Shiur summary (draft from the recording)
Changing sukkos and using another's sukkah
יוצאין מסוכה לסוכה
Sukkah 27a · Wednesday, January 21, 2026
The sugya
Continuing the machlokes of R' Eliezer and the Chachamim after the story of Agrippa's apotropos. First, the braisa on going from one sukkah to another and building a sukkah on Chol HaMoed. R' Eliezer learns 'sukkah ha-ra'uyah l'shiv'ah' and the Rabbanan learn 'asei sukkah b'chag'. Then the braisa comparing lulav to sukkah: for R' Eliezer, lachem and lecha both require one's own; the Chachamim derive from 'kol ha'ezrach' that all Yisrael can sit in one sukkah, explained with Rashi's point about ownership of a shaveh prutah.
Step by step (shakla v’tarya)
- ChazarahChazering the machlokes of R' Eliezer and the Chachamim: the 14 seudos, and R' Eliezer's shita about staying in the same sukkah, following the story of the apotropos of Agrippa HaMelech.
- ShitahBraisa, R' Eliezer: ein yotzin mi-sukkah l'sukkah, and one may not make a sukkah on Chol HaMoed. The Rebbi: you are locked in, it is a seven-day deal.
- MachlokesChachamim: one may go from one sukkah to another.
- ShitahShavin (third part of the braisa): all agree that if the sukkah fell, he may rebuild it on Chol HaMoed.
- GemaraReason of R' Eliezer: the pasuk 'chag ha-sukkos ta'aseh lecha shivas yamim' means make a sukkah fit for all seven days, so he is locked in.
- ShitahRabbanan: the pasuk means make a sukkah on the Chag. The Chag is seven days, so it can be made on the first, second, third or fourth day; you are not tied to all seven.
- KashaThe Gemara quotes the Shavin and asks: pshita, if the sukkah fell he may rebuild it.
- TeirutzMahu d'teimah: this is another sukkah, not one made for seven days; kamashma lan. The Rebbi: the braisa stresses the Shavin to teach that even according to R' Eliezer you are fine if your sukkah falls.
- Transition to the other mitzvah of Sukkos, lulav and arba minim. A similarly structured machlokes appears at line 11.
- ShitahBraisa, R' Eliezer: just as a person is not yotzei on the first day with his friend's lulav, because of 'u-lekachtem lachem' (emphasis on lachem, mishelachem)...
- Shitah...so too (kach) a person is not yotzei in his friend's sukkah, because of 'chag ha-sukkos ta'aseh lecha shivas yamim', mishelcha.
- The RebbiLecha and lachem are the same word, a parallel. It is not a gezeirah shavah and not a hekesh. Just as lachem is taken literally by arba minim, lecha is taken literally by sukkah.
- MachlokesChachamim reject the k'shem: af al pi she-amru one is not yotzei on the first day with his friend's lulav, aval one is yotzei in his friend's sukkah.
- Ra'ayahChachamim's source, a pasuk R' Eliezer ignored: 'kol ha'ezrach b'Yisrael yeishvu ba-sukkos'. Melamed that all Yisrael are fit to dwell in one sukkah.
- MaskanaChachamim split the cases: the lulav emphasis on lachem is unavoidable, but by sukkah there is another pasuk, so no ownership is needed. One may use a friend's sukkah, a neighbor's or a hotel's.
- RashiRashi: ownership means owning a shaveh prutah. Since it is impossible for all Klal Yisrael to each own a prutah's share of one sukkah, even taking shifts, there is no din of ownership in sukkah.
- In answer to a question about stealing or using a sukkah without permission: we will get to that soon. One who steals wood to build a sukkah is not yotzei.
- A talmid raised the emphasis on lecha. The Rebbi: that is the Gemara's next question.
- ChazarahConnection to yesterday: the man with families in two places owned both sukkos, yet for R' Eliezer it must be one sukkah and it must be your sukkah.
- KashaTalmid: if R' Eliezer learns the sukkah must be yours like lulav, why can I not own two sukkos?
- TeirutzSame pasuk, two things: lecha and shivas yamim. Yesterday emphasized shivas yamim; today adds more (lecha).
