# dafyomi

lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<center><table cellpadding='10'>
</table>
</center><p>

</p><center><table width='650'>
<tbody><tr><td>
<hr width='60%' align='center' size='3' noshade=''><br>
             <font size='+1' color=''> <center><b>POINT BY POINT OUTLINE</b><p>
Prepared by Rabbi Ephraim Becker<br> of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim<br>  

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ENACTMENTS OF A 'KORAH' AND 'SHITUF' FOR A 'MAVOY'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that 'a Sukah which is taller than 20 Amos is Pasul.' The Gemara quotes a similar Mishnah at the beginning of Eruvin (2a) that says that a 'Mavoy which is taller than 20 Amos should be lowered.' The Gemara asks why the Mishnah here says merely that the Sukah is Pasul and does not teach how to rectify the problem, while the Mishnah in Eruvin teaches how to rectify the problem.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Mavoy) explains the Mishnah in Eruvin. The Rabanan required that a Mavoy, a three-sided alleyway that opens into Reshus ha'Rabim, must have a Korah (beam) across the top of the open side in order to permit carrying inside the Mavoy. Since a three-sided alleyway resembles a Reshus ha'Rabim, a public domain, the Rabanan prohibited carrying more than four Amos there (lest people think that they may carry in a real Reshus ha'Rabim) unless there is a Korah at the opening to Reshus ha'Rabim. The Korah reminds people that it is not a Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
Rashi adds that the Rabanan made an additional enactment of 'Shituf Mavoy.' He explains that in the times of the Gemara, Chatzeros opened into a Mavoy. The people who lived in each Chatzer were the joint owners of that Chatzer. The Mavoy, in turn, was owned by all of the residents of the Chatzeros. The Rabanan prohibited carrying from a private Reshus ha'Yachid (Chatzer) to a less private Reshus ha'Yachid (Mavoy). (Similarly, they prohibited carrying from one's home, a private Reshus ha'Yachid, to the Chatzer, a less private Reshus ha'Yachid, unless an Eruv Chatzeros is made.) In order to permit carrying from the Chatzeros into the Mavoy, a 'Shituf' must be made. The Shituf joins together all of the members of the Chatzeros and effectively gives them all equal rights to use the Mavoy, as if the Mavoy had only one owner.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi mention the enactment of Shituf? It is irrelevant to the Gemara's discussion of the enactment of the Korah, which permits carrying in the Mavoy itself. The Shituf is an auxiliary enactment which permits carrying from the Chatzeros to the Mavoy, once there is already a Korah in the Mavoy. In what way is Shituf related to the Gemara's discussion of how to rectify the height of the Mavoy by lowering the Korah? (<b>MAHARAM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Perhaps Rashi mentions Shituf in order to explain <i>why</i> the enactment of Korah was made for a Mavoy.
</p><p>
Rashi writes that the reason why a Mavoy needs a Korah is in order that people not mistakenly think that just as they are permitted to carry in a Mavoy, they are permitted to carry in a real Reshus ha'Rabim. Rashi could have written another reason for why a Mavoy needs a Korah: in order to prevent people from carrying from there into Reshus ha'Rabim through its open side. Rashi, however, writes instead that the Mavoy itself resembles a Reshus ha'Rabim and thus people might err and think that if they may carry in the Mavoy, they may also carry in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
How does Rashi know that the enactment of a Korah is because a Mavoy resembles a Reshus ha'Rabim, and not because of the fear that people might carry from the Mavoy into Reshus ha'Rabim?
</p><p>
Without a Korah, one is permitted to carry an object in a Mavoy within a distance of four Amos. If the purpose of the Gezeirah against carrying in a Mavoy (without a Korah) is to prevent people from carrying from the Mavoy into Reshus ha'Rabim, then the Gezeirah should also prohibit moving an object <i>any</i> distance in a Mavoy, lest one stand at the exit of the Mavoy, less than four Amos from Reshus ha'Rabim, and carry an object less than four Amos into Reshus ha'Rabim. It must be that the Rabanan's only concern was that one might think that if he is permitted to carry in a Mavoy he is also permitted to carry in a Reshus ha'Rabim. Accordingly, there are no grounds to limit the prohibition of carrying to less than four Amos.
</p><p>
In what way, though, is a Mavoy similar to Reshus ha'Rabim? Rashi explains that a Mavoy is similar to a Reshus ha'Rabim in that it is a <i>publicly-owned domain outside of a number of privately-owned domains</i>. This is evidenced by the requirement for Shituf. The requirement for Shituf shows that it is a non-privately owned domain outside of private domains, and in that way it resembles a Reshus ha'Rabim and thus requires a Korah. This explains why Rashi discusses Shituf -- it is an introduction to why a Korah is needed. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE MISHNAH'S USAGE OF THE WORD 'PASUL'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks why the Mishnah here says that 'a Sukah which is taller than 20 Amos is Pasul' and does not teach how to rectify the problem, while a similar Mishnah in Eruvin (2a) teaches how to rectify the problem: 'a Mavoy which is taller than 20 Amos should be lowered.'
</p><p>
The Gemara (in its first answer) says that the reason why the Mishnah teaches that a Sukah is Pasul is because the requirement that the height of a Sukah be less than 20 Amos is mid'Oraisa. In contrast, the Mishnah in Eruvin teaches how to correct a Mavoy which is too high, because the requirement for a Mavoy to have a Korah below 20 Amos is mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
How does this difference affect whether the Mishnah says 'Pasul' or whether it teaches how to rectify the problem?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that when the Gemara says that the Pesul is mid'Oraisa, it means that the Pesul existed before the Mishnah was taught, and therefore it is appropriate to say 'Pasul.' When, however, the Pesul is only mid'Rabanan, such as the Pesul of a Mavoy which has a Korah higher than 20 Amos, it is not possible for the Mishnah to say that it is 'Pasul,' because the Pesul was not known before the Mishnah was taught.
</p><p>
What exactly does Rashi mean? Why can the Mishnah not teach the Pesul d'Rabanan by saying that a Mavoy taller than 20 Amos is 'Pasul'? Although it is true that this is the first time that the Pesul is taught, why is the word 'Pasul' inappropriate in such a case?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi means that the proper method to teach a Takanah or obligation is to teach first the positive (that is, to teach first what <i>is</i> required), and then to teach the negative (what is invalid). Thus, the Mishnah can begin with the word 'Pasul' (the negative aspect of the law) only if the positive aspect, of what <i>is</i> required, has already been taught. The Torah already teaches that there is a requirement to build a Sukah. Therefore, it is possible for the Mishnah to add that a certain detail will <i>invalidate</i> the Sukah. In contrast, the prohibition to carry in a Mavoy without a Korah (as well as any other rabbinical enactment) is not taught in the Torah; it appears for the first time in the Mishnah. Therefore, the Mishnah cannot begin with 'Pasul,' but must begin with 'Yema'et,' which includes both the positive ('keep it lower than 20 Amos') as well as the negative ('do not raise it above 20 Amos').
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<center><table cellpadding='10'>
</table>
</center><p>

</p><center><table width='650'>
<tbody><tr><td>
<hr width='60%' align='center' size='3' noshade=''><br>
             <font size='+1' color=''> <center><b>POINT BY POINT OUTLINE</b><p>
Prepared by Rabbi Ephraim Becker<br> of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim<br>  

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SUKAH OF QUEEN HELENA</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara questions the Amora'im who explain the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan in the Mishnah with regard to a Sukah that is taller than 20 Amos. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah proved his opinion that such a tall Sukah is not Pasul from an incident that involved Hilni the queen. When the elders came to visit Hilni, they found her and her seven sons sitting in a Sukah that was more than 20 Amos tall, and they made no comment about the height of the Sukah. This implies that such a Sukah is valid.
</p><p>
The Rabanan responded that Hilni's Sukah indeed was Pasul, and the reason why the elders did not say anything to her was because a woman is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah, and her sons were not yet old enough to be obligated in Mitzvos. Rebbi Yehudah replied that Hilni certainly had a son who was old enough to be obligated in Mitzvos, at least for the sake of Chinuch, and thus Hilni certainly made a valid Sukah for him. It must be that a 20-Amah-tall Sukah <i>is</i> valid.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that according to Rebbi Yoshiyah (2b, in his comments on the opinion of Rabah), who says that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan argue only when the walls of the tall Sukah do not reach the Sechach, the Beraisa is not problematic because it is the manner of a queen to sit in such a Sukah to enjoy the flow of fresh air. Since this type of Sukah is fit for queens, Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan debated whether Hilni's Sukah was valid. However, the Beraisa <i>is</i> problematic according to Rav Huna and Rav Chanan bar Rabah, who explain that the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan applies only to a very small Sukah (such as one that is only seven by seven Tefachim) which is 20 Amos tall. Certainly, a queen would not sit in such a small Sukah. It must be that she sat in a very <i>wide</i> Sukah (which Rav Huna and Rav Chanan bar Rabah say is valid according to both Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan), and yet Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan still debated whether the Sukah was valid! How do Rav Huna and Rav Chanan bar Rabah understand the Beraisa?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that although Hilni had a very large Sukah, she sat in a narrow subsection of the Sukah with her sons, and it is that part of the Sukah which Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan argue about in the Beraisa.
</p><p>
(a) Rashi points out that this answer does not suffice to justify the opinion of Rav Chanan bar Rabah, who said (2b) that the Rabanan permit a tall Sukah as long as its length and width are large enough to fit a person's head, most of his body, and his table. This size is defined as seven by seven Tefachim. Certainly Hilni's subsection in her Sukah was not that small, because it would not have been possible to fit herself and her seven sons in an area of only seven by seven Tefachim. It must be that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan in the Beraisa argue about a Sukah that is larger than seven by seven Tefachim. This contradicts Rav Chanan bar Rabah's opinion, who says that they agree that such a Sukah is valid. Rashi concludes that the Beraisa indeed is difficult according to Rav Chanan bar Rabah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that even according to Rav Chanan bar Rabah, Hilni's Sukah would have been invalid according to the Rabanan. Even though the Sukah certainly was not a small Sukah of seven by seven Tefachim (which would not fit Hilni and her sons), perhaps Hilni and her sons sat in a <i>long and narrow</i> subsection of the Sukah. If that compartment was less than seven Tefachim wide, it could have been <i>any</i> length and still be invalid according to the Rabanan.
</p><p>
It appears that Rashi and Tosfos argue about the definition of the minimum size of a Sukah. Rashi understands that the measurement of 'seven Tefachim by seven Tefachim' (16b, and Rashi to 4b and 16a) describes the minimum <i>area</i> of a valid Sukah. As long as the Sukah's area is equal to the area of a seven-by-seven Sukah (49 square Tefachim), then it is valid, such as a Sukah three Tefachim long by 16 1/3 Tefachim wide. Accordingly, a Sukah that has the minimum measurements cannot contain a mother and her seven children.
</p><p>
Tosfos, on the other hand, maintains that when the Gemara says that a Sukah must be seven Tefachim long, it means that it must have a minimum of seven Tefachim in each dimension, in length and in width. It does not matter whether the area of the Sukah comes to 49 square Tefachim; if any one dimension does not reach seven Tefachim, it is invalid. Accordingly, a Sukah that does not have the minimum measurements <i>can</i> contain a mother and her seven children, such as a Sukah that is very long but is less than seven Tefachim wide.
