Dear Kollel,

Allow me to share some insights on a sugya in Succah. During the second day of succos I was studying pg 31a of sucah and coincidentally

saw a sicha from the Lubavitcher Rebbie z"l on the subject.( volume 19- page 348 ff). He discusses a point made by the Alter Rebbie (AR) in the Shulchan Oruch Horav about sheulah. I have included the short chapter from the AR's SA and underlined the key words in a PDF attachment. So, please study it before reading further to appreciate the discussions.

The AR in 637:3 says "Yotzeh adam besuccah sheulah DE'KEVON SHENICHNAS LOH BIRSHUS HAREI HI KESHELO. The Lubavitcher Rebbie z"l

(LR) discusses if so then why do we not apply the same idea to lulav and say that we accomplish lochem the way we accomplish lecho by succah. The Rebbie proceeds to show a source to this language in the levush and demonstrates that the point "Harei hi keshlo" is precise and key to the AR's understanding of that sugyah by inferences made from the other texts in the chapter. It is obvious if you read the PDF.

The answer he gives is that we derive from "hoezroch" that lecho only

means gezulah and sheulah makes it his (lecho0. This gezeras hakosuv

(hoezroch) we do not have by lulav so shoul is out also. Thus, the

question is answered.

I would like to take up another point. Why caused the AR (levush) to

make this point . Why could a person not be yotzeh with a sucah sheulah

as a sheulah. Maybe, hoezroch tells us we do not really need "sheloch".

The "sheloch" is only to remove gezulah. (Why we do not use mitzvah

haboh baaverah for this is discussed in tosfos pg 9a as well as other

rishonim. See Ritvah) In fact, Rav Soloveitchik(RS) as quoted in the

Rehimos Shiurim by R. Reichman debates this point. Does hoezroch make

it lecho or restrict its application. Is sheulah kosher without lecho

or does it make it lecho. RS brings a proof from hatokef chaveroh.

Since karka enoh nigzeles and we are yotzeh it shows we do not need

lecho. How does he know this?

There is a key sheeloh that the Sefas Emes (SE) raises which I would

like to address. How can one be yotzeh if he drives out a person from

his succah. Shoel shelo midaas gazlon. True, karkah eno nigzels but he

still was not granted permission. It should therefore remain not

gezelah nor sheeloh. After all, sheeloh is also a kinyon of a form. In

Baba Metziah ownership issues are shown. The initial owner cannot even

ask it back during the agreed upon time of the bailment. So, how is

yotzeh. Also, let me add the following two points. (1) Sheeloh has to

have a time. There is no time specified. (2) What if someone built a

succah a few years earlier (and it is made kosher by following the

specifications in SA from the Sugya on pg 9a). In this case Yiush will

take place. See tosfos on 30b. He brings from keloim that yiush will

work after a long enough period. It would not be gezulah but avudah.

See Reb Chayim on the Rambam by avodim. So, driving out is a strange

kind of borrowing.

The SE brings the rivash who is machmir by a succah of partners and

mekil on sheulah. (The LR brings this Rivash in a footnote) Lecho means

that someone owns it. Shutfin are excluded because no one owns it. And,

so if someone drives out the owner since karka eno nigzeles-he is

yotzeh.

I believe that the AR was addressing this issue. The gezeras hakosuv makes it lecho mamosh. It cannot become a sheulah baal korcho. Sheulah

baal korcho is shoeel shelo midaas which accomplishes nothing. Hoezroch makes it lecho mamosh. It is an exception.

In halacha 3 the AR brings the case of driving a person from his

succah. I would like to note that the AR in the quote I brought in the

2nd paragraph uses the words "birshus" with permission. This raises a

flag on what I have written. How can "being driven out" be a sheeulah

if permission is required. But, this question is on the AR regardless

of any interpretation. My gut feeling is that when this is answered my

short essay will survive. So, I will send it out with the usual-zorich

iyun.

A gutten moed,

Rabbi Beilin

The reason that the Sefas Emes(SE) is not acceptable is that it is a doveor mechudad but not lehalacha. See the SE where it comes out that 2 shutfim are worse than a shoel. This is beacause it is not meyuchad to only one. But, we pasken that shutfim can also use a succah. This is why I believe that we have to search for other answers.