mazal tov!!

[daniel....@gmail.com]

with much simcha and grattitude to HKBH, debra and i would like to
announce the birth of our new daughter talia miriam popowitz. she was
born on thursday sept 20th, chet tishrei. may we all share in many
many smachot together
~dovi

[Sammy]

While looking over the halachos of sukkos I was surprised to see that
the shuchan aruch and MB are rather clear on not using canvas sukkas
(630:10). Does anyone have a source for why they are so prevelant in
our communities?

[feld]

To answer your question-no, I'm not sure why they are so prevelant.
But I think that more modern (recent) canvas sukkos have an option for
lavud straps, which I think should make them fine even acc. to the MB
(supposedly the Chazon Ish requires the entire sukkah to not be
mikabel tumah for maamid reasons, but I think that's not so mekubal
for non talmidim of the Chazon Ish)-feld

[Arye...@gmail.com]

Hi Feld!

Can you explain the Chazon Ish's sheitah? I am not sure I understand.

[aaron leibtag]

R'Neuberger told me last year that when making a canvas sukkah one
should be careful that a) there should not be 9 tefachim without a
string. in the new succah's they do have lavud straps but one can
also just tie string arond the succah every 9 tefachim. I am not sure
exactly how many inches I did. b) also I tied down the succah canvas
to the poles that it didn't flap and put some big heavy bags around
the succah. I believe that if the succah does not flap more than
three tefachim in the wind it is still considered a good wall