</p><p>
(In most other Halachic matters that involve a minimum area, such as the four-by-four-Amah minimum requirement for a Sukah according to Rebbi, or the measure of Mechitzos of four Tefachim high by four Tefachim long, the assertion of Tosfos certainly applies. Both dimensions must be a full four Amos or Tefachim. Perhaps Rashi differentiates between the minimum size of a Sukah and the measurements of other Halachic matters, because the minimum size of a Sukah depends on a practical consideration: one must be able to fit a table along with a person into a Sukah. The table may be placed either at the person's side, or in front of him, and thus as long as the area can contain a person and a table (49 square Tefachim), the Sukah is valid.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<center><table cellpadding='10'>
</table>
</center><p>

</p><center><table width='650'>
<tbody><tr><td>
<hr width='60%' align='center' size='3' noshade=''><br>
             <font size='+1' color=''> <center><b>POINT BY POINT OUTLINE</b><p>
Prepared by Rabbi Ephraim Becker<br> of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim<br>  

sjt:
<font><b>1) A SUKAH LESS THAN TEN TEFACHIM TALL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (2a) states that a Sukah that is less than ten Tefachim tall is invalid. The Gemara asks what the source is for this Halachah. Perhaps a Sukah lower than ten Tefachim is also valid, as the Gemara itself suggests later (5b) in the case of a Sukah that is nine Tefachim tall. The Gemara commences a lengthy discussion about the source for the height of ten Tefachim as derived from the height of the Aron ha'Kodesh.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara ask for the source that a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall is invalid? The Gemara (4a) already taught the reason why it is invalid -- it is a 'Dirah Seruchah' (an uninhabitable dwelling). The Gemara there said in the name of Rava that if the branches ('Hutzin') of the palm leaves of the Sechach dangle below ten Tefachim, the Sukah is invalid because it is a 'Dirah Seruchah.' The same principle ('Dirah Seruchah') should invalidate any Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall! (Indeed, the <b>BARTENURA</b> on the Mishnah writes that the reason why such a Sukah is invalid is because it is a 'Dirah Seruchah.') Why does the Gemara here not give this logic as the source for the Pesul of a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> infers from the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sukah 5:5) that when branches dangle below ten Tefachim, the Sukah is invalid only <i>l'Chatchilah</i>; b'Di'eved it is a valid Sukah. Apparently, the Pesul of 'Dirah Seruchah' invalidates a Sukah only l'Chatchilah. Accordingly, perhaps the Gemara here seeks a source to invalidate a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall even b'Di'eved (i.e. mid'Oraisa). (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> 4a; <b>BEIS YISRAEL</b>, cited by <b>SEFAS EMES</b>)
</p><p>
(b) The other Rishonim, however, seem to learn that the Pesul of 'Dirah Seruchah' is mid'Oraisa and invalidates a Sukah even b'Di'eved. The Halachah is that if the decorations of a Sukah dangle below ten Tefachim, the Sukah remains valid. <b>TOSFOS</b> (10b, DH Noyei) explains that the fact that the decorations hang down so low does not make the Sukah into a 'Dirah Seruchah,' because 'they are made for decorating' the Sukah. Tosfos apparently means that only objects that interfere with the use of the Sukah make it a 'Dirah Seruchah.' The branches that hang down are sharp and pointed and make it difficult to use the Sukah (as the Me'iri and Rabeinu Yehonasan mi'Lunil explain). In contrast, the decorations of a Sukah do not interfere with the use of the Sukah.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, when the entire ceiling of the Sukah reaches only nine Tefachim, one might have thought that the Sukah is valid because the low ceiling does not interfere with the normal use of the Sukah. Therefore, the Gemara seeks another reason (other than 'Dirah Seruchah') for why such a Sukah is invalid.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> points out that <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Asarah) explains that the source which the Gemara finds to invalidate a Sukah that is less than ten Tefachim tall is not only a source for Sukah, but it also teaches that any wall or partition that is ten Tefachim tall suffices to separate the area enclosed within it from the area outside of it and give it the status of a separate domain. This Halachah is particularly relevant to the laws of the different domains on Shabbos. 
</p><p>
The Pnei Yehoshua explains, therefore, that it is true that the Gemara does not need another source to teach that a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall is invalid, because the reasoning of 'Dirah Seruchah' teaches that. However, the Gemara wants to find a source that teaches that any wall ten Tefachim tall effectively separates one domain from another. Since that question happens to apply to Sukah as well, the Gemara phrases its question as a search for a source that a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall is invalid.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) 'KODESH LA'HASHEM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara asks that the minimum height of any holy vessel in the Beis ha'Mikdash should not be one Tefach, but rather two Etzba'os, as the Tzitz was only two Etzba'os high.
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which describes the Tzitz. It says that the words 'Kodesh la'Hashem' were written on the Tzitz on two lines, with 'Hash-m' written above and 'Kodesh La' written below.
</p><p>
How exactly were the words 'Kodesh la'Hashem' written on the Tzitz?
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI's</b> first explanation in Shabbos (63b), 'Kodesh La' was on the center of the bottom line, and 'Hash-m' was on the center of the top line (see Chart).
</p><p>
(b) According to <b>RASHI's</b> second explanation in Shabbos and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:1), 'Kodesh' was on the center of the bottom line, and 'la'Hashem' was on the center of the top line. In order to explain why the Tzitz found in Rome did not look like that, the Rambam adds that it is acceptable, b'Di'eved, to write both words in one line, 'and sometimes they <i>did</i> write it in one line.'
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> says that 'Kodesh La' was on the <i>beginning</i> of the bottom line, and 'Hash-m' was inscribed on the <i>end</i> of the top line.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASHBA</b> in Shabbos, in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b>, explains that Tosfos' explanation is not acceptable because it is not the manner of people to read the second (bottom) line first. He says that 'Kodesh La' was written on the <i>end</i> of the <i>top</i> line, and 'Hash-m' was written on the <i>beginning</i> of the bottom line. He explains that when the Gemara says that 'Hash-m' was written 'above,' it means that it was written in the first vertical column. 'Below' means that 'Kodesh La' was written in the second vertical column. (See also Insights to Shabbos 63:3.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) 'RUBO U'MAKPID CHOTZETZ'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yitzchak says that mid'Oraisa, if the 'majority of a person' is covered by an intervening substance, and that person is bothered by the presence of that substance on him, it serves as a Chatzitzah and invalidates his Tevilah. If the substance covers only a small part, or if it covers a majority but he does not care about it, mid'Oraisa the Tevilah is valid. The Rabanan, though, decreed the Tevilah invalid in all of these cases.
</p><p>
What type of Chatzitzah is the Gemara discussing?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Rubo) explains that the Torah law applies only to one's <i>hair</i>. If most of one's hair is covered by an intervening substance which disturbs him, mid'Oraisa the Tevilah is invalid. If his hair is covered by a substance which does not disturb him, then it is not a Chatzitzah unless it covers most of his hair. If, however, the intervening substance is on his body, the Tevilah is invalid mid'Oraisa even if it covers only a small part of his body. (Tosfos raises several questions on this opinion. The <b>SEFAS EMES</b>, in order to answer those questions, adds that, according to Rashi, the intervening substance is a Chatzitzah mid'Oraisa when it covers only a small part of the body only if the person prefers that the substance not be on him (that is, he is 'Makpid').)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Davar Torah) and other Rishonim explain that the Torah law refers to most of one's <i>body</i>. Only when a majority of one's body is covered by an intervening substance is the Tevilah invalid mid'Oraisa. Even if it covers <i>all</i> of one's hair, the Tevilah is valid mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> explains that perhaps Rashi agrees with Tosfos that 'Rubo' applies to the body as well. Rashi, however, rules in accordance with the <b>GE'ONIM</b> (cited by the <b>RAMBAM</b>, Hilchos Mikva'os 2:15, who disagrees with the ruling of the Ge'onim). The Ge'onim maintain that we measure the proportion of hair that is covered and the proportion of the body that is covered individually. If most of the hair is covered, then even though the rest of the body is not covered, the substance is still considered a Chatzitzah mid'Oraisa. 
</p><p>
(The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> asserts that, according to the Ge'onim, <i>all</i> of the hair on the body is taken into account when one measures whether 'most of the hair' is covered by the substance, and not just the hair on the head and facial hair.)
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> points out that Rashi's conclusion may be based on the wording of Rav. If Rav means that only the <i>size</i> of the Chatzitzah is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, then why does he say that 'Chatzitzin' themselves are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai? According to the Ge'onim, Rav indeed means that the Chatzitzin themselves are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, in the case of hair. The Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that a Chatzitzah that affects the hair alone is also considered to be a Chatzitzah. (See also Insights to Nidah 67:3 and Eruvin 4:2.) 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE NEED FOR A SEPARATE VERSE TO TEACH THE REQUIREMENT FOR 'SECHACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan argue about the minimum number of walls required for a valid Sukah. Rebbi Shimon maintains that a Sukah must have three full walls and a fourth wall at least the width of a Tefach. The Rabanan maintain that a Sukah must have two full walls and a third wall at least the width of a Tefach.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains the reasoning of each opinion. Both Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan interpret the word 'Sukos' written in the Torah as plural, since that is the way that it is read ('Yesh Em la'Mikra'). Consequently, each word 'Sukos' indicates two walls. Since the word 'Sukos' is written three times, this implies that a Sukah must have six walls. However, Rebbi Shimon maintains that one word 'Sukos' is necessary to teach the simple meaning of the verse, that it refers to a Sukah (<b>RAN</b>, <b>MAHARAM</b> to Sukah 6b), which leaves two words 'Sukos,' or four walls. A Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that one wall may be a Tefach wide, and thus the number of walls needed for a Sukah is three full walls and one wall with the width of a Tefach.
</p><p>
According to the Rabanan, the first word 'Sukos' is used for the plain meaning of the verse, as Rebbi Shimon says. The second word 'Sukos' is used to teach the law of Sechach (Rebbi Shimon, on the other hand, maintains that the law of Sechach is included in the definition of a Sukah).
</p><p>
This is difficult to understand. If the second word 'Sukos' is used for the Sechach, then only one word 'Sukos' is left. With the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, this should teach that only one full wall and one partial wall (with the width of a Tefach) is necessary.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARAM</b> explains that the Rabanan learn that the Sechach is equivalent to a wall. This means that when the two words 'Sukos' teach the necessity for four walls, <i>one</i> of those 'walls' refers to the Sechach, so that the two words 'Sukos' teach that a Sukah is comprised of three walls and a roof of Sechach.
</p><p>
However, even according to the Maharam's explanation, it is not clear why the Rabanan deem it necessary to have one word 'Sukos' for the simple meaning of the verse and another word 'Sukos' for Sechach. Why is the need for Sechach not included in the simple meaning of the first word 'Sukos' (since without Sechach, a Sukah is not a Sukah)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAN</b> in Sanhedrin (4a) is bothered by this question. He answers that the Rabanan agree that even without the extra word, we would have known that a Sukah needs Sechach. However, the extra word teaches that the Sechach has Halachic requirements that must be fulfilled; for example, it must be 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min ha'Asuy,' and it may not be made with objects that are able to become Tamei.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> has difficulty with the Ran's explanation. The Halachos relevant to Sechach are derived from different verses in the Torah (see Sukah 11a). Why is another verse necessary to teach those laws? The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>, therefore, suggests a different answer. He suggests that the Rabanan, who say that an extra word is needed to teach the requirement of Sechach, maintain that <i>no</i> word 'Sukos' is necessary to teach the simple meaning of the verse (that it refers to a Sukah). When they say that an extra word is necessary to teach the requirement of 'Sechach,' they are referring to the law that all three <i>walls</i> must <i>touch</i> the Sechach (or at least be within three Tefachim of the Sechach). They learn that the six 'walls' implied by the words 'Sukos' are actually three walls that each touch Sechach (three 'Sechachs'). Without the third word 'Sukos,' we would not have known this law about Sechach (we would have derived only one full wall and one wall with the width of a Tefach, which is not a logical description of a Sukah).
