he has not fulfilled the mitzva.
This may appear to be the obvious explanation for Rabbi Zeira's opinion, but an
ensuing question and retort may suggest a different view. Abaye questions Rabbi Zeira's
position: After all, he claims, a
person could theoretically sit in a sukka beneath a lofty mountain,
despite the fact that the mountain provides shade and, effectively, he does not
sit in the shade of the sekhakh.
If a sukka beneath a mountain is valid, why shouldn't a
sukka with walls higher than twenty amot be? Logically, a very simple distinction
could be offered in response. A
person must sit under man-made shelter or shade regardless of what environmental
or geological factors augment or diminish the "light source" being shaded. Just as clouds may dim the sunlight and
reduce the "effect" of the shade, mountains may as well. The only diminishing factor that would
invalidate the mitzva is a tree, since its primary purpose is precisely
that of the sekhakh, rendering the latter redundant. Similar to a tree, a towering wall that
eliminates sunlight effectively eliminates the sekhakh-reduced shade
under which the mitzva must be fulfilled.
Although
this seems to be the obvious solution, the gemara responds with what may
be a different distinction. The
gemara defends Rabbi Zeira's position by claiming that if the mountains
were removed, the sekhakh would provide shade, whereas if the walls were
removed, the sekhakh would fall and be unable to function as providing
shade. As Rashi comments, since the
sekhakh would fail in its function of shade provision in the absence of
the walls, it loses its status as sekhakh. The gemara may be suggesting a
novel approach here. The mitzva of
sukka does not have to be performed under SHADE; a person must merely sit
under SEKHAKH. However, one
of the conditions that define halakhic sekhakh is the ability to provide
shade. Once sekhakh possess
that potential, a person fulfills the mitzva solely by sitting under the
sekhakh, even if, in theory, he does not sit within its shade. Sekhakh located under a mountain
possesses the ABILITY to provide shade and is therefore deemed halakhic
sekhakh, allowing for performance of the mitzva even though the person
does not sit in the actual shade of the sekhakh. In contrast, in a sukka taller
than twenty amot, the sekhakh DEPENDS upon the walls
architecturally; the sekhakh is incapable of providing shade alone. The sekhakh requires the walls,
but those very same walls eliminate the sekhakh's shade providing
potential. Effectively, this
sekhakh no longer retains its status as sekhakh.
In
essence, we have translated one question into another. The gemara disqualifies walls
higher than twenty amot but validates sukkot near mountains. If we require the actual shade of the
sekhakh, the difference between mountains and walls lies in the former
being natural while the latter is artificial. If we do not require shade but just
shade-potential, walls - integral elements of the sukka architecture -
subvert that potential, while mountains do not.
One
issue that may be affected by this chakira concerns a sukka whose
walls are higher than twenty amot but whose sekhakh is attached to
the walls at a point lower than twenty amot. The excess walls above twenty
amot clearly "eclipse" the sekhakh, but the sekhakh is not
dependent upon these walls. Must we disqualify the sukka since the
eclipsing effect is produced by the walls and not by natural forces? Or can we
dismiss this section of the wall as irrelevant, as we do to adjacent mountains,
claiming that the integral sekhakh is valid independent of the upper
portions of the walls? Presumably, this question depends
on the differing interpretations of the difference between mountains and
towering walls. If the mountain can
be dismissed because it provides natural shade, we would not be able to claim
the same dismissal of walls towering above the sekhakh. The mitzva
demands that shade be provided by the sekhakh, and that can not occur in
this case. If, however, we dismiss
mountains because the sekhakh is not reliant on them architecturally and
can be viewed as an independent shade-producing element, we may make the same
claim about the portion of the walls higher than the sekhakh. Since the sekhakh is not
connected to these walls, it does not rely on them for support, and the
sekhakh can therefore be viewed as a self-contained shade-producing
element. If we only require that the sekhakh be CAPABLE of providing
shade INDEPENDENTLY, regardless of whether or not one actually sits in its
shade, this sukka would be valid.
This
question regarding the nature of the relationship between sekhakh and
shade and the reason that a sukka higher than twenty amot is
disqualified may be discerned in an interesting difference between the
Yerushalmi and Bavli. Each cites
the halakha, but each provides a different source for the disqualification. The Bavli cites the aforementioned pasuk
in Yeshayahu, which requires "tzel," shade. In contrast, the Yerushalmi mentions a
pasuk in Emor that teaches that a person should sit "in a sukka,"
the literal translation of the word sukka referring to the actual
sekhakh. According to the
Bavli, Rabbi Zeira may require that a person sit under actual SHADE, whereas the
Yerushalmi may only require him to sit under SHADE-CAPABLE
SEKHAKH.
