More Discussions for this daf
1. Translations 2. Mavoy vs. Sukah 3. Walls of the Sukah
4. Shade 5. Iron walls 6. 7 Sons
7. Tashbetz 8. Rashi's Mention of Ananei Kavod 9. Isur d'Oraisa?
10. Source That Sukah Must Provide Shade 11. Shade Of Sukah Above 20 Amos 12. Torah sh'Ba'al Peh before Torah sh'Bichtav
13. Shitas Tosfos in Definition of Keva 14. What is it? 15. Sukah 4 X 4
16. mitzvah of sukah 17. Story of Queen Helene 18. Sukah with mirrors
19. A filled-in Sukah 20. Mavoy

Menachem Weiman asks:

At the top of amud beis, Rashi says that the other rabbanim don't agree with Rabbah because they hold the pasuk is referring to the knowledge that we were surrounded with "annaney kavod".

Yet on daf yud alef amud beis near the bottom we see its a machlokes over whether we were surrounded by annaney kavod or sukkos mamash. Why is Rashi only mentioning one opinion?

Menachem Weiman, St. Louis, MO usa

The Kollel replies:

(a) That is an excellent question, Menachem, you were Mechaven to the Aruch La'ner (end of first piece on Daf 12a) - who answers Al Derech ha'Pilpul (that this is the basis of the argument between Rabah and the others). In fact, Rashi on 2a (DH Lema'an Yed'u) already mentions that, at its simplest level, the verse is alluding to the Ananei Kavod (and not Sukos Mamash - which contradicts the Aruch La'ner's Pilpul, by the way). That is also what Rashi writes in his Perush on the Torah (Vayikra 23:43) - and the Mizrachi wonders, as you did, why he chose that opinion - and that is also what the Targumim say on that verse (as Rashi cites on 11b). By the way, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC #625) also cite the opinion of Ananei Kavod when discussing the Mitzvah of Sukah.

As a matter of fact, even the Gemara that you referred too takes it for granted that the verse is alluding to Ananei Kavod (and not Sukos Mamash) - until it brings a Beraisa to show that there is a dissenting opinion. Apparently, Ananei Kavod is the simpler meaning of the verse. Why is that?

(b) I think that a careful reading of the two Rashis on 2a and 2b reveals the reason - which is also explicit in Rabeinu Bachyei and the Mizrachi (Vayikra ibid.). The word "Hoshavti" implies that Hash-m made the Sukos for the Jews. If the verse refers to the Sukos that the Jews built (or that we build today, as Rabah contends on Daf 2a), we will have to read the word "Hoshavti" figuratively - I 'caused' to sit, or I 'required' to sit (see Rashi there).

The Vilna Gaon (Shulchan Aruch OC #625) points out that although Rebbi Akiva says that the verse is referring to Sukos Mamash, all of the Amora'im and many Midrashim seem to follow the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, who contends that the verse refers to Ananei Kavod - after which the Gaon refers us to the Rashi that you found, here on 2b!

(c) It seems clear from numerous Midrashic sources that there indeed were Ananei Kavod surrounding the Jews in the desert (see for example Yevamos 72a). If there were Ananei Kavod, and the simple meaning of the verse is that Hash-m made the Sukos for the Jews, then why should Rebbi Akiva (in Sukah 11b) say that the verse 'Hoshavti...' refers to Sukos Mamash?

I think Rebbi Akiva also agrees that Hoshavti refers to the Ananei Kavod. What bothered him is that our material Sukos can't remind us of a cloud cover. For this reasno he explains that the Pasuk is referring to both Ananei Kavod and actual Sukos. Our Sukos are meant to remind us of actual Sukos, and through that of the broader Ananei Kavod that surrounded the encampment of the Jews.

If so, Rashi is justified in mentioning the Ananei Kavod in our Gemara. The simple reading of the verse is indeed referring to the clouds that Hash-m made , according to all of the Tana'im.

After searching a bit, I found that Hagaon Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit'a, our Rav, also suggests that Rebbi Akiva is just adding to Rebbi Elazar's understanding and not arguing with him (Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 5:204).

Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld