Page 14 - HaMizrachi Australia Sukkot 5781

HALACHA

Pouring the Water

Rabbi Hershel Schachter

he Mishnah (Sukkah 4:9) services one would be punished for Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai that the
records that the Sadducees performing if he did so outside of the rabbis have received as part of the Oral
did not observe the practice Beit HaMikdash. According to Rebbi tradition serves to reduce the owner’s
Tof nisuch hamayim (pouring Elazar, not only is one who slaughters liability to half-damages in this case.
of the water) in the Beit HaMikdash or offers a sacrifice outside the Beit
on Sukkot, for they believed only in HaMikdash liable for karet, but also The Rosh explains that Rava realized
the Written Torah and did not accept one who performs the nisuch hamayim that the nature of Halachah LeMoshe
the traditions of the Oral Torah. On outside during Sukkot. The Gemara MiSinai is always to be lenient, to reduce
one occasion, a certain Sadduccee states, “Rebbi Elazar said [this ruling] one’s obligation. The Gemara (Sukkah
Kohen, refusing to perform the nisuch according to the opinion of Rebbi 6b) employs a similar logic in discuss-
hamayim, poured the water on his Akiva, his teacher, who said that nisuch ing how many walls are required in
feet instead of on the mizbe’ach. The hamayim is of biblical origin,” but the the construction of a sukkah – three
enraged onlookers pelted him with Gemara does not explain the interde- full walls plus a tefach to serve as the
etrogim, causing the mizbe’ach to pendence of these two teachings. fourth wall, or two full walls plus a
become damaged and unfit for use. tefach to serve as the third wall. The
Maimonides explains that if we were Rosh explains that the Halachah LeM-
The biblical source for nisuch hamayim to derive nisuch hamayim from the Oral
is a matter of dispute among the Tan- Torah exposition of Rebbi Akiva, read- oshe MiSinai always comes to detract
na’im (Ta’anit 2b–3a). One opinion ing in between the lines of the Written from the requirement of one of the full
holds that it is a Halachah LeMoshe MiSi- Torah, the punishment of karet would walls. Thus, the discussion revolves
nai, a tradition of the Oral Torah that be appropriate if nisuch were to be per- around whether a sukkah starts with
has no source in the Written Torah. It formed outside. Maimonides writes a four-wall or only a three-wall min-
cannot be derived through any of the that since, instead, nisuch hamayim is imum; the final wall is then reduced
exegetical principles through which a Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai, we do not by the Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai to mea-
the Torah is expounded. Other Tan- accept the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, and sure only the size of a tefach.
na’im disagree and do find a source in one who performs the nisuch hamayim The Kabbalists explain that the Oral
the Written Torah for nisuch hamayim. on Sukkot outside the Beit HaMikdash Torah was given with the Middat
Rebbi Yehudah ben Beteirah learns would not be liable. HaChessed (Attribute of Mercy), and
that the three letters, מ, י, and ם in leans towards more lenient positions.
ָ
the words, ם ֶהי ֵּכ ְס ִנ ְו, ָהי ֶכ ָס ְנּו, and ם ָט ּ פ ְׁש ִמ ְּכ, The Rosh makes a similar comment In contrast, the Written Torah was
respectively (Bamidbar 29:18, 31, 33), regarding the Halachah LeMoshe MiSi-
are extra and were added for exeget- nai of half-payment for damages due etched in stone, given with the Middat
ical purposes. The resulting word, to pebbles sent flying in the normal HaDin (Attribute of Judgement). Thus,
םִי ַמ, is an allusion to nisuch hamayim. course of an animal’s activity. Rava while the Written Torah demands “an
Rebbi Akiva’s source is the use of the questions whether the damage caused eye for an eye,” the Oral Torah is more
plural term ָהי ֶכ ָס ְנּו, “and its libations,” by the force generated by the animal tolerant, requiring of the assailant
a reference to a nisuch hamayim and a is generally treated as if it was caused only a monetary penalty.
A member of nisuch hayayin. directly by the body of the animal  Adapted from Rav Schachter on the Parsha.
the Mizrachi itself so that the owner should have
Speakers Bureau Maimonides interprets another Tan- been obligated in full damages, or if
mizrachi.org/ naitic dispute on the basis of this generally one’s force is not like his body
speakers debate. The Gemara (Zevachim 110b) and the owner should therefore have
discusses which of the Beit HaMikdash been totally exempt from payment
for damages. Rava concludes that the
former explanation is the correct one;
one’s force is considered Rabbi Hershel Schachter is Rosh Yeshiva
like his body. The and Rosh Kollel at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan
Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University.

14 |