</p><p>
The explanation of the Aruch la'Ner has significant ramifications. There is a well-known argument among the Rishonim with regard to a Sukah that has walls that meet the required height, but which do not touch the Sechach. The <b>ME'IRI</b> (Sukah 2a) and <b>RITVA</b> maintain that such a Sukah is valid only because of the principle of 'Gud Asik' (walls that are at least ten Tefachim tall are considered as though they extend upward beyond their actual height). This makes them 'touch' the Sechach from the Halachic point of view.
</p><p>
The Ran (4b) argues that the principle of 'Gud Asik' never applies to a Sukah, because a Sukah has a special requirement of 'Mechitzos Nikaros' -- the walls must be physically present and visible. According to the Ran's opinion, such a Sukah is valid even without the mechanism of 'Gud Asik.' Accordingly, we understand why the Ran in Sanhedrin does not explain the Gemara like the Aruch la'Ner; he maintains that there is no requirement for the walls to actually touch the Sechach (see <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> to Sanhedrin 4b, who argues with the Ran and gives another source for the requirement that the walls touch the Sechach).
</p><p>
</p><center><font color='ff0000'><b><b>RAV ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in <b>HE'OROS B'MASECHES SUKAH</b>, Sukah 6b) suggests a similar answer.</b></font></center><p> The <b>REMA</b> (OC 635) states that if one places Sechach on his Sukah before he erects the walls, his Sukah is unfit because it does not fulfill the requirement of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min ha'Asuy.' He says that the law that Sechach is invalid unless it has walls underneath it is derived from the extra word 'Sukos' here, which refers to Sechach according to the Rabanan.
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps it is not necessary to repeat the word 'Sukah' to teach that Sechach is necessary. However, when the Tana'im derive the number of walls needed for a Sukah from the number of times the word 'Sukah' is repeated, the Tana Kama maintains that it is natural for the count to include the <i>total</i> number of walls and Sechach, since the Sechach and the walls together constitute the Sukah. Accordingly, since the Torah counts the total of Sechach plus walls (four), only three walls are implied by the verses; the fourth word 'Sukah' refers not to any additional walls, but to the requirement of Sechach, which is known already from the word 'Sukah' that was written 'l'Gufei.' In contrast, Rebbi Shimon maintains that the four walls are a complete unit unto themselves. The Sechach need not be included in the count since it serves a different purpose. (M. Kornfeld, Y. Montrose; see also Insights to Sanhedrin 4:3.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) ABAYE'S OPINION WHETHER A SUKAH MAY BE A 'DIRAS KEVA'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye gives a list of Tana'im who maintain that a Sukah may (or must) be fit to be a 'Diras Keva' (a structure built to be a permanent dwelling place). Among those Tana'im is Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah (2a), who says that a Sukah that is taller than 20 Amos is valid, even though such a tall structure is fit to be a 'Diras Keva.' This implies that according to Abaye, the Rabanan in the Mishnah (who argue with Rebbi Yehudah and say that a Sukah that is taller than 20 Amos is invalid) maintain that a Sukah must be a 'Diras Arai' (a structure built to be a temporary dwelling place).
</p><p>
However, Abaye earlier (2a) <i>argues</i> with Rava who says that the reason why the Rabanan invalidate a tall Sukah is because a Sukah must be a 'Diras Arai.' Abaye's words there imply that he maintains that both Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan agree that a Sukah can be a 'Diras Keva,' and their dispute is based on some other matter. Why, then, does Abaye say that only Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva,' when Abaye himself implies earlier that even the Rabanan in the Mishnah agree?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (2a) answer that Abaye changed his mind and accepted Rava's answer to his question.
</p><p>
In a similar answer, the <b>RITVA</b> says that Abaye's list includes only the Tana'im who maintain that a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva' according to <i>all</i> of the Amora'im. Abaye's list does not include the Rabanan in the Mishnah, because the opinion of the Rabanan is subject to dispute among the Amora'im -- Rava maintains that they require a 'Diras Arai,' and Abaye maintains that they permit a 'Diras Keva' as well. Out of respect for Rava, Abaye does not mention the Rabanan in his list of Tana'im who maintain that a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> explains that it is possible that Abaye maintains that both Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan in the Mishnah permit a Sukah which is a 'Diras Keva.' The reason why Abaye mentions Rebbi Yehudah in his list, and not the Rabanan, is because Rebbi Yehudah clearly maintains that a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva.' The opinion of the Rabanan, though, is not clear. They say only that a Sukah taller than 20 Amos is invalid, but they do not clarify their reason. (According to the opinion of Rav Chanan bar Rabah (2b), the Gemara itself does not know the reason for the argument. He says that the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan applies only to a Sukah which is not large enough to contain one's head, most of his body, and his table. When the Sukah is large enough to contain his head, most of his body, and his table, even the Rabanan permit a Sukah taller than 20 Amos.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> explain that even though Abaye (on 2a) asserts that the argument in the Mishnah is unrelated to whether or not a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva,' he knows from other sources that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva.' The Beraisa in Yoma (11a) and the Gemara later in Sukah (21b) clearly indicate that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva.' Even though the Rabanan in the Mishnah might agree and permit a Sukah which is a 'Diras Keva,' it is evident from the other sources that Rebbi Yehudah not only permits it, but he <i>requires</i> that a Sukah be a 'Diras Keva' (or that at least he was accustomed to making his own Sukah a 'Diras Keva'). Abaye lists only Rebbi Yehudah, because the Rabanan <i>permit</i> a Diras Keva but do not <i>require</i> it.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara cite the Mishnah here, and not the other sources, as proof that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva'? The answer is that when the Gemara cites the Mishnah as proof, it is no longer Abaye who is speaking. The Gemara cites the Mishnah as proof only according to Rava. The Gemara wants to show that even Rava maintains that Rebbi Yehudah permits a Sukah that is a 'Diras Keva.' Abaye, though, would prove Rebbi Yehudah's opinion from the other sources.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE OF THE JUDGES OF CAESAREA</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rebbi Yochanan, who says that a circular Sukah must be large enough to seat 24 people around its circumference. The Gemara then mentions the geometrical theorem of the Judges (or 'Rabbis') of Kesari. 
</p><p>
The Judges of Kesari taught that the circumference of a circle inscribed within a square is 25% smaller than the square's perimeter, and the circumference of a circle circumscribed around the outside of a square is 50% larger than the square's perimeter. Accordingly, the circumference of the circle drawn around the 16-Tefach perimeter of a square is 50% larger than the square's perimeter, or 24 (50% of 16 added to 16 is 24).
</p><p>
The Gemara (8b) concludes that this theorem is incorrect, as empirical observation demonstrates. According to the formula used by the Chachamim (see Insights to Eruvin 14:2), the actual relationship of the perimeter of an inscribed square to the circle around it is 3 X (1.4 X s), where 3 = the value of pi, and s = the length of a side of the square. The ratio that the Chachamim use for the relationship between the side of a square and its diagonal (which is also the diameter of the circumscribed circle) is 1:1.4. Therefore, the circumference of a circle circumscribed around a square with sides of 4 Tefachim is 3 X (1.4 X 4), or 16.8 -- and not 24!
</p><p>
How did the Judges of Kesari make such a mistake? (See also Insights to Eruvin 76:2.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (8b, DH Rivu'a; Eruvin 76b, DH v'Rebbi Yochanan) suggests that the Judges of Kesari were not giving the relationship of the <i>perimeter</i> of the inner square to a <i>circle</i> around it. Rather, they were giving the relationship of the <i>area</i> of the inner square to an <i>outer square</i> drawn around the circle that encloses the inner square. This is what they mean when they say that 'when a circle is drawn around the outside of a square, the outer one's (i.e., the outer <i>square's</i>) perimeter is 50% larger than the inner one's.' (See the second diagram printed in Tosfos.) The area of the inner square is exactly half of the area of the outer square.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (here and in Eruvin 76a) seems to have no difficulty with the formula of the Judges of Kesari, as he does not explain how to justify their calculation. Perhaps Rashi understands that the Judges of Kesari were proposing a Halachic stringency: When we determine a value (such as the circumference of a circle) by using the diagonal of a square for the purpose of a practical application in Halachah, we consider the diagonal to be equal to the sum of the two sides of the square or rectangle between the ends of the diagonal (since the lines of those two sides go from one end of the diagonal to the other). Thus, if the sides of the inscribed square are each 4 Tefachim, then the diagonal is viewed to be <i>8</i> Tefachim. Accordingly, the circle around that square must have a diameter of 8 Tefachim, and thus its circumference must be <i>24</i> Tefachim and <i>not</i> 16.8 (which is the measure of the circumference based on the <i>actual</i> diameter of the square).
</p><p>
The reason for this is to prevent one from mistakenly using the length of the diagonal in a case in which he is supposed to use the sum of the length of two sides. In addition, physical reality does not allow for the application of pure mathematics (as the actual diagonal of a square is an irrational number; moreover, it is not possible to draw a perfectly exact line or angle). Therefore, the formula given for determining the diagonal of a square for purposes of Halachic applications (such as the size of a circular Sukah around that square) must take into consideration the largest possible diagonal of the angle, which is the sum of the two sides.
</p><p>
(Thus, if the sides of the inscribed square are each 4 Tefachim, then the diagonal is viewed to be <i>8</i> Tefachim. The circle around that square has a diameter of 8 Tefachim, and its circumference is treated as 24 Tefachim (and not 16.8, which is the circumference based on the <i>actual</i> diagonal of the square).)
</p><p>
When the Gemara comments on the formula of the Judges of Kesari and says, 'This is not so, for we see that it is not that much' (that is, the circle around a square is not as large as the Judges of Kesari posit), it is stating only that their statement is not mathematically precise, but it is <i>not</i> stating that their formula cannot be used in applied Halachah.
</p><p>
If this is the reason why Rashi is not bothered by the apparent inaccuracy of the formula of the Judges of Kesari, then we may suggest that Rashi is consistent with his own opinion as expressed elsewhere (Shabbos 85a, Eruvin 5a, 78a, 94b), where Rashi seems to determine the Halachic length of the diagonal of a rectangle by adding the two sides between the ends of the diagonal. <b>TOSFOS</b> in all of those places argues with Rashi. Perhaps Rashi maintains that this definition of the diagonal for Halachic purposes may be relied upon with regard to rulings that involve Halachos d'Rabanan. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps it is possible to propose an entirely new explanation, according to which the Judges of Kesari are entirely correct.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rebbi Yochanan's statement that 'the circumference of the Sukah must be large enough to seat 24 people in it' does not mean that the <i>circumference</i> must be 24 Amos, but that there must be 24 Amos <i>inside</i> the circumference. In other words, the <i>area</i> of the circle must be 24 square Amos. His statement is based on the formula of the Judges of Kesari.
</p><p>
The area of a circle is calculated by multiplying pi by the radius squared. The radius of the circle drawn around a square with sides that are each 4 Tefachim long is half of the diagonal (5.6), which is 2.8. Using the Halachic estimate of the value of pi as 3, we arrive at the following calculation: 3 X (2.8)(2.8) = 23.52, or approximately 24.
</p><p>
This is what Rebbi Yochanan means when he says that the circle must have within its circumference an area of 24. (He rounds up to 24 as a stringency.)