The
question of the "role" of shade can be detected in a fascinating set of
explanations provided by the Tosafot (2b), s.v. yesh ba. Although a sukka higher than
twenty amot is pasul because the sekhakh does not provide
shade, the gemara allows that a sukka more than 4x4 amot
area may be as high as twenty amot since, inevitably, the sekhakh
will provide shade. Tosafot
question this claim since, at some point, excess height will once again prevent
the sekhakh from producing any shade. Tosafot answers this question in two
manners. First, they claim that as the height increases, the ratio of height to
surface area must be maintained proportionate to the twenty amot height
to 4x4 amot area ratio. For
example, if the surface area were to double to 8x8, the height could rise to 40
amot. This solution allows a
proportion that will always enable the sekhakh to provide shade. Tosafot offer a second and more
controversial approach as well. Although the height may rise, as long as the
area is AT LEAST 4x4, the sekhakh will provide a modicum of shade, even
though the primary shade is provided by the walls, and is therefore valid.
We
may certainly question the physics of Tosafot, but that aside, logically why
should a trace of shade provided by sekhakh be sufficient to validate the
ENTIRE sukka?
Perhaps
Tosafot's two replies debate our very issue - is the mitzva defined as sitting
under shade or as sitting under shade-producing sekhakh? Tosafot's first
answer views the mitzva as the former, and therefore requires that the twenty
amot high/4x4 amot surface area ratio be maintained so that the
ENTIRE shade will always be provided by the sekhakh. In their second
reply, Tosafot view the mitzva as sitting under sekhakh, not under
sekhakh's shade. Shade
capability is necessary to qualify the sekhakh as halakhic potent; if the
sekhakh is capable of providing even minor shade, it can be defined as
sekhakh, and sitting under that sekhakh constitutes fulfillment of
the mitzva. Tosafot's second answer
is more willing to suffice even with minimal shade since the shade merely
qualifies the sekhakh but is not ITSELF the object of the mitzva.
The
validation of sekhakh with minimal shade production emerges from another
interesting debate amongst the Rishonim. The Ritva questions the disqualification
of a sukka higher than twenty amot, as even in this scenario the
sekhakh provides shade at noontime, when the sun is directly
overhead. Many Rishonim
posed this question and offered a variety of creative solutions. The Ran, for example, claimed that
although the sekhakh DOES shade the sukka at noon, because the
sekhakh is so high, the shade only deters light but does not fully
shelter from heat. Sekhakh
must provide shelter from light as well as heat to be considered halakhic
sekhakh.
Although
many Rishonim wrestle with the concern of the Ritva, logically it does
not seem to be so difficult. There
may be ONE point of the day during which the sekhakh of a very tall
sukka provides shade, but in a sukka higher than twenty
amot, MOST shade-hours are provided by the walls and not the
sekhakh. At most, it would
seem, the sukka should be valid only during noontime, and perhaps not
even then, since we may define the sukka status based on the shade
production during most of the daytime hours. Why should shade production during a
small fraction of daytime be sufficient to validate this sukka? Why do
the Rishonim feel compelled to resolve this issue?
Perhaps
their logic reiterates the logic suggested by Tosafot in their second
reply. If the mitzva consists of
sitting under sekhakh, and shade production is necessary merely to
qualify the sekhakh as such, minimal and limited shade production
suffices. Tosafot suggests a very
extreme stance in this regard - even a towering sukka larger than 4x4 but
not proportional is valid since there is a trace of shade provision by the
sekhakh. Perhaps the Ritva
and the other Rishonim reject Tosafot's extremism but embrace the logic;
as long as the sekhakh provides primary shade even during a limited
time frame - we may deem the sekhakh as sekhakh and validate
sitting under it, even when the sekhakh no longer provides ANY
shade. The Ritva and others were
forced to explain why this noontime provision of shade is not sufficient to
validate the sekhakh because according to their logic, the sukka
should be valid. If, however,
we view the mitzva as sitting under the shade of sekhakh, the question
appears less compelling.
Ultimately,
the question of whether we are required to sit under actual shade or merely to
sit under sekhakh capable of providing shade is an essential question
that threads much of the discussion of the first two perakim of
Sukka. Rabbi Zeira's
contention that a twenty amot-high sukka subverts the
sekhakh and the gemara's ensuing debate underscores the centrality of
this question.