Maharil on Maamid

While we are on the topic of Maharil on Succot, we should not an important Maharil on the chumra, or else halacha, of maamid -- that the schach should not be supported by anything which is mekabel tumah. Maharil considers this requirement to be without foundation, for reasons he explains. Of course, halacha may develop or conclude not in accordance with Maharil. Another interesting aspect of this -- the basis is the Rif, and Maharil reveals that he was not in possession of a Rif, and finally was able to determine what their error was in understanding the Rif when he finally got his hands on one.

And a bit about the sefer. Shu"t Maharil, where the following is from, was actually written by the Maharil. In contrast, the more influential sefer Maharil on Minhagim (mentioned in the previous post about Maharil and burning aravot which had covered the succah) was written by a student, based on derashot given by the Maharil and heard by the student.

While I am at it, I might as well record the subsequent teshuva, which is also of interest. It is about using Shabbos belts, for keys made of iron, or silver.

Here is my rough translation of Maharil on maamid (page 80)

A succah in which the sechach is supported with something which is susceptible to ritual impurity, there are those of our Sages who ruled in this land to prohibit, and so did their students rule after them. And from the day that this was related to me that such was ruled in the name of the Alfasi {=the Rif}, I was extremely astounded, for I learned carefully in Asheri {=piskei haRosh} that it was permitted. And I asked them, "if so, how can they place the supports of the sechach upon the window of a wall, which is connected to the ground, or a wall of stones, and many the like?" And they did not answer me anything.

{The implication is that maamid of maamid would be the same; and further that there are two aspects of kosher schach -- it cannot be makebel tumah and cannot be mechubar lekarka, and if one aspect is invalid for maamid, so should the other.}

And in like manner to this the Rosh asked. And I was not able to investigate where the support for this was, until there was directed to my hand today the sefer haAlfasi {=the Rif}, and I found there from where this ruling came. For in the Mishna, Rabbi Yuda and the Sages argue about one who supports {somech} his succah with the legs of a bed, and the Sages permit. And Rav Alfes rules like Rabbi Yehuda. {See here on my Rif blog, in Rif Succah 10a, on Succah 21b -- there is an image of the daf as well, though the Baal HaMaor is very difficult to see.}

And in the gemara, two different Amoraim give explanations, one because he supported it with something which is susceptible to ritual impurity {but one giving a different reason}. And Rav Alfes does not bring the reasons, but Maharaz {=Baal HaMaor, Rabbi Zerachiah ben Isaac Ha-Levi Gerondi} writes in his commentary this reason only, and they learned from there the laws of Succah, and they thought that this is the reason of Rabbi Yuda. And because of this, they ruled to forbid, and they tie the supports of the succah with ropes, and pegs of wood, and leave off pegs of iron.

However, my humble opinion is not so. For the majority of the Geonim ruled like the Sages {and not as the Rif ruled like Rabbi Yehuda}. And even according to Rabbi Yehuda, other Amoraim explain a different reason, and that other reason is the primary one, as the Rosh proves. And so did all my teachers conduct themselves, and there is no doubt here.

And Maharaz {=Baal HaMaor} who wrote this reason, it is because it is the first one, and simpler, that he took it.

But your reason, that all goes after the support, it is not so. For that is stated about that which supports a vessel to receive liquid, which is what Rabbi Meir deals with in the first perek of Shabbat, and we establish like him. But whether the support is the primary part of the vessel, this is a dispute of Rabbi Nechemiah and the Sages in perek Bameh Isha {also in Shabbat}, and their topic is not relevant to here, and we do not learn from there to the matter of Succah, which is attached. And there, they argue in the matter of a vessel, which is the primary part of the vessel. And in the matter of a ring which is attached to a house, he said that it is nullified in respect to the house, and behold it is like it, and we do not go after the support.

And that which you have written that the Mordecha and Rabbi Shmuel require one to wait until midnight {presumably if it is raining}, this is a teshuva of Maharam. But I did not see our teachers conducting themselves so, but rather at the time of eating, we go after that time as is implied in the language of the others of our Rabbis, that a person should assess himself, if he would go out of his house because of pain {/annoyance, aggravation} such as this, such as in the gloss {Hagah} in Maimoni.

And at the top of the next page (pg 81) is the teshuva about Shabbos belts. Note that the siman brought for it is in Melachim Aleph, 20:11:

יא וַיַּעַן מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר דַּבְּרוּ, אַל-יִתְהַלֵּל חֹגֵר כִּמְפַתֵּחַ.

11 And the king of Israel answered and said: 'Tell him: Let not him that girdeth on his armour boast himself as he that putteth it off.'

with a great pun, and a rereading of choger as chagor, and kimfateach as bemafteach. Heh.