</p><p>
(According to this explanation, we may accept the Ritva's suggestion that the words 'v'Lo Hi...' do not belong in the Gemara and were added by the Rabanan Savora'i.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(David Garber and Boaz Tzaban of Bar Ilan University, who have published numerous articles on geometrical themes in Chazal, pointed out to us that the <b>ME'IRI</b> in Eruvin (76b) suggests this solution in the name of the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b>. It can be traced further back to a responsum of the <b>RIF</b> in Temim De'im #223. An Acharon, <b>TESHUVOS GALYA MASECHES</b> #3, offers this solution as well. Using the mathematics of Chazal to project the area of the circle based on the area of another square that is drawn <i>around</i> it (3:4), the solution for the area of the circle is <i>exactly</i> 24 Tefachim, and not just approximately 24, as we concluded using the equation of pi X r X r (this is because the area of the outer square (32) is exactly double the area of the square drawn <i>inside</i> of the circle (16), and 3/4 of 32 is 24). The Me'iri uses the word 'Shibur' or 'Tishbores' to refer to the calculation of area.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) SPINNING STRINGS OF TZITZIS WITH SPECIFIC INTENT</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav rules that Tzitzis made from 'Kotzin,' 'Nimin,' and 'Gardin' are invalid. Tzitzis made from 'Sisin' are acceptable. Shmuel says that even Tzitzis made from 'Sisin' are invalid, because Tzitzis must be spun Lishmah, with specific intent for the Mitzvah of Tzitzis.
</p><p>
What exactly are these different materials, and what is the basis of the argument between Rav and Shmuel?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Kotzin' are threads (of the woof) that tore off and were tied back to the woven garment. (They appear like thorns, 'Kotzin,' that stick out.) Such threads are usually cut off and discarded. 'Nimin' are sewing threads that hang out after the garment is completed. 'Gardin' are threads or fringes that hang from the bottom of a woven garment. All of these types of strings are invalid as Tzitzis, because they were not tied onto the garment Lishmah, for the sake of the Mitzvah of Tzitzis. They were attached to the garment merely as part of the manufacturing process of the garment. However, if one would detach these strings from the garment and then tie them back on with specific intent for the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, then they would be valid Tzitzis.
</p><p>
According to Rashi, Rav maintains that the strings of Tzitzis must be attached to the garment with intent for the Mitzvah, but they do not need to be spun Lishmah. Therefore, Rav says that Sisin, which Rashi explains are balls of spun thread (from which the woof and warp are threaded), are valid as Tzitzis as long as they are attached to the garment Lishmah. Shmuel argues, because he maintains that the strings used for Tzitzis also need to be <i>spun</i> Lishmah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> in the name of the <b>GE'ONIM</b> argues with Rashi's explanation. He explains that 'Kotzin' are pieces of wool that became tangled on thorns when the sheep walked near the thorn bush and rubbed against it. 'Nimin' are hard strands that are found in freshly-sheered wool. 'Gardin' are leftover threads that are invalid for use as Tzitzis even if one detaches them from the garment and re-attaches them. This is also the explanation of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Tzitzis 1:11).
</p><p>
Why are these types of strings unfit to be made into Tzitzis? The Ba'al ha'Me'or explains that the verse of 'ha'Kanaf,' 'the corner' (Bamidbar 15:38), teaches that Tzitzis strings must be made from the same material from which the garment is made, and not from material that is never made into a garment.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 11) gives a different reason for why these types of strings are invalid for Tzitzis. He writes that it is a 'Bizuy Mitzvah,' a disgrace to the Mitzvah, to make Tzitzis out of such strings.
</p><p>
According to this approach, Rav is not discussing the issue of Tzitzis made without proper intent.
</p><p>
It is interesting to note that the Rambam's ruling is the exact opposite of Rashi's. The Rambam rules that the Tzitzis must be spun Lishmah (Hilchos Tzitzis 1:11), and he also rules that if the Tzitzis were attached to the garment without any specific intent (by a Jew), they are still valid (1:12). The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> states that it is apparent that the Rambam maintains that the Halachos of spinning the threads for Tzitzis are more stringent than the Halachos of the actual tying and knotting of the Tzitzis, which do not need to be done Lishmah. As mentioned above, Rashi maintains that everyone agrees that the tying and knotting of the Tzitzis must be done Lishmah. Rav and Shmuel argue only whether or not the spinning of the strings must be done Lishmah as well. (See also Insights to Menachos 42:3.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) ONE SUKAH UNDER ANOTHER SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the laws of the various cases of one Sukah under another Sukah. The Gemara says that when the lower Sukah has more shade than sunlight and the upper Sukah has more sunlight than shade, and both are within 20 Amos of the ground, the upper Sukah is invalid (one may not eat in the upper Sukah) because there is more sunlight than shade in that Sukah. The lower Sukah is valid because there is nothing above it to invalidate it. (Rashi explains that the Sechach of the upper Sukah is not considered Sechach at all, since it lets in more sunlight than shade.)
</p><p>
The Gemara points out that it is not obvious that the lower Sukah is valid. One might have thought that the Rabanan invalidated the lower Sukah in order to prevent someone from assuming that he may use invalid Sechach together with valid Sechach for his Sukah. The Gemara teaches that there is no such Gezeirah, and there is no concern that someone will make that mistake.
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the Gemara's initial assumption is that there is a concern that one might sit in the lower Sukah even when the upper Sukah is taller than 20 Amos (in which case the Sechach of the upper Sukah is invalid and joins with the Sechach of the lower Sukah to invalidate the lower Sukah).
</p><p>
Why is there a concern that a person may sit in the lower Sukah even when the Sechach of the upper Sukah is higher than 20 Amos? If such a concern exists, then <i>every</i> Sukah should be invalid out of concern that one will sit in it even when its roof is higher than 20 Amos.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Tachtonah Kesherah) explains that the Gezeirah would apply only in this case, because the lower Sukah has all that it needs to make it valid (as it has more shade than sunlight). Only in this case are there grounds for concern that that one might forget that the upper Sukah potentially can invalidate the lower Sukah. (That is, one might ignore the upper Sukah, since it is not a full, valid Sukah.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU TAM</b>, cited by Tosfos (9b, DH Ha), says that Rashi's explanation is forced. Rabeinu Tam explains the Gemara based on a different Girsa. According to his Girsa, the Gemara does not say that <i>both</i> the lower and upper Sukos are within 20 Amos, but that the <i>lower</i> Sukah is within 20 Amos (which implies that the upper Sukah is taller than 20 Amos). (The <b>RITVA</b> here and the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (2a) cite a similar Girsa in which the Gemara states explicitly that the upper Sukah is taller than 20 Amos, which is the same as saying that the lower Sukah is below 20 Amos.)
</p><p>
According to Rabeinu Tam, the Sechach of the upper Sukah -- which has more sunlight than shade -- is above 20 Amos, and nevertheless the lower Sukah is valid because the Sechach of the upper Sukah does not invalidate it. He explains that Sechach which is above 20 Amos is not considered invalid Sechach; it is the <i>Sukah</i> which is invalid, because it is a 'Diras Keva.' The Sechach itself is not Pasul. Therefore, the Sechach above does not invalidate the Sechach of the lower Sukah.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam's explanation is novel in that there is no Gezeirah that invalidates the lower Sukah in such a case. Even though someone might confuse this case (of a Sukah underneath another Sukah which is taller than 20 Amos) with a case of a Sukah underneath a tree and think that such a Sukah is valid, the Rabanan were not concerned for such an error and made no Gezeirah to invalidate the lower Sukah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (in his comments on the Ba'al ha'Me'or, 2a) has the same text of the Gemara as the Ritva (see (b) above), that the Sechach of the upper Sukah is higher than 20 Amos. The Ra'avad argues with Rabeinu Tam and says that Sechach higher than 20 Amos <i>is</i> invalid. He explains, however, that the reason the lower Sukah is valid in this case is because the pieces of invalid Sechach that are above 20 Amos are positioned <i>between</i> the pieces of the valid Sechach below, and therefore the lower Sukah still has a majority of shade even after the shade created by the upper (and invalid) Sechach is removed.
</p><p>
According to the Ra'avad, the Gemara's answer of 'b'she'Chavtan' means that one makes each piece of Sechach the only layer. This is also the Rambam's understanding (Hilchos Sukah 5:13, according to the Magid Mishneh). We might have thought that the Rabanan invalidated the lower Sukah lest one think that it is valid even when the Sechach of the upper Sukah is directly above the Sechach of the lower Sukah. The Gemara teaches that the Rabanan were not concerned for such an error.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A CUBIC TEFACH AND 'TUM'AH RETZUTZAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna says that in order for the lower Sukah to be invalid because it is a Sukah underneath a Sukah, the distance between the Sechach of the upper Sukah and the Sechach of the lower Sukah must be at least one Tefach. He derives this figure from the laws of Tum'as Ohel, in which a covering is considered an Ohel only when the space below it is at least one cubic Tefach. 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Tefach Al Tefach) explains that there are two practical ramifications for the law that a covering is considered an Ohel only when there is a cubic Tefach of open space below it. First, since the covering is not an Ohel when the space is less than one cubic Tefach, it does not spread the Tum'ah from one point to another under the covering. Second, if there is an object on top of the covering, the Tum'ah will penetrate through the covering, since there is no Ohel to block the Tum'ah. Rashi adds that when there is less than a Tefach between the object of Tum'ah and the covering above it, it is called 'Tum'ah Retzutzah' and it penetrates through the covering and rises.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi mention the principle of 'Tum'ah Retzutzah'? Even without that principle, there is nothing to stop the Tum'ah from rising upwards beyond the covering, because the covering does not have the status of an Ohel (since there is not a Tefach of space beneath it). Why does Rashi mention that the Tum'ah penetrates the covering because of the principle of 'Tum'ah Retzutzah,' which teaches that Tum'ah actively penetrates the covering above it? No active force to push the Tum'ah through the covering is needed here, because the Tum'ah continues by itself through the covering since it is not considered an Ohel or an intervening partition.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The question assumes that the only thing that can stop Tum'ah from spreading upwards is an Ohel. Without an Ohel, the Tum'ah spreads upwards by itself. Ha'Ga'on Rav Moshe Shapiro shlit'a pointed out that the Gemara in Chulin (125b) teaches that a covering which is not an Ohel can also stop Tum'ah from spreading upwards under certain circumstances. The Gemara there says that Rebbi Yosi maintains that when one places a rope within one Tefach above a corpse, an object that passes above the rope and serves as an Ohel (Ma'ahil) over the corpse does not become Tamei. Rebbi Yosi maintains that Tum'ah cannot break through any intervening substance and rise ('Boka'as v'Olah'). In such a case, there is no Ohel that stops the Tum'ah from spreading, and yet the Tum'ah does <i>not</i> reach above the covering. The logic behind this is that the object that is above the covering does not serve as an Ohel (Ma'ahil) over the <i>corpse</i>, but rather it serves as an Ohel over the <i>covering</i> which is over the corpse (and whatever is beneath the covering is inconsequential). This is why Rashi must mention the additional principle of 'Tum'ah Retzutzah'; even though there is no Ohel here, the Tum'ah still would not spread above the covering unless there is another force that pushes it through -- and that is the force of 'Tum'ah Retzutzah.' 
</p><p>
(One might ask that the Mishnah in Ohalos (6:1) says that if a utensil that can be Mekabel Tum'ah is even a few Tefachim above a corpse, it does not stop the Tum'ah from spreading upwards. The utensil itself cannot stop the Tum'ah from spreading, because an object which can become Tamei itself cannot block Tum'ah from spreading. However, it <i>should</i> be able to block the Tum'ah from rising. If a covering stops Tum'ah from rising even when it is not an Ohel, then a utensil should also stop Tum'ah from rising (even though it can be Mekabel Tum'ah itself). It must be that the type of covering that can stop Tum'ah from spreading is only a type that cannot become Tamei. If the covering itself can become Tamei (like a utensil), then whatever is Ma'ahil over that covering is considered as though it is Ma'ahil over the corpse itself.)
