Page 292 - Chayei Adam LAYOUT sivan 5782

Chayei Adam - K’lal 146 - Laws of the Succah

that he lent him the property for seven days, nevertheless it isn’t considered
Reuvein’s land, but rather Shimon’s. 197 The takana for teshuva also doesn’t apply
that we should tell Shimon to pay Reuvein for the wood as this enactment was
only made when the thief stole and exerted himself to build a house or a succah,
but not when one steals a ready made succah.

]42[ For this reason, it is forbidden to build a succah on a public road, for even
if we would say that Jews would forgo their rights to the road, non-Jews also own
rights in the public roads and if so, he is stealing from the non-Jews who certainly
don’t forgo [their rights to the road]. 198 Even according to those who permit
property stolen from non-Jews, 199 the road certainly doesn’t meet the criterion of
being ‘yours’. Even though we hold that land cannot be stolen and if so, by Torah
law, he does fulfill his obligation, [nevertheless] he cannot recite the beracha on
sitting in a succah, since it isn’t really his. [However] the Elya Rabba permits
reciting a beracha under extenuating circumstances, such as if he has no other
succah to sit in.

םדו רשב

197. Tosfos (Succah 31a) suggests a case of codifying this halacha, implying that our
a stolen succah with which one would not reading of Tosfos is indeed correct; since the
fulfill his obligation, and that is, if Reuven built land was merely borrowed for a week, it still
a succah on Shimon’s property with his belongs to Shimon and by taking over the
permission, and Shimon subsequently threw succah, Shimon has stolen it and does not
him out and used it. In this case, the succah fulfill his obligation when sitting in that succah
has been stolen but not the land, which (Magen Avraham).
already belongs to Shimon. The Bach however,
adjusts Tosfos to read ‘without his permission’, 198. The Ohr Zarua writes that if one builds
meaning that if Shimon had granted a succah on a public road and sits in it, he
permission, the land would be considered fulfills his obligation, however, from the Ohr
Reuven’s for the duration of Succos, and, since Zarua’s own wording, the Darkei Moshe
the succah is connected to it, it also cannot be deduces that this is only b’dieved, but one
stolen (Magen Avraham). The Rema however, should not l’chatchila build a succah on a
omits the words ‘without permission’ when public road, and offers support from a story

292