--

Aaron Leibtag
~~~~~~~~~~
347-463-7247

[Sammy]

Very interesting, where does 9 tefachim come from? I don't think that
I have ever heard of a shiur of nine tefachim for anything. I thought
that whole point of the lavud straps was to forget about the canvas
and create a new wall through lavud, which would require the string to
be every 3 tefachim? Also I think that even if you tie the walls
down, the MB would not be so happy because there is still the fear
that the ties would break which is the original concern.

On Sep 23, 8:54 pm, "aaron leibtag" <aleib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> R'Neuberger told me last year that when making a canvas sukkah one
> should be careful that a) there should not be 9 tefachim without a
> string. in the new succah's they do have lavud straps but one can
> also just tie string arond the succah every 9 tefachim. I am not sure
> exactly how many inches I did. b) also I tied down the succah canvas
> to the poles that it didn't flap and put some big heavy bags around
> the succah. I believe that if the succah does not flap more than
> three tefachim in the wind it is still considered a good wall
>

> On 9/23/07, feld <dr.f...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > To answer your question-no, I'm not sure why they are so prevelant.
> > But I think that more modern (recent) canvas sukkos have an option for
> > lavud straps, which I think should make them fine even acc. to the MB
> > (supposedly the Chazon Ish requires the entire sukkah to not be
> > mikabel tumah for maamid reasons, but I think that's not so mekubal
> > for non talmidim of the Chazon Ish)-feld
>
> > On Sep 23, 9:04 am, Sammy <slamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > While looking over the halachos of sukkos I was surprised to see that
> > > the shuchan aruch and MB are rather clear on not using canvas sukkas
> > > (630:10). Does anyone have a source for why they are so prevelant in
> > > our communities?
>
> --
>
> Aaron Leibtag
> ~~~~~~~~~~

> 347-463-7247- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jeremy Baran]

Did you mean 9 Tefachim or 9 inches (ie 3 Tefachim...)  Also, even if a succah is tied down, there seems to be sway in the middle of the panel, which is hard to get rid of....

 

However, in LA last year (in Yavneh) they had a canvas succah with no-flap walls, as they used a tarp like material, and put it up with bungy-cords connecting it all along the wall to the top/bottom polls.  It seems that using stretched-ellastic will greatly eliminate sway, in a way that regular string doesnt.

 

 

 

Jeremy...@gmail.com
201-774-5551

[aaron leibtag]

I think I meant 3 tefachim- you are correct

On 9/24/07, Sammy <slam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

[feld]

Savo- The following is a quote from http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/yomtov/sukkot/laws.htm:
"It is permitted to fasten the poles or frame of the succa with metal
nails or to tie them with string because these fasteners only hold
together the support (rather than providing direct support) for the
s'chach [41]. (This principle is known as maamid d'maamid) Even though
this is the minhag ha'olam, the Chazon Ish zt"l was of the opinion
that one should be stringent and not use metal nails or string [42]."
Basically, I think it's saying that the schach is being indirectly
held up by anything below it (eg-the sukkah frame). If something that
is mikabel tumah (like nails) is being maamid the frame, then there is
a maamid d'maamid of something mikabel tumah that is supporting the
schach. Acc. to everyone else, as long as the schach is not being
directly supported by something that is mikabel tumah, you're alright-
feldo

> > > our communities?- Hide quoted text -

[Jeremy Baran]

And R. Simon mentioned in a Contemporary Halacha shiur last year that if you look in the Shulchan Aruch, he paskuns LeKulah, that its ok even if the MaAmid itself is mekabel tumah. 

Some excerpts from my notes on the shiur below:

Mishnah- metal bed, like have in camp, and invert it and have schach lean on part of the bed.  TK- Ksheirah. R.y.- if couldn't stand without it, pasul

 TK- no problem.  RY- unclear, depending on reason. If ein lah kevah problem

 Mechaber- can be maamid al hamitah.

Jeremy...@gmail.com
201-774-5551

[Arye...@gmail.com]

Rav Shternbach has an interesting piece on this whole discussion.
He has a Hava Amina that any canvas wall is not going to be good even
if it sways a little bit (less than 3 tefachim) each time a ruach
metzuyah blows (which is basically ineveitable) since swaying is
mevateil the canvas from being considered a wall. He goes on to
reject this idea but quotes some rishonim who may hold like this.
Later, he mentions the reason given by Shulchan Aruch, that the
concern is that the ropes holding it together may snap. He says that
those who use a canvas sukkah must assume that if the walls are tied
very securely there there is no more concern. He, however, believes,
that it is good to be machmir and not to use them at all since SA
explained the issur as a type of gezeirah.

On Sep 24, 2:56 pm, "Jeremy Baran" <jeremy.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And R. Simon mentioned in a Contemporary Halacha shiur last year that if you
> look in the Shulchan Aruch, he paskuns LeKulah, that its ok even if the
> MaAmid itself is mekabel tumah.
>
> Some excerpts from my notes on the shiur below:
>
> Mishnah- metal bed, like have in camp, and invert it and have schach lean on
> part of the bed. TK- Ksheirah. R.y.- if couldn't stand without it, pasul
>
> TK- no problem. RY- unclear, depending on reason. If ein lah kevah problem
>
> Mechaber- can be maamid al hamitah.
>

> --
> Jeremy.Ba...@gmail.com
> 201-774-5551- Hide quoted text -

[zaw...@gmail.com]

Moadim L'Simcha to all :-)

Rav Shalom Spira actually had an interesting point, in light of this
whole discussion, regarding YU's mechitza (purple curtains) in the