</p><p>
The Acharonim point out that there are additional consequences of the rule of 'Tum'ah Retzutzah,' the positive force that pushes Tum'ah upwards (and downwards) when it is 'squeezed' into less than a Tefach. First, the Torah teaches that a tightly sealed, earthenware vessel ('Tzamid Pasil') blocks Tum'as Mes in an Ohel from being Metamei an object inside of the vessel. However, a 'Tzamid Pasil' which is above a 'Tum'ah Retzutzah' <i>does</i> become Tamei (<b>RASH</b>, end of Ohalos 9, based on the Tosefta); the force of the 'Tum'ah Retzutzah' pushes the Tum'ah through the sealed vessel. Second, a person who stands above a 'Tum'ah Retzutzah' is considered as though he <i>touches</i> the Tum'ah and not merely as though he serves as an Ohel over it, since the presence of the Tum'ah is considered to fill the entire space above the intervening object (as the Gemara says in Chulin 125b). The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Parshas Chukas) says that even though non-Jews transfer Tum'ah only through Maga and not through Ohel, they can still transfer Tum'ah with 'Tum'ah Retzutzah' (that is, if a Jew touches a stone or object that is less than a Tefach above the non-Jew), because 'Tum'ah Retzutzah' is like Maga.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>SPEAKING 'DIVREI KEDUSHAH' WHILE UNCLOTHED (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A house which is less than 10 Tefachim is still 
          distinct from a Kilah (which is viewed as his 
          garment) because a house is fixed in place, it 
          is like a Kinuf (and his head is viewed as 
          being with the rest of his body).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ALTERNATE RENDITION OF SHMUEL (first cited in Daf 10:5)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> It is permitted to 
          sleep under a Kilah made for Chasanim (two 
          posts, unattached to the bed) in the Sukah, 
          even if it is more than 10 Tefachim tall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that one who 
          sleeps in a Kilah has not fulfilled his 
          obligation!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That Kilah has a roof (at least a 
          Tefach wide).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa which discusses the 
          Naklitin (two posts) permits it only if it is 
          less than 10 Tefachim tall!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Naklitin is more stringent than a Kilah 
          since the posts are fixed on the bed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the Naklitin are fixed then they 
          should be viewed as an Ohel even with less than 
          10 Tefachim (like a Kinuf)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Naklitin may well be <i>more</i> fixed than 
          a Kilah but it is <i>less</i> fixed than a 
          four-poster bed, which explains why one may 
          sleep under it if it is less than ten Tefachim 
          high, even though a four-poster bed is not 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar R. Huna):</font></b> A Kilah is permitted even 
          if it is more than ten Tefachim high, and has a 
          roof (i.e. it is parallel with the ground, and 
          not like a tent).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Like whom is this position!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Like R. Yehudah who holds that a 
          temporary Ohel does not have the power to 
          negate a permanent one.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah permits sleeping under a bed in 
               the Sukah (even if it is higher than ten 
               Tefachim from the ground).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then Rabah bar R. Huna should 
               have reported that the Halachah is like R. 
               Yehudah (not taught it in his own name)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We would then have thought that R. 
               Yehudah's reason is because a bed is (not 
               an Ohel since it is) made to sleep on top 
               of and not underneath.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' A SUKAH WITH A GROWING VINE COVERING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Sukah which has a growing vine, a pumpkin or 
          a creeper on the roof, arranged on a trellis, 
          to form part of the Sechach may not be used.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This can be rectified either by adding more 
          Sechach (to form a majority) or by detaching 
          them from the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Anything which can receive Tum'ah or which does 
          not grow from the ground may not be used as 
          Sechach.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TA'ASEH V'LO MIN HE'ASUY'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosef citing Rav):</font></b> Cutting the branch is 
          insufficient, one must also shake each branch 
          that one cuts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Huna reported that this was said by Shmuel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This correction bothered R. Yosef who angrily 
          said that he had never claimed that <i>only</i> Rav 
          had said it, and that it could well be that 
          <i>both</i> Rav and Shmuel said it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Huna explained that what he indeed had meant 
          was that it was Shmuel who said it and <i>not</i> 
          Rav (who disagrees).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Chiya b. Ashi quoted Rav as maintaining 
               that cutting something or cutting it off, 
               is sufficient - to remove the Pesul of 
               'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> An incident demonstrated Rav's position 
               when R. Amram Chasida put Tzitzis on his 
               wife's four cornered garments (see Rashi) 
               and he only cut the eight strings apart 
               after affixing them to the garment.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Chiya b. Ashi cited Rav as permitting 
               this case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It should then follow that, according 
          to Shmuel (who requires lifting the Sechach 
          after it is cut), then cutting the Tzitzis 
          should <i>not</i> be enough (yet Shmuel taught the 
          opposite in the name of R. Chiya)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (Shmuel citing R. Chiya) If one threaded 
               the Tzitzis into two corners before 
               cutting them, they are Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We assume that this speaks when one made 
               the Tzitzis and then cut them, from which 
               we see that cutting the Tzitzis <i>is</i> 
               sufficient to remove Ta'aseh ve'Lo min 
               he'Asuy!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa speaks when he cut them 
          first and then made the Tzitzis (thereby 
          removing the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min 
          he'Asuy').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What, then, is the need for Shmuel to 
          teach us this obvious Din?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: 'TA'ASEH V'LO MIN HE'ASUY'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses various situations in which Sechach was placed upon the Sukah in such a way that the Sukah is rendered invalid (for example, the Sechach was attached to the ground (Mechubar), or it was not placed upon the Sukah for the sake of providing shade (l'Shem Tzel; see Rashi 12a, DH Chada). The Gemara teaches that in such cases, in order to make the Sukah valid it does not suffice merely to cut the Sechach from the ground (in a case of Mechubar) or to have intention that, from now on, the Sechach should be for the sake of shade (when it was placed there for a purpose other than for shade). Rather, one must remove all of the pieces of the Sechach and place them back on the Sukah with the proper intent. The requirement for active placement, with proper intent, of valid Sechach is called, 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy,' and it is cited as the Halachah by the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 626:2).
</p><p>
What is the Halachah in a case of a Sukah that is invalid not because of an inherent factor in the Sechach, but because of external factors? For example, when one corrects a Sukah that was taller than 20 Amos, or that was built underneath a tree or inside of a house (he raises the floor of the tall Sukah such that its Sechach is within 20 Amos from its floor, or he removes the tree or roof which covered the Sukah), does he need to lift up the Sechach and return it in order for the Sukah to be valid?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>HAGAHOS ASHIRI</b> (1:23) cites <b>RABEINU BARUCH</b> of Regensburg who asserts that the rule of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy' applies in such cases, and one must lift up the Sechach in order to validate the Sukah.
</p><p>
(b) However, <b>RABEINU YITZCHAK HA'LAVAN</b> (cited by the Hagahos Ashiri), the <b>KOL <b><b>BO</b></b></b> (cited by the Darchei Moshe, beginning of OC 626), and <b>RABEINU ELCHANAN</b> (cited by the Beis Yosef, end of OC 626) rule that it is not necessary to do anything to the Sechach in these cases. The Sukah becomes valid as soon as the height is lessened or the tree removed. They reason that the only situation in which Sechach must actively be lifted up and returned is when the Pesul is inherent in the Sechach itself (such as Sechach that was Mechubar, or that was not placed there l'Shem Tzel). If the Pesul is not inherent in the Sechach but is in some other feature of the Sukah, then it suffices to correct that other feature. The Kol Bo adds that since the Pesul is not in the Sechach, the corrective act of 'Ta'aseh' (the significant act that is required when one makes a Sukah) needs to be done only in the part of the Sukah that is invalid.
</p><p>
This opinion is cited as the Halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (OC 626:2-3, and Mishnah Berurah there).
</p><p>
The Halachah mentioned above involves a case of a Sukah built inside of a house. The Acharonim discuss a third type of case -- Sechach that is put into place underneath a removable roof (one that can be rolled up or lifted up with a crank or other mechanism). In such a case, after the roof is removed from above the Sechach, must the Sechach be completely re-laid in order for the Sukah to be valid?
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARIL</b> (cited by the <b>BACH</b>, end of OC 626) writes that the Halachah in this case is the same as the Halachah in the case of a Sukah built inside of a house. Once the invalidating factor is corrected, no other action is necessary. Nevertheless, the Maharil quotes a 'Ga'on Echad' who says that in this case one must lift up each piece of Sechach and re-lay it. The Bach cites the <b>MAHARSHAL</b> who sides with this ruling.
</p><p>
However, it is not clear why the Ga'on Echad and Maharshal differentiate between this case and the previous case.
</p><p>
The Bach suggests that the Ga'on is stringent in this case because the Sechach cannot be called 'inherently valid Sechach' before the roof is removed, because the Sechach is not part of a complete, independent Sukah. Placing branches beneath a roof does not make the room a Sukah. This case cannot be compared to a complete Sukah with its own walls and Sechach, built underneath a tree or inside of a house, because the invalidating factor is, to a certain degree, inherent in the Sechach itself.
</p><p>
The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> offers a different explanation. He explains that lifting up a removable roof by pulling it up with a rope is not considered a significant action. As mentioned earlier (see (b) above), the Kol Bo maintains that even if the invalidating factor is not in the Sechach itself, one must perform a significant act to make the Sukah valid. The lifting of such a roof does not constitute a significant act.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> In the case of Sechach laid under a lift-up roof, the <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 626:18) requires that the Sechach be lifted up and returned to its place after the roof is moved.
</p><p>
This requirement applies, however, only when the Sechach was put into place while the roof was still in position. If the Sechach was put into place <i>after</i> the roof was removed (and the Sukah, at that moment, was valid), then even if the roof is later lowered back onto the Sechach (for example, to protect the Sukah from the rain), it suffices merely to lift off the roof again in order for the Sukah to be valid (Mishnah Berurah 626:19).
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That the Tzitzis does not become Pasul 
          by the fact that they were threaded in the 
          holes of <i>two</i> corners (in spite of the Pasuk 
          'al Tzitzis <i>ha'Kanaf</i>').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that if one 
          affixed the string and then cut it into 
          segments that it is Pasul (unlike Rav who 
          permitted this case)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa means that they are Pasuk 
          only until they are cut, but not permanently.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Levi supports this explanation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel maintains that the Beraisa means 
               that these Tzitzis are permanently Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Alternate Rendition of the above:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Masnahh reported that he asked just 
               such a question of Shmuel who invalidated 
               the Tzitzis which were affixed and then 
               cut.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> First Question (on Rav who validates such 
               a case):</font></b> The Beraisa says that this case 
               is Pasul!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Second Question (on Rav):</font></b> The Beraisa 
               provides the rationale of Ta'aseh to 
               forbid a Sukah which has a growing vine, a 
               pumpkin or a creeper on the roof arranged 
               on a trellis to form part of the Sechach.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Beraisa must be speaking when 
                    they were cut, because if they were 
                    still attached, the Tana would not 
                    need the reason of Ta'aseh (since the 
                    attached Sechach would anyway be 
                    Pasul).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> We see that cutting does not validate 
                    the Sukah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (to the second Question):</font></b> This 
               Beraisa speaks when the branch was torn 
               from the tree at its source, and left in 
               that position (even Rav would agree that 
               cutting it would not be a sufficient 
               Asiyah, since this cutting is not 
               noticeable).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The first Beraisa, however, remains a 
               question on Rav.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'MACHLOKES' RAV AND SHMUEL ON 'KETZITZAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shall we understand their Machlokes 
          (whether Ketzitzah is an Asiyah) to be a 
          Machlokes Tanaim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak invalidates the 
               Hadas if one transgressed and removed the 
               berries on Yom Tov while the Chachamim 
               hold that the Hadas is Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It is assumed that an Asiyah is needed 
               here (to bind the Minim together) and that 
               the Minim, like a Sukah, must have Ta'aseh 
               V'Lo Min He'Asui.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The Chachamim hold (like Rav) that 
               Ketzitzah is an Asiyah (by Sukah hence the 
               plucking of the berries is the same) and 
               R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak holds (like 
               Shmuel) that Ketzitzah it is not an 
               acceptable Asiyah by Sukah (nor is 
               plucking the berries by the Hadas).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, they both hold, like Shmuel, that 
          Ketzitzah is not an Asiyah, but they are 
          arguing over whether we learn Lulav from Sukah 
          (and prohibit- R. Shimon) or not (and permit- 
          Chachamim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> They are arguing over whether 
          Lulav requires an Asiyah [Eged] (R. Shimon) or 
          not (Chachamim), while agreeing that any Asiyah 
          which we <i>would</i> find by Lulav <i>would</i> be 
          learned from Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The source for such a Machlokes is found 
               in the Beraisa where R. Yehudah learns 
               from the Gezeirah Shavah of Lekichah that 
               the three species need to be tied.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Rabanan did not receive a tradition to 
               learn this Gezeirah Shavah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa which teaches that it is 
          a <i>Mitzvah</i> to tie the species together seems 
          not to be in concert with <i>either</i> opinion!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to R. Yehudah it should not be 
               Kosher without being tied.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to Rabanan, whence the Mitzvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is the Rabanan and the 
          Mitzvah derives from the command to beautify 
          the Mitzvos.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SOURCE FOR THE LIMITATIONS ON 'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whence that Sechach is not Kosher if 
          it is Mekabel Tum'ah or does not grow from the 
          ground?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Resh Lakish):</font></b> The Pasuk refers to the 
          primordial clouds as emerging from the earth, 
          hence the Sechach must emerge from the earth 
          and not be susceptible to Tum'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What of the opinion that the 
               Sukos of the desert were actual tents (and 
               not clouds), since;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We have learned that R. Eliezer and R. 
