Sukkah, Daf Lamed Aleph, Part 3

 

Introduction

Our sugya continues to deal with various parts of a sukkah that was built with stolen parts.

 

אמר רבינא: האי כשורא דמטללתא דגזולה, עבדי ליה רבנן תקנתא משום תקנת מריש.

 

Ravina said: This joist of a sukkah which was stolen, the rabbis made an enactment with regard to it because of the enactment of the beam.

 

There is a rabbinic "enactment" called "the enactment of the beam." What this means is that if someone steals a piece of wood and then uses it to build a house he doesn’t need to return the actual wood, as one normally does with stolen property. Returning the actual beam would require tearing down the whole house. Rather, he can return just the value of the wood, whatever it was worth when it was stolen.

 

פשיטא, מאי שנא מעצים?

מהו דתימא: עצים שכיחי, אבל האי לא שכיחא, אימא לא – קא משמע לן.

 

But is this not obvious? How is it any different from wood?

What might I have thought? Wood is common, but this joist is uncommon [and therefore must be returned] therefore he informs us [that the law applies to this case also].

 

The Talmud is puzzled why Ravina even needed to state this. Why would we have ever thought otherwise?

The answer is that we might have thought that a joist is not treated the same as unfinished wood. Unfinished wood is easily found and easy to replace. Therefore, the robber need only return the value. The owner can just buy new wood. In contrast, a joist is harder to find. Therefore, the robber would have to return the joist itself. That is why Ravina needs to teach that even the joist need not be returned only its value.

 

הני מילי – בגו שבעה, אבל לבתר שבעה – הדר בעיניה.

ואי חברו בטינא, ואפילו לאחר שבעה נמי – יהיב ליה דמי.

 

This applies only during the seven days [of the Festival], but after the seven days, it must be returned in its original state.

If he attached it with plaster, after the seven days he need only give its value.

 

The section concludes with two caveats on Ravina’s ruling. First of all, after Sukkot is over he must return the joist itself. Since he doesn’t need the sukkah for a religious purpose, there is no reason not to force him to return the joist as it is to the owner.

However, if he has attached the joist to the sukkah he doesn’t have to return it even after Sukkah. Attaching it makes it like any beam of any building, which need not be returned once it has been made part of the structure.