main beis medrash. He thought that it was problematic, in light of
what you said, Aryeh, that any wall that can sway at all is not
considered a mechitza (there's an often-quoted machlokes Chazon Ish /
Reb Ovadya regarding whether it's ok if it only sways LESS than 3
tefachim -- interestingly, the C.I. is meikel here). Even though the
YU mechitza is not ACTUALLY swaying in the wind (since it's indoors),
since it's RAUY to sway (i.e. it COULD sway if a wind did happen to
come), it would not count as a "mechitza."

This, though, assumes like Rav Aron Soloveitchik, whom I heard quoted
as maintaining that a "mechitza" in a shul has to have the formal
definitions of a Halachic "mechitza" or "dofen." Not everyone agrees
to this assumption. Reb Moshe, for example (I believe it's IG"M O.C.
1:39) maintains that a shul mechitza must merely impede physical
movement between the men's and women's section; the Satmer Rebbe
maintains that it simply has to prevent SEEING from one side to
another, but need not be a formal "mechitza" in the classic sense of
the word. YU, though, seems to paskun like Rav Aron in this one, so
Rabbi Spira thought they should redo their mechitza.

Have a great Moed!

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Sammy]

I saw in the Piskei Tshuvos (the book with all of the random sheetas,
not the one printed in the shulchan aruch itself, I get confused
between tshuvos and tshuva) that there are a good amount of acharonim
(R' zonenfeld, moadim uzmanim...) that are melamed zchus to say that
since the canvas succas that we use nowadays are tied down well on all
four sides of each wall, that would address the concern of the M.B.
that the ties would become undone. So as long as you tie it down well
so that it moves less than three tefachim from a normal wind, it would
be OK. I don't remember if the YU machizas are tied down on all sides
so we may have to add the mechizas to the list of the things that the
Chazon Ish would not have approved in YU.

Some other interesting points regarding Sukkos, for next year I guess:

1. I heard in the name of R' Elyashiv that if a person has a son who
is over gil chinuch but under bar mitzva, the son gets precedance over
a guest that is over bar mitzvah if there is a limited space in the
sukkah to eat! The reason given was that the ba'al habayis has to take
care of his own chiyuv of chinuch before worrying about someone else's
chiuv of sukkah, even though that other person is his guest.

2. There is an interesting issue of a traveler on sukkos and his
chiuv of eating in the sukkah. The shulchan aruch paskins like the
gemara in Sukkah (26a) that says that if a person travels for business
on sukkos, he does not have to eat in the sukkah while he is
traveling. So if he travels by day, he does not have to eat in the
sukkah during the day, he just has to find one for the night. The
Rama adds that he does not even have to eat in the sukkah at night if
he can't find one. I was wondering last year if a person goes to work
on chol hamoed and does not have a sukkah near by, how far does he
have to go to find a sukkah to eat lunch? Can he be considered part
of the din of holchei drachim? Yossi and I emailed R' Balenson and
he did not think that this was holchei drachim, but did not explain
why. I still don't fully understand it. R' Moshe has a tshuva about
going on a stam tiyul on chol hamoed, and says that if you can't find
a sukkah where you want to go, you should not go on the trip. He says
that the holchei drachim case was only talking about a person who
needs it for parnasa. He seems to limit how much emphasis we put on
the concept of teishvu k'ein taduru. So it would not be totally
mestaber to say that since a person eats out of his house when he goes
to work during the year, he does not have a chiuv sukkah when he goes
to work on sukkos. This may be where R' Balenson was coming from. I
would appreciate any input.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I wanted to keep IChabura going while
everyone else was celebrating Simchas Torah!

On Sep 30, 12:21 am, zaw2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Moadim L'Simcha to all :-)
>
> Rav Shalom Spira actually had an interesting point, in light of this
> whole discussion, regarding YU's mechitza (purple curtains) in the
> main beis medrash. He thought that it was problematic, in light of
> what you said, Aryeh, that any wall that can sway at all is not
> considered a mechitza (there's an often-quoted machlokes Chazon Ish /
> Reb Ovadya regarding whether it's ok if it only sways LESS than 3
> tefachim -- interestingly, the C.I. is meikel here). Even though the
> YU mechitza is not ACTUALLY swaying in the wind (since it's indoors),
> since it's RAUY to sway (i.e. it COULD sway if a wind did happen to
> come), it would not count as a "mechitza."
>
> This, though, assumes like Rav Aron Soloveitchik, whom I heard quoted
> as maintaining that a "mechitza" in a shul has to have the formal
> definitions of a Halachic "mechitza" or "dofen." Not everyone agrees
> to this assumption. Reb Moshe, for example (I believe it's IG"M O.C.
> 1:39) maintains that a shul mechitza must merely impede physical
> movement between the men's and women's section; the Satmer Rebbe
> maintains that it simply has to prevent SEEING from one side to
> another, but need not be a formal "mechitza" in the classic sense of
> the word. YU, though, seems to paskun like Rav Aron in this one, so
> Rabbi Spira thought they should redo their mechitza.
>
> Have a great Moed!
>

> On Sep 24, 1:03?pm, AryehS...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rav Shternbach has an interesting piece on this whole discussion.
> > He has a Hava Amina that any canvas wall is not going to be good even
> > if it sways a little bit (less than 3 tefachim) each time a ruach
> > metzuyah blows (which is basically ineveitable) since swaying is

> > mevateil the canvas from being considered a wall. ?He goes on to