Enjoy:








Note: These are important halachic sources, and are relevant to halacha. But don't rely on these posts, by themselves, as halacha lemaaseh.

Covering One's Succah With the Arba Minim? pt iv

See previous posts in the series. part i, part ii, part iii.

In an earlier post in this series, I noted the practice mentioned in the sefer Minhagim of the Maharil, of children burning aravot taken off the top of succahs on Simchat Torah. This shows that they covered the succah with aravot. Perhaps this means the walls, but see the next quote, from earlier in the sefer, where it is clear that the aravot were for sechach.

Taken from the relevant page in that sefer, available here (pg 105), is the text of the Maharil. He addresses the potential halachic problems with the practice of these children, and why it is not problematic.

The Maharil says: That which the youths take an aravah {willow} and burn it on Simchat Torah, it is a good minhag for the joy of Yom Tov. And there is not in it an issue of taking down {unbuilding} a tent, if they take down the Succah, for it is not called setirah to make one liable unless {J: reading ach instead of af} one takes down for the purpose of building. And also the burning is not forbidden, even though it is not for cause {letzorech}, for there is no Biblical prohibition, for we are experts in the establishing of the moon, and only the first day of Yom Tov {Shemini Atzeres} is Biblical, and {yet} is is the custom of our fathers in our hands to make a second day of Yom Tov {Simchas Torah}. And furthermore, only the minors are doing this, and we are not required to separate them {from doing it}, just as by a minor who is eating neveilot {improperly slaughtered meat}, Bet Din need not separate them {from it}. And so did Maharam permit minors to drink the wine of kiddush in shul, even though there is no kiddush except in the place of the meal. Both those subject to the commandments {Benei Mitzvah, non-minors} are not acting appropriately, to take down and to burn the fire.

And so he said, that his father, Maharam {=Moshe} Segal {Segan Leviim} would protest, in the days of his youth, that they should not take down any Succah nor burn the fire on Simchat Torah.

{IIRC, in the critical edition of Maharil I was reading, or elsewhere in the Maharil, it was brought down that despite this position of his father, Maharil would specifically make sure children would take from his succah for this purpose, perhaps because this way they would not be committing theft as well, by taking aravot which did not belong to them and which the owners were not OK with them taking. But I would have to look back in that edition.

As Lurker points out, and as the Jewish Week article mentioned,

"At the end of the holiday, Samaritans burn the sukkah’s branches."

}


A bit earlier in the book (pg 101), we have clear reference to the arava, where he says "lehachazik et ha'aravah."

Note: Even though this is a halachic source, and does not contain any {or much} of my own contributions, not to be taken halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Covering One's Succah With the Arba Minim?

The Jewish Week had an interesting picture, recently, in honor of Succot. It showed Samaritans making their Succah.

As the article notes,

The Samaritans, thought to be descendants of Jews who were not sent into exile when the Assyrians conquered the land in the eighth century BCE, erect their sukkot inside their homes, with no separate walls, decorating the tops with all sorts of seasonal fruit, especially the Four Species that mainstream Jews shake during the holiday.

Some of the practice may be attributed to the fact that Samaritans do not accept the Oral Law, and thus will often interpret pesukim differently than we do. Thus, they are decorating the to
They make the roof of the Succah out of local seasonal fruits. This likely stems from interpreting velakachtem lachem as referring to the construction material for the schach, rather than as a mitzvah of Netilat Lulav.

Another aspect developed for another reason. Note they are building their Succah indoors, within their house. This is not due to some alternate intepretation of a pasuk, but rather because the outdoor Succah brought the wrath of local Arabs. See the article for more details.

What of this strange practice, of making a Succah from local produce?

Devarim 16:13 states:

יג חַג הַסֻּכֹּת תַּעֲשֶׂה לְךָ, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים: בְּאָסְפְּךָ--מִגָּרְנְךָ, וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ.

13 Thou shalt keep the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that thou hast gathered in from thy threshing-floor and from thy winepress.

which Chazal interpret that the Succot (and specifically the schach) should be made from בְּאָסְפְּךָ .מִגָּרְנְךָ, וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ

Meanwhile, a pasuk in Vayikra 23 states:

מ וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, וַעֲנַף עֵץ-עָבֹת, וְעַרְבֵי-נָחַל; וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.

40 And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.

I personally believe that pashut peshat in the pasuk is exactly what we do, waving the lulav bundle (perhaps just as earlier in the perek there was an omer hatenufa).

However, perhaps one could interpret this as taking this produce for the purpose of building the succah.

The twist here is in Nechemiah 8:15, when they make a Succot festival.