               Akiva disagree?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Dimi citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Pasuk 
          links Sukah to the Korban Chagigah (that which 
          is not Mekabel Tum'ah and grows from the ground 
          [R. Yochanan's view of animals]).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Following that logic, we should 
          <i>only</i> be able to use <i>animals</i> (hides) for 
          Sechach!!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WOOD IN THE DESERT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Eliezer teaches that the Sukah commemorates the Ananei ha'Kavod, the Clouds of Glory, that surrounded the Jewish people during their sojourn in the desert. Rebbi Akiva teaches that the Sukah commemorates the actual Sukos in which the Jews lived in the desert, and which protected them from the desert elements.
</p><p>
From where did the Jews obtain wood in the desert for building Sukos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU BACHYE</b> (Vayikra 23:43) comments that they purchased wood from merchants of other nations (see Yoma 75b, where the Gemara teaches that the Jews bought food from foreign merchants). The miracle that the Sukah commemorates is that for forty years Hash-m provided the Jews with their every need as they wandered through an inhospitable and uninhabitable desert.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MIDRASH TANCHUMA</b> (Parashas Chukas) says that the waters of Miriam's well flowed around the encampment and caused a variety of trees and hedges to sprout there. Perhaps it was the wood from those trees that the people used to build their Sukos. The miracle that the Sukah commemorates is that Hash-m miraculously provided trees for the Jews in the desert.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SOURCE FOR THE LIMITATIONS ON 'SECHACH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravin citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Pasuk 
          indicates that the Sukah must be made of the 
          waste products from the granary and from the 
          wine-press (not subject to Tum'ah and grow from 
          the ground).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps the Pasuk refers to the 
               actual contents of the granary and the 
               wine-press themselves?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> The Pasuk speaks of 
               Yekev and surely it does not mean to make 
               Sechach out of wine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> Perhaps the 
                    Pasuk refers to congealed wine which 
                    could be used as Sechach.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> R. Yirmiyah has 
                    cut down our answer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> The prefix 'mi' implies 
               the (waste) <i>from</i> the granary and the 
               wine-press, but not the wheat and the wine 
               themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chisda):</font></b> The source for the 
          specifications of Sechach is the instructions 
          given by Nechemyah to the People (enumerating 
          only that which is not Mekabel Tum'ah and grows 
          from the ground).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Etz Avos and Hadas in his 
               list are the same!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Nechemyah meant Kosher Hadasim for 
               their Lulavim, and Pasul ones (known as 
               Hadas Shoteh) for their Sukos.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' BUNDLES OF 'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Bundles of straw, wood or canes are Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If one unties them (even after they are on the 
          Sukah) they are Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  One may however, use them (or any other 
          material) as walls of the Sukah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'GEZEIRAS OTZAR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yakov reported having heard two Halachos 
          from R. Yochanan as well as two rationales, but 
          he was unsure which rationale applied to which 
          Halachah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He heard the Pesul of our Mishnah as well 
               as the Pesul of scratching out a Sukah in 
               a haystack.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One reason was Gezeiras Otzar (d'Rabanan) 
               and one was Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy 
               (mid'Oraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yirmiyah was able to resolve the matter by 
          reviewing that which R. Chiya b. Aba reported 
          in the name of R. Yochanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan had explained the Pesul of our 
               Mishnah (entirely disallowing the use of 
               bundles) for fear that someone might come 
               to use bundles which had <i>not</i> been 
               originally placed there for shade 
               (Gezeiras Otzar) and would <i>then</i> have a 
               Sukah Pesulah owing to Ta'aseh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The reason for invalidating a Sukah that 
               is burrowed out of a hay-stack must be 
               because of Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy 
               itself (R. Yochanan's second reason).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> With such an explicit explanation 
          from R. Yochanan, how could R. Yakov have had a 
          question about it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yakov had not heard the Din which R. 
          Chiya b. Aba reported.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Ashi):</font></b> How could R. Yochanan 
          allegedly have said that one reason applies to 
          each Din, given that both reasons (Gezeiras 
          Otzar and Ta'aseh) apply to both cases!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan infers from the unique 
          wording of the Pesul in each case, in one that 
          such Sechach cannot be used (the language of an 
          Isur d'Rabanan) and in one that it is not a 
          Sukah (implying that it is not valid d'Oraisa).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE FOR 'SECHACH TALUSH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (11a) states that Sechach must be comprised of a material that cannot become Tamei and that grows from the ground (Gidulei Karka). Rebbi Yochanan says that this requirement is derived from the verse, 'b'Aspecha mi'Garnecha umi'Yikvecha' -- '[You shall make the festival of Sukos for seven days] when you gather in from your threshing floor and from your winepress' (Devarim 16:13), which teaches that Sechach must be made from material similar to the remains that are left over from the threshing and wine pressing processes ('Pesoles Goren v'Yekev').
</p><p>
Rav Chisda says that this requirement is derived from a verse in Nechemyah (8:15), which teaches that the Sechach must be similar to the 'branches of myrtle' (which cannot become Tamei and are Gedulei Karka).
</p><p>
According to both opinions, why may Sechach be made from any type of wood other than the type mentioned in the respective verses? According to Rebbi Yochanan, only grain stalks or vine branches ('Pesoles Goren v'Yekev') should be valid Sechach. According to Rav Chisda, only the specific types of wood mentioned in the verse in Nechemyah should be valid Sechach (the wood of olive, pine, myrtle, and palm trees). What indication is there in the verses to permit Sechach from natural products that are similar to the types mentioned in the verses?
</p><p>
The answer is that any guideline for valid Sechach derived from the verses must have some <i>logical basis</i>. It is logical to derive from the verse that Sechach must be a product of nature and not a processed item, since that is the type of covering normally used to make shade for a temporary dwelling. Accordingly, the verse excludes anything that can be Mekabel Tum'ah (since such an item is processed), anything that does not grow from the ground, and a live animal (since such items are not normally used to make shade). However, with regard to different types of wood, there is no logical reason to say that one type may be used any more than another, as the Torah does not specify that any specific type of wood must be used for Sechach.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> (11b) questions this approach. <b>RASHI</b> (11a, DH Pesulah) writes that the source for the requirement that Sechach be detached from the ground is the verse cited by Rebbi Yochanan. Just as the remains left over from the threshing and wine pressing processes ('Pesoles Goren v'Yekev') are not attached to the ground, Sechach also must not be attached to the ground ('Mechubar'). What, though, is the logical basis to derive from 'Pesoles Goren v'Yekev' that Sechach that is Mechubar may not be used? On the contrary, if a natural product must be used, it is logical that something that is <i>attached</i> to the ground is <i>more</i> fit for Sechach than something that has been detached, because it is more natural. It seems illogical to derive from the verse that only a <i>detached</i> natural product may be used. (There is an error in the older printings of the Ritva, in which the name 'Rav Chisda' appears instead of the word 'Rachmana,' which has caused considerable confusion about the Ritva's intention. The text of the Ritva has been corrected in the Mosad ha'Rav Kook edition of the Chidushei ha'Ritva.) 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Because of this question, the <b>RE'AH</b> and <b>RITVA</b> disagree with Rashi and conclude that the Pesul of Mechubar is derived from a different source. It is derived from the principle of 'Ta'aseh,' which teaches that one must perform a positive action to make Sechach. When one places branches that are still attached to the ground (or tree) onto the Sukah, he performs no action; rather, he merely waves the branches from one place to another. (This differs from the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy,' which describes what <i>type</i> of action is necessary: the action which creates a valid Sukah must be the <i>placing</i> of the Sechach and not a later action (such as the cutting of the Sechach from its source).)
</p><p>
When Rashi says that Sechach that is Mechubar is invalid because it does not fall into the category of 'Pesoles Goren v'Yekev,' his intention might be to explain as the Ritva does. Rashi might mean that the Halachic difference between an object that is Mechubar and one that is not is that in the case of an object that is Mechubar, one does no positive action to make the Sechach. Rashi learns from 'Pesoles Goren v'Yekev' that an action must be done to the Sechach itself in order to make the Sukah valid.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WOODEN ARROW HANDLES AS 'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah citing Rav):</font></b> Male arrow handles 
          (with a protrusion which screws into the metal 
          arrow shaft, thus without any Beis Kibul) and 
          Kosher, but female ones are Pasul (since they 
          have a Beis Kibul into which the metal is 
          screwed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Kashrus of the male handles is 
          obvious (there is no Beis Kibul, and not 
          sufficient size for a Gezeirah)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have prohibited them lest 
          people come to use the female ones, which do 
          have a Beis Kibul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Pesul of the female ones (given 
          their Beis Kibul) is also obvious!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have been lenient and said 
          that a Beis Kibul which is made to be 
          permanently filled is not viewed as a Beis 
          Kibul at all, even when it is not filled.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>QUESTIONS ON R. YOCHANAN'S RULING REGARDING THE USE OF FLAX</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> 
          Sechach made of Anitzei Pishtan (combed flax, 
          at the end of its processing) is Pasul, Sechach 
          made of Hutznei Pishtan (in its raw form, 
          before being soaked) is Kosher, but R. Yochanan 
          himself is uncertain regarding Hushnei Pishtan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar bar Chanah is uncertain as to what 
          stage of its process R. Yochanan was calling 
          Hushnei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It could be the flax between the pounding 
               and the combing (whereas between the 
               soaking and the pounding, they are still 
               called Hutznei and are Kosher for 
               Sechach).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It could also be that once they have been 
               soaked, they are already called Hushnei 
               and are included in R. Yochanan's doubt.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER VEGETABLE LEAVES AS 'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Shushi and Shivtzeri may be used 
          as Sechach (not considered food and hence not 
          Mekabel Tum'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> We forbid the use of Shivtzeri because 
          of its bad smell which may cause a person to 
          leave the Sukah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) STRANDS OF FLAX AS SECHACH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yochanan rules that strands of unprocessed flax may be used as Sechach. If, however, the strands have been pressed and combed, then they may not be used as Sechach.