> > reject this idea but quotes some rishonim who may hold like this.
> > Later, he mentions the reason given by Shulchan Aruch, that the
> > concern is that the ropes holding it together may snap. He says that
> > those who use a canvas sukkah must assume that if the walls are tied

> > very securely there there is no more concern. ?He, however, believes,

> > that it is good to be machmir and not to use them at all since SA
> > explained the issur as a type of gezeirah.
>
> > On Sep 24, 2:56 pm, "Jeremy Baran" <jeremy.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And R. Simon mentioned in a Contemporary Halacha shiur last year that if you
> > > look in the Shulchan Aruch, he paskuns LeKulah, that its ok even if the
> > > MaAmid itself is mekabel tumah.
>
> > > Some excerpts from my notes on the shiur below:
>
> > > Mishnah- metal bed, like have in camp, and invert it and have schach lean on

> > > part of the bed. ?TK- Ksheirah. R.y.- if couldn't stand without it, pasul
>
> > > ?TK- no problem. ?RY- unclear, depending on reason. If ein lah kevah problem
>
> > > ?Mechaber- can be maamid al hamitah.

>
> > > On 9/24/07, feld <dr.f...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Savo- The following is a quote from
> > > >http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/yomtov/sukkot/laws.htm:
> > > > "It is permitted to fasten the poles or frame of the succa with metal
> > > > nails or to tie them with string because these fasteners only hold
> > > > together the support (rather than providing direct support) for the
> > > > s'chach [41]. (This principle is known as maamid d'maamid) Even though
> > > > this is the minhag ha'olam, the Chazon Ish zt"l was of the opinion
> > > > that one should be stringent and not use metal nails or string [42]."
> > > > Basically, I think it's saying that the schach is being indirectly

> > > > held up by anything below it (eg-the sukkah frame). ?If something that

> > > > is mikabel tumah (like nails) is being maamid the frame, then there is
> > > > a maamid d'maamid of something mikabel tumah that is supporting the

> > > > schach. ?Acc. to everyone else, as long as the schach is not being

> > > > directly supported by something that is mikabel tumah, you're alright-
> > > > feldo
>
> > > > On Sep 23, 6:59 pm, AryehS...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Hi Feld!
>
> > > > > Can you explain the Chazon Ish's sheitah? I am not sure I understand.
>
> > > > > On Sep 23, 8:03 am, feld <dr.f...@juno.com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > To answer your question-no, I'm not sure why they are so prevelant.
> > > > > > But I think that more modern (recent) canvas sukkos have an option for
> > > > > > lavud straps, which I think should make them fine even acc. to the MB
> > > > > > (supposedly the Chazon Ish requires the entire sukkah to not be
> > > > > > mikabel tumah for maamid reasons, but I think that's not so mekubal
> > > > > > for non talmidim of the Chazon Ish)-feld
>
> > > > > > On Sep 23, 9:04 am, Sammy <slamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > While looking over the halachos of sukkos I was surprised to see
> > > > that
> > > > > > > the shuchan aruch and MB are rather clear on not using canvas sukkas
>

> > > > > > > (630:10). ?Does anyone have a source for why they are so prevelant

[Arye...@gmail.com]

Baruch shekaveinu!
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/10/canvas-sukkah.html

[Jeremy Baran]

Currently, living in Pittsburgh and attending shiurim by the Rosh Kollel of the local Lakewood Kollel, I hear more of The Rav's Torah than I did at YU.  Tonight, the Rav's opinion on shul mechitsos was discussed, reminding me of this ichabura exchange of yesteryear.

A resolve was suggested regarding an apparent contradiction in The Rav's pesakim: 1- Besha'aas hadechak, one can rely on a mechitsa being only 10 tefachim tall to separate women from men for davening in a shul (Rav Henken also paskined this way), and 2- Quoted by RHS in Nefesh HaRav, that a mechitsa can be erected between men and women in a shul on Shabbos.   

Difficulties:

A- If all that is fundamentally needed is a halachik barier of 10 tefachim, why is that only be'dieved, and not le'chatchilca?

B- If the mechitsa needed for davening is a formal halachik wall (which the first p'sak implies),  then constructing such a wall should be forbidden on Shabbos (at least because of the problem of erecting a "mechitsa materes" on Shabbos).  

C- If the din a of a shul mechitza doesn't require a formal wall, and only serves as a barrier (as Rav Moshe and the Satmar Rav undersood), then it's difficult to understand why the shiur is 10 tefachim, that of a "halachik wall".

The Rosh Kollel quoted from the sefer Marei Habazak who suggests the following.  Perhaps Rav Henken (and by extension, The Rav) fundamentally agreed that the shul mechitsa need only serve as a functional barrier, without the formal halachik requirements of a wall (ie a hanging curtain suffices). However, such a mechitsa is only required to separate between men and women when they are both within "one domain."  A 10-tefach wall, however, creates two totally separate halachik domains, thus obviating the technical need for the barrier-mechitsa.  It's like a shul having floor to ceiling transparent windows; even if women walk past outside the windows, they are in a totally separate domain.

The reason this only should be employed be'shaas ha'dechak, is because it skirts around the halacha of mechitsa in a shul, but doesn't effectively address the underlying issue.

May all of ichaburu experience a Kesiva veChasim Tova!

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iChabura" group.
To post to this group, send email to Cha...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Chabura-u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Chabura?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---