Page 20 - HaMizrachi #33 Sukkot 2021 USA

Pouring the Water

Rabbi Hershel Schachter

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

20 |