יד וַיִּמְצְאוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה, אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסֻּכּוֹת בֶּחָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי.	14 And they found written in the Law, how that the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;
טו וַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ, וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל-עָרֵיהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר--צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת: לַעֲשֹׂת סֻכֹּת, כַּכָּתוּב. {פ}	15 and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying: 'Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.' {P}
טז וַיֵּצְאוּ הָעָם, וַיָּבִיאוּ, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם סֻכּוֹת אִישׁ עַל-גַּגּוֹ וּבְחַצְרֹתֵיהֶם, וּבְחַצְרוֹת בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים--וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם, וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר אֶפְרָיִם.	16 So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the broad place of the water gate, and in the broad place of the gate of Ephraim.

Troubling is the words צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת: לַעֲשֹׂת סֻכֹּת. The implication is that they took all these items to make booths, rather than taking them to wave. And of the things taken were וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת, which certainly sounds like things in the lulav bundle. But then, there is also the עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן. Perhaps we can associate the latter with the instruction of Devarim, of the produce of the goren and yekev, such that also oil pressings would be included?

At any rate, it would certainly seem at first glance that they are interpreting the pesukim in Vayikra to mean taking this produce to make the walls or the schach, with velakachtem in Vayikra being expressed by וְהָבִיאוּ.

Three ready answers:
3) To make "sukkot" means to make the festival of succot, the chag hasukkot, rather than the physical structures.
2) Just as we say by other instances, a Navi paskening halacha only has the status of a talmid chacham but not that of a Navi. And if they interpret pesukim that way, fine, but we have Tannaim who are batrai who interpreted the pesukim differently.
3) This is difficult to say, given that Ezra is supposed to be the scribe teaching all of Israel, but the pasuk 15 states וַיִּמְצְאוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. If we read this together with a literal reading of the later declaration that they had not had such a sukkot since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun (pasuk 17), then we could just they that they were simply ignorant, and did not know the correct interpretation of the pasuk.

Here is how Rashi interprets that pasuk in Nechemiah:

The pasuk:

15. And that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, "Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves and leaves of oil trees, myrtle leaves, date palm leaves, and leaves of plaited trees, to make booths, as it is written."

Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.'
וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת: לַעֲשֹׂת סֻכֹּת, כַּכָּתוּב

And Rashi's comments:
And that they should announce And they commanded that they announce that they celebrate the Festival of Sukkoth, and so it is customary for Scripture to speak in this manner, like (I Sam. 9:27): “Tell the servant and he will go ahead of us.”
myrtle leaves וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס -- It is explained in Tractate Succah (12a) that this is a wild myrtle which is unfit for the lulav and only fit to make a sukkah.
date palm וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים -- leaves for a lulav.
and leaves of plaited trees וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת -- This is the myrtle that is fit for the lulav as is explained in Tractate Succah (ad loc.).

That gemara in Succah is here. The objection is that וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת is understood to be hadas, but the pasuk in Nechemiah already mentioned וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס. So one is therefore the עלי הדס.

But is that all that Rashi is doing here? Explaining the seeming repetition of myrtle? Or by lelulav וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים, for "for a lulav," and "myrtle fit for a lulav," is he stating some sort of dual role -- some of these items for a lulav, and some of these items for the sechach? It seems quite possible, in my estimation. But the one who suggests this dual role is Metzudat David. See inside for this, and for how he parses the pasuk.

Here is a link to the relevant page in a Mikraos Gedolos of Nechemiah. And the relevant meforshim are pictured to the right. Clicking on the picture will make it bigger and thus more readable.

So what now? Since the Samaritans have followed a literalist interpretation of the pesukim, I feel the urge to come out saying that we should avoid using these items for schach, not because they would be invalid for schach, but rather kedei lehotzi milibam shel Tzedukim.

Except I do not think there really is that much danger of us being drawn after the Samaritans in this day and age. On the other hand, Neo-Literalism and rejection of Chazal might be on the rise.

I would note that the article notes (about a different picture, not shown even there):

Two residents of Mea Shearim, below, drag palm tree branches to line the top of their sukkah.

Indeed, my year in Israel, in Har Nof, I recall dragging large palm branches to cover the Succah. And in Nechemiah, perhaps we are reading (or perhaps not) this that they used hadasim to cover their Succah, and maybe others of the arba minim as well. And a few weeks ago, I was reading in the sefer of Minhagim of the Maharil about how they covered their Succot in Aravot, which the children would burn in festivities at the end of Succot. So it is difficult to suggest this seriously. I don't know. But an interesting topic, nonetheless.

Note: Not intended halacha lemaaseh.