- ChazarahKol ha'ezrach: if all citizens can sit in one sukkah, there is obviously no ownership. One could explain it more simply than Rashi. The shiur then restarts the braisa from the beginning.
Kashas
- What is R' Eliezer's reason that one may not go from sukkah to sukkah or build on Chol HaMoed?
- How do the Rabbanan read R' Eliezer's pasuk?
- Pshita that one may rebuild a sukkah that fell; why does the braisa need to say it?
- Talmid: is the comparison of lecha to lachem a gezeirah shavah?
- Talmid: if R' Eliezer requires the sukkah to be yours like lulav, why can one not own two sukkos?
Teirutzim
- 'Ta'aseh lecha shivas yamim' means a sukkah ra'uyah l'shiv'ah, fit for all seven days.
- Rabbanan: make a sukkah b'chag, on any day of the Chag; you are not tied to all seven.
- Mahu d'teimah: it is another sukkah, not made for seven days; kamashma lan that even per R' Eliezer it is fine.
- Not a gezeirah shavah and not a hekesh. Just as lachem is taken literally by arba minim, lecha is taken literally by sukkah.
- The pasuk contains two things, lecha and shivas yamim. Yesterday's sugya stressed shivas yamim; today adds lecha.
Rashi & Tosafos
- Rashi: Ownership requires a shaveh prutah, even in a partnership. It is impossible for all Klal Yisrael to each own a prutah's worth of one sukkah, even sitting in shifts. So 'kol Yisrael ra'uyim leishev b'sukkah achas' shows there is no din of ownership in sukkah. The Rebbi said he hoped he had this right.
Mareh mekomos
- Pasuk 'chag ha-sukkos ta'aseh lecha shivas yamim': R' Eliezer's source for sukkah ra'uyah l'shiv'ah, and later (mishelcha) that the sukkah must be one's own.
- Pasuk 'u-lekachtem lachem ba-yom ha-rishon pri etz hadar kapos temarim': lulav must be one's own on the first day. The pasuk lists the other minim too, but only the first part is needed here.
- Pasuk 'kol ha'ezrach b'Yisrael yeishvu ba-sukkos': Chachamim's source that all Yisrael can sit in one sukkah.
- Previous Gemara: the questions of Agrippa HaMelech's apotropos, including the two wives and two sukkos (referred to again at 17:40).
The Rebbi’s chiddushim
- R' Eliezer's shita framed as 'locked in, a seven-day deal'.
- The braisa stresses the Shavin to teach that even per R' Eliezer a fallen sukkah may be rebuilt.
- Underline lachem (line 13) and mishelachem, and lecha / mishelcha. Lecha and lachem are the same word, a parallel.
- This braisa almost logically precedes the previous one, since it draws the parallel from lulav.
- The halacha even today is that on the first day the lulav must be one's own. This is relevant when giving a lulav to one's son.
- Stylistic structure: k'shem…kach draws a parallel; the Chachamim answer with af al pi…aval, where af al pi counters k'shem and aval counters kach (like 'even though every Wednesday we have chicken, this Wednesday we don't').
- Even in yesterday's case the man owned both sukkos, yet R' Eliezer still requires one sukkah, and it must be yours.
Unclear in recording
- The exact daf/amud statement is garbled.
- A remark about rebuilding with the same wood ('Ta'isis... it has to be with the same wood'), referring to yesterday's Gemara, is unclear in recording.
- The details of the case about giving a lulav to one's son are unclear in recording.
- Discussion with talmidim about using a sukkah without permission is partly unclear in recording.
- Exchange around 18:16 about R' Eliezer and 'his sukkah' is unclear in recording.
- Recording gap/unclear between about 19:12 and 19:43; one talmid's question was deferred to tomorrow.
- The simpler explanation of kol ha'ezrach (without Rashi) was not completed in recording.
Drafted from the recording of the shiur, for chazarah. Torah terms follow the Rebbi’s own words; anything that could not be made out is marked “unclear in recording”. Tap a time to hear that point. Corrections welcome.