</p><p>
Since flax strands are natural products that grow from the ground, why may they not be used as Sechach when they have been pressed and combed?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Sachachah) explains that the Gemara refers to strands of flax that have been bleached. Bleached strands are able to become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im according to one opinion (Rebbi Yehudah, Nega'im 11:8) even though they have not yet been spun.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH b'Anitzei) writes that flax strands that have not been spun are <i>not</i> Mekabel Tum'ah, even Tum'as Nega'im, according to everyone. (When Rebbi Yehudah in Nega'im says that they are Mekabel Tum'ah once they have been bleached, he refers to <i>after</i> they have been spun.)
</p><p>
Tosfos explains instead that since the strands are near a state in which they will be Mekabel Tum'ah (since they have been <i>prepared</i> to be spun), the Rabanan decreed that they may not be used as Sechach. Tosfos adds that they are considered unfit for Sechach only according to the opinion that maintains that flax strands do <i>not</i> need to be bleached in order to be Mekabel Tum'ah. According to that opinion, strands that have been prepared to be spun are near the stage at which they will be Mekabel Tum'ah. (In contrast, according to Rebbi Yehudah who says that flax strands must be bleached in order to be Mekabel Tum'ah, strands that have been prepared to be spun are not even near the stage at which they will be Mekabel Tum'as Nega'im).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sukah 5:4) writes that the reason why pressed and combed flax strands may not be used as Sechach is because their form has changed as a result of being pressed and combed. They no longer resemble Gedulei Karka, objects that grew from the ground.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> argues with the Rambam and explains that the reason why flax strands may not be used as Sechach is because they are fit for other forms of use in their present state; they may be used as stuffing for pillows and sheets. Since pillows and sheets are Mekabel Tum'ah, the stuffing is also Mekabel Tum'ah. (He appears to rely on the Mishnah in Kelim (17:13) which says that objects that are not Mekabel Tum'ah by themselves nevertheless can be Mekabel Tum'ah when they are sewn to other objects that are Mekabel Tum'ah).
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER TYPES OF POTENTIAL 'SECHACH</font></b>
'(a)	(R. Chanan b. Rava): Hizmi and Higi (types of bush) 
     may be used as Sechach
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> Higi may not be used.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason for the 
          prohibition?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the Higi leaves tend to fall 
          down, they may cause a person, in his 
          discomfort, to leave his Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Gidal citing Rav):</font></b> The base of the young 
          date-palm (where the branches all originate) 
          may be used.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is even though it looks like a 
               bundle, since it was packaged by Heaven.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It is even permitted to tie the upper 
               branches because the decree is confined to 
               many items that are tied together, and not 
               to one item that one ties in order to 
               connect its various parts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda citing Ravina b. Shila):</font></b> The same as 
          by the young date-palm is true by a group of 
          canes growing out of one branch (as the Beraisa 
          states that Kanim and Dokranim may be used as 
          Sechach).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> It is obvious that we could use 
               Kanim!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa should be understood 
               as permitting the Kanim <i>of</i> Dokranim 
               meaning, as stated, a bunch of canes that 
               grow out of one root.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda citing Ravina b. Shila):</font></b> One may use 
          Marerisa deAgma as Maror on Pesach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa disqualifies 
               hyssop from being used for the Parah 
               Adumah, if it has a descriptive title 
               (i.e. 'a Greek hyssop' or 'a blue 
               hyssop'), since the Torah prescribes a 
               <i>plain</i> hyssop.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Given that the Torah also prescribes plain 
               Maror for the Seder, how can Maror with a 
               descriptive title be Kosher?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> That restriction applies 
               only to those items which were selected by 
               the Torah among other items with similar, 
               but with descriptive, names (as the 
               hyssop, selected among the various types 
               of hyssop mentioned, thus disqualifying 
               them).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> However, at the time when the Torah was 
               given, our Marerisa deAgma was called just 
               plain Maror, and is therefore Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> A disqualifying descriptive 
               name describes the species, not the place 
               in which the item grows, as the Marerisa 
               deAgma is called such simply because it 
               grows in the marshes.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE NUMBER OF TIED ITEMS CONSTITUTING A BUNDLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda):</font></b> One stalk is not called an Eged, 
          three is a bundle and two is a Machlokes 
          between R. Yosi and Rabanan (in the Mishnah in 
          Parah regarding the Eizov).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana Kama):</font></b> The Mitzvah of Eizov requires 
               three roots, each comprising one stalk.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi):</font></b> The Mitzvah requires three 
               stalks, and it is sufficient if two remain 
               after one falls off (Shirayav), and some 
               bit must remain once the ends break off 
               from use (Girdumav).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  We initially infer (from the way that R. Chisda 
          invoked R. Yosi) that R. Yosi permits <i>two</i> 
          stalks even l'Chatchilah, and that <i>three</i> is 
          for a Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If that were so, then the Rabanan (who seem to 
          be the more Machmir position above) will hold 
          that one is not Yotzei at all with less than 
          three stalks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we find in the Beraisa that R. 
          Yosi is Machmir, holding that Eizov must have 
          at least three stalks l'Chatchilah and 
          remaining with at least two!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We reverse our initial assumption and 
          conclude that R. Yosi, who heard the Chachamim 
          require three stalks l'Chatchilah, responded 
          that three stalks are required even Bedieved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  This is supported by the Beraisa which says 
          that three is a Mitzvah, two is a starting 
          minimum, and one is a remaining minimum 
          (Rabanan) and adds, that it is Pasul if it 
          remains with one.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa contradicts itself on 
          whether remaining with one is Kosher (the 
          Reisha) or Pasul (the Seifa)!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MAROR THAT HAS A 'SHEM LEVAI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Chisda in the name of Ravina bar Shila rules that one may use 'Maror d'Agma' to fulfill the Mitzvah to eat Maror on Pesach night. The Gemara questions this ruling from a Beraisa which states that one does not fulfill the Mitzvah with Maror that has a 'Shem Levai' -- a modifying name, 'such-and-such Maror.' Only generic 'Maror' may be used for the Mitzvah, for that is what is mentioned in the Torah.
</p><p>
Abaye answers that since 'Maror d'Agma' was known merely as 'Maror' at the time the Torah was given, it falls into the category of 'Maror' mentioned in the Torah.
</p><p>
Rava answers that 'Maror d'Agma' has no modifying name. Rather, 'd'Agma' merely refers to the place in which the Maror can be found -- in the swamps ('Agma').
</p><p>
The Gemara here clearly maintains that a type of Maror that has a modifying name may not be used for the Mitzvah of Maror. However, the Gemara in Pesachim (39a) contradicts this ruling. The Mishnah there states, 'These are the vegetables with which a person fulfills his obligation [to eat Maror] on Pesach: Chazeres, Tamcha, Charchavina, Ulshin, and Maror.' The Gemara cites the opinion of Acherim that 'every bitter vegetable [with which one may fulfill the Mitzvah of Maror] emits a milk-like sap when cut, and the vegetable's color is whitish.' Rav Huna says that the Halachah follows the opinion of Acherim.
</p><p>
The Gemara there implies that any bitter vegetable (which meets the criteria of having a milk-like sap when cut, and a pale color) is acceptable for use for the Mitzvah of Maror. <b>RASHI</b> on the Chumash (Shemos 12:8) indeed states that the word 'Maror' in the Torah refers to 'any bitter vegetable.'
</p><p>
If one may use <i>any</i> bitter vegetable, it should make no difference what the Maror is called. Why does the Gemara here conclude that the Maror must not have a modifying name? (<b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> OC 473:15, <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains that the Gemara in Pesachim (39a) clearly sets forth an order of preference for what type of Maror one should use on Pesach. Chazeres is the first choice, either because it is the most bitter, or because its name alludes to the mercy ('Chasa') that Hash-m showered upon the Jewish people when He took us out of Egypt. The Gemara here does not mean that one does not fulfill his obligation at all with Maror that has a 'Shem Levai.' Rather, it means that <i>Chazeres</i> with a 'Shem Levai' is not considered to be the choice type of Maror. (<b>RASHI</b>, DH Merarisa, indeed explains that the Gemara here refers to a particular type of <i>Chazeres</i>. Tosfos questions Rashi's basis for explaining that the Gemara refers to a type of Chazeres. Perhaps Rashi understands the Gemara like the Me'iri.)
</p><p>
The Me'iri does not explain why the proper Chazeres for use as Maror should be one that was called 'Chazeres' at the time the Torah was given. Since the requirement to give precedence to Chazeres is only a rabbinical recommendation, it should depend on what was called 'Chazeres' during the times of the <i>Mishnah</i>.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Me'iri understands that the Rabanan made their enactment 'k'Ein d'Oraisa,' to resemble the Torah's requirement. Alternatively, perhaps he understands that the requirement to give precedence to Chazeres has its source in a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. (This does not appear to be the way Rashi learns the Sugya, because he writes (in DH Kol she'Nishtaneh) that the bitter herb must belong to the category of things that the Torah calls 'Maror.')
</p><p>
(b) It seems that there is a dispute among the Tana'im in Pesachim with regard to the types of Maror that one may use. The Tana of the Mishnah there implies that only the five species listed may be used, since only those species were called 'Maror' at the time the Torah was given. The Gemara here in Sukah seems to follow the opinion of that Tana, who says that Maror must be a specific type of herb, the name of which is 'Maror.' If it has a 'Shem Levai,' it is no longer 'Maror.' In contrast, the Gemara in Pesachim follows the opinion of Acherim that <i>any</i> bitter vegetable may be used for the Mitzvah of Maror. (<b>NETZIV</b> in <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b>)
</p><p>
(For a comprehensive review of the Halachah in practice, see Insights to Pesachim 39:2.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Pesul of the Seifa speaks of the 
          initial Eizov which is taken, which may not be 
          only one (as that is not called a bundle) even 
          though it may end up remaining as one after use 
          (and the Chachamim indeed hold that three is a 
          Mitzvah, and is not Me'akev).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER PARAMETERS FOR BUNDLES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mereimar):</font></b> We may use bundles of canes in Sura 
          (even though they were tied) since they were 
          tied into bundles (briefly, to maintain a set 
          number in each bundle) for the purpose of 
          selling them (not subject to Gezerias Otzar 
          which remain as bundles).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba):</font></b> We may use Tzerifa de'Urveni (a 
          round, pointed hut made out of willow branches) 
          after untying the top knot.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But the branches are still woven 
               below!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> He must untie the knot 
               which holds the weaving together, but he 
               need not actually undo the weaving.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> It 
               is unnecessary to release the knot on the 
               lower weaving because the hut can no 
               longer be carried (once the upper knot was 
               untied) and it is thus not invalidated as 
               a bundle.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MAROR' VEGETABLES AS 'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba citing Shmuel):</font></b> Any vegetables which 
          may be used as Maror on Pesach creates an Ohel 
          to transmit Tum'ah, but does not block Tum'ah 
          from rising through it (Gezeira d'Rabanan) and 
          it invalidates Sechach with a Shiur of <i>three</i> 
          Tefachim (like air does), and not <i>four</i> 
          Tefachim (like Sechach Pasul does).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The reason for these Chumros is because they 
          tend to dry up, so we view them (l'Chumra) as 
          if they had already done so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YADOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba citing R. Huna):</font></b> Grapes that are picked 
          for the wine-press have no Yados (the stalks do 
          not transmit Tum'ah to the grapes because he 
          does not need them to handle the grapes) [Later 
          called the case of Botzer].
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Menasia b. Gada also citing R. Huna):</font></b> 
          Similarly, if someone cuts sheaves (with grain) 
          to use as Sechach, the stalks are not 
          considered a Yad to the wheat kernels (since he 
          does not wish for the kernels to remain 
          attached to the stalks) [The case of Kotzer].
