More Shade than Sunlight

Sukkah (1:1) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 years ago

This week we started learning masechet Sukkah. The Mishnah (1:1) teaches that if the sukkah has more sunlight than shade then the sukkah is invalid. We shall try to understand this law.

The Bartenura notes that if the sunlight and shade were equal, then the sukkah would be valid. He explains that this is because we are referring to the sunlight and shade on the floor of the sukkah. If the two are equal there, one can be certain that there is more schach than empty space. It would seem then that what is important is that the sukkah is mostly covered with schach. The amount of shade is simply indicative of whether that requirement has been met. Indeed this understanding aligns with the Rambam (5:19) who explains that if the amount of schach is more than the space between them, then the sukkah is valid.

Rashi (as explained by the Ran) however explains that once the shade on the floor is in the minority, it is annulled and considered as if it is not there. Rashi continues that it is invalidates the sukkah since "it is by way of the shach that the sukkah is referred to as a sukka". It would seem then that the shade is what is important. Without the required effect of the schach, the sukkah would be invalid.

The Sefat Emet brings a support for the Ran from the following question. Normally we only say that the minority is annulled in the majority when the minority is not discernible. Our Mishnah however does not appear to be a classic case of such a mixture. How then can the concept of bitul (annulment) apply in our case? The Sefat Emet explains that this why the Ran asserts that the bitul that Rashi refers to relates the sunlight and shade itself rather than the physical schach. Since sunlight and shade do not have material substance bitul is relevant in this case.

Perhaps an intermediate approach can be found in the Meiri. The Meiri explains that if the cover of schach is so light such that there is more sunlight than shade it is as if there is no schach. This approach appears to combine elements of both the above explanations. The effect, the shade, is what is important. Yet if it is insufficient, it is the schach that is annulled.

The Porat Yosef explain that a practical difference between these approaches is found in the case of a two-story sukkah. We will learn that if one makes a sukkah underneath another sukkah then the bottom sukkah is invalid. If however the top sukkah is covered with schach such that its covering and space are equal, then whether the bottom sukkah is valid depends on the different understandings above. If we say it is the schach that is annulled, then the bottom sukkah would be valid since it is not considered a sukkah that is underneath another one -- there is no schach on the top sukkah. If however the shade is what is annulled and that invalidates the schach for the top sukkah, the top sukkah is still covered albeit with invalid schach. The bottom sukkah would still be defined as a sukkah underneath another sukkah and be invalid.

Download