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If the case of Kotzer does not create a Yad, 
          then Botzer certainly will not do so (since he 
          certainly does not want (wine-absorbing) stalks 
          in his wine press.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If we learn that Botzer does not create a Yad, 
          then we could infer that Kotzer <i>does</i> since he 
          may wish that the grains remain attached to 
          (and preserve [or be preserved by]) the 
          sheaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It seems like the teaching of R. 
          Menasia b. Gada (whether Kotzer creates Yados) 
          is a Machlokes Tanaim in the Beraisa?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana Kama):</font></b> If one has any type of 
               branch, sheave or stalk with its fruit on 
               it, there must be more inedible vegetation 
               than fruit for the branches to be Sechach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Acheirim):</font></b> The waste must exceed both the 
               fruit and the Yados (the part of the 
               stalks which would serve as a handle) to 
               the fruit to be Mevatel them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It is clear that R. Aba (who maintains 
               that the stalks on Sukos <i>are</i> Yados -see 
               5.d.) cannot hold like the Tana Kama, who 
               holds that they are <i>not</i> Yados, and needs 
               this to be a Machlokes Tanaim so that he 
               can hold like Acheirim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> However, R. Menasia b. Gada could explain 
               his position on Kotzer either as dependent 
               on the Machlokes (and he would side with 
               the Tana Kama) or independent of it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Menasia b. Gada maintains that even 
          Acheirim holds like him (that stalks do not 
          have the Din of Yados) and the Beraisa speaks 
          where the owner initially cut the stalks for 
          food, but then changed his mind to use them as 
          Sechach (and Acheirim gives the stalks the Din 
          of Yad because we go after the owner's 
          intention at the time when he cut them).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then why (if they were cut for food) 
          would Rabanan not give them Yados?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rabanan hold that his second thought 
          cancels his first one.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'YADOS' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we learned in the Mishnah that 
          such second thoughts do not remove the status 
          of food from an item (and require that one act 
          upon them in accordance with their new function 
          to change their status)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Once a vessel is completed (via an act or 
               a Machshavah), it can only change its 
               status (and not be subject to Tum'ah), by 
               an act, and not through Machshavah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A Machshavah, however, cannot remove the 
               effect of a prior act <i>or</i> a prior 
               Machshavah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We must differentiate between vessels 
          and the stalks of fruit by saying that vessels 
          (which are lasting and therefore significant) 
          do not lose their finished status without an 
          act, but not so fruit (which are only for 
          eating, and therefore not significant) which 
          could become subject to Tum'ah with a thought, 
          and a thought is sufficient to remove that 
          feature.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But this will not fit according to R. 
          Yochanan in the Mishnah regarding Besisah (to 
          be explained)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar explains the Mishnah in Uktzin 
               (which declares Tahor the Yados of food 
               she'Basesan) to mean food whose bundles 
               they untied.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We see, then, a form of removing 
               susceptibility to Tum'ah through something 
               less than an act (untying is not really an 
               act, and is more comparable to a 
               Machshavah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan explains that Basesan means 
               threshing the corn (which destroys the 
               Yados).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Then we see that even handles of <i>food</i> 
               require an <i>act</i> to remove their 
               eligibility to become Tamei (and how are 
               we to understand the reason of Chachamim 
               above)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Chachamim were also speaking where, 
          when he decided to use the stalks for Sechach, 
          he threshed them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then why would Acherim argue!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Acherim hold like R. Yosi who holds 
          that even after Besisah, the stalks still 
          retain their status of Yados.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> There is no comparison between the 
          nullification of Yados of food and the Besisah 
          associated with changing one's mind regarding 
          Sechach!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> By Yados of food, R. Yosi holds like Resh 
               Lakish, who holds that the Yados after 
               threshing still have a function (one uses 
               the stalks to turn over the tops of the 
               wheat which are themselves too short to be 
               held in a pitchfork).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But by grain, the Besisah should surely be 
               a sufficient act, and what would be the 
               rationale of Acherim to retain the Tum'ah 
               of the Yados?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> When he takes down the Sechach, the 
          Yados will make it easier to collect the 
          sheaves.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ANOTHER 'MISHNAH' REGARDING 'BESISAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> Any Yados which had Besisah in the 
          granary are not susceptible to Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> They are still subject to Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Besisah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Actual threshing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> Untying the bundle.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> While we understand R. Yosi's 
          position if (as R. Elazar says) he only untied 
          the bundle; but what would R. Yosi's rationale 
          be if he actually threshed the Yados?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Resh Lakish):</font></b> The Yados after threshing 
          still have a function (to turn over the wheat 
          which too short for a pitchfork- Atar).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'TEFILOS' OF 'TZADIKIM' ARE LIKENED TO AN 'ATAR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Tefilah of a Tzadik is like a pitchfork 
          (the word VaYe'tar is used in connection with 
          Yitzchak's Tefilah) in that the Tefilah of a 
          Tzadik, acts like a pitchfork, turning Hashem's 
          Din into Rachamim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' PLANKS ('NESARIM') AS 'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Planks may be used as Sechach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Meir):</font></b> They are Asur.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A plank of four Tefachim invalidates the Sukah 
          if it is in the middle of the Sukah, but not if 
          it is adjacent to the wall of the Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  One may not sleep underneath a four-Tefachim 
          wide plank even if it is adjacent to the wall 
          of the Sukah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>RAV AND SHMUEL INTERPRET R. YEHUDAH AND R. MEIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Machlokes over planks is when they 
          are four Tefachim wide.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir prohibits lest it be confused with 
               a roof.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah does not have such a Gezeirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Machlokes is when the planks are 
          less than four Tefachim (see Rashi) but four 
          Tefachim is surely Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then anything, even reeds will 
               be Pasul!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Papa, interpreting Shmuel):</font></b> 
               Less than three is surely Kosher; more 
               than four is surely Pasul, and the 
               Machlokes is from three till four 
               Tefachim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yehudah holds that less than the 
                    Shiur of a place (a Reshus, four 
                    Tefachim) is not subject to the 
                    Gezeirah (of being confused with a 
                    ceiling).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Meir holds that any area which 
                    could not be covered by Lavud (from 
                    three Tefachim) is subject to the 
                    Gezeirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Seifah of the Mishnah (which we 
          assume is consistent with both R. Meir and R. 
          Yehudah) is a question on Rav's interpretation 
          of R. Yehudah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Seifah says that a four Tefachim board 
               may be used (the Sukah is Kosher) but one 
               may not sleep under it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel understands why, according to all 
               opinions, one may not sleep under a four 
               Tefach board.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> However, according to Rav, why should R. 
               Yehudah prohibit sleeping under such a 
               board?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Seifah is not all opinions (as we 
          thought) but it is the opinion of R. Meir.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa is a question on Rav 
          (first version).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana Kama):</font></b> Two cloths combine to four 
               Tefachim of Sechach Pasul, but two planks 
               do not.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) GETTING A HANDLE ('YAD') ON THE GRAIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rav Menashya bar Gada (13b) states that stalks of grain that were cut in order to be used as Sechach for a Sukah are not considered 'Yados.' Normally, stalks of grain are considered 'Yados,' or 'handles,' for the Shibolos (the edible part of the grain), since they enable the Shibolos to be moved or bundled easily. An object that is considered a Yad is Mekabel Tum'ah and may not be used as Sechach. However, when one cuts grain to be used for Sechach, the stalks are not considered Yados for the Shibolos, because the person has no intention to tie together the Shibolos and use the stalks to handle them. In fact, he is not interested in the Shibolos at all; for him to keep the Shibolos is counterproductive, because the Shiboles is considered a food and, if the quantity is large enough, can invalidate all of his Sechach (Rashi 13b, DH ha'Kotzer). Therefore, in this case the stalks are not Mekabel Tum'ah and may be used as Sechach.
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges Rav Menashya's ruling from a Beraisa in which the Tana Kama says that stalks of wheat are valid for Sechach, while Acherim say that stalks of wheat are not valid for Sechach, because they are Yados. According to Rav Menashya, why do Acherim consider them Yados?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is discussing wheat that one harvested with intention to use for eating, and afterward he decided to use the wheat for Sechach instead. In addition to the change in intention, the person also performed an action of treading upon the wheat (according to Rebbi Yochanan). Such an action shows that he wants to separate the stalks from the Shibolos, as he has no use for the Shibolos in the Sechach (since it is edible and therefore Mekabel Tum'ah). In such a case, the Tana Kama and Acherim argue whether the stalks still have the status of Yados or not.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that the reason of the Tana Kama for why the stalks do not have the status of Yados is because the person shows that he does not want the stalks to be connected to the Shibolos. Why, though, do Acherim say that the stalks are still considered Yados?
</p><p>
Even Rebbi Yosi -- who says that trampling upon the grain does not remove the status of Yados -- says that only about grain cut for eating, but not about grain cut for Sechach. When one treads on grain that he cut for eating, he shows that he wants to soften the stalks but not break them off; he still needs the stalks to be connected to the grain in order to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork. In contrast, when one treads on grain in order to use it for Sechach, he has no intent to leave the Shibolos connected to the stalks; he intends to break them off entirely. Why, then, should the stalks be considered Yados according to Acherim?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that there indeed <i>is</i> a purpose in leaving the Shibolos connected to the stalks even when one intends to use the grain for Sechach. When one removes the grain from the Sukah when the festival is over, he lifts it by taking hold of the stalks. (Even though he preferred to have no Shiboles on his Sechach in the first place, nevertheless some Shiboles always becomes mixed with the Sechach and is placed atop the Sukah. It is that Shiboles which the person now wants to take down by using the stalk as a handle.)
</p><p>
There are two points in the Gemara's answer that need clarification.
</p><p>
(a) If one wants the stalk to serve as a handle for the Shiboles when he takes it down from the Sukah, then why does Rav Menashya say that it is not a Yad? He should say that whenever grain is harvested to be used for Sechach, the stalk is a Yad because one intends to use it to pull down the Shiboles from the Sukah.
</p><p>
(b) Moreover, why does the Gemara say that the stalks are needed for when the Sechach is removed? Since the Gemara's goal is to find a usage for which one would want to leave the stalk attached to the Shiboles (to explain why the stalks are considered Yados according to Acherim), the Gemara should mention the usage that it mentions earlier (13b): when the stalk is attached to the Shiboles, the combined weight keeps the grain from flying off the Sukah. Why does the Gemara not suggest this reason for why one would want the stalks to remain attached? (<b>RAV SIMCHAH MI'DESVI</b>; <b>CHAZON ISH</b> OC #156, in Hashmatos to OC 629)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The usage that the stalks serve by enabling one to pull down the Shiboles is not an obvious function that a person definitely intends to utilize. It is a marginal usage of the stalks. In order to make an object fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah as a Yad, there must be a clear indication that the person intends to use the item as a Yad. The possibility that he will take hold of the stalk in order to remove the Sechach is not likely enough to attribute the status of Yad to the stalk.
</p><p>
On the other hand, if one originally cut the grain for eating and later decided to use it as Sechach, the stalks already have the status of Yados. In order to remove that status, it is necessary to have a clear indication that one does <i>not</i> want the Shiboles to be connected to the stalk anymore. Since there still exists the possibility that he wants to use the stalk (even after he treads upon the grain) to pull down the Shiboles from the Sukah, there is no clear indication that he does not want it to be a Yad. (Although there is no definite indication that the person intends to use the stalk to pull down the grain from the Sukah, there is also no definite indication that he is <i>not</i> interested in having it serve as a Yad in such a manner.)
</p><p>
(b) Why does the Gemara not suggest that the stalk remains a Yad because the person wants it to remain attached in order to keep the grain from flying off the Sukah? Even though Rav Menashya maintains that such a purpose does not make a Yad in the first place, it should make the stalk <i>remain</i> a Yad when it already was a Yad. Just as the usage of the stalk for pulling down the Shiboles from the Sukah does not render it a Yad in the first place but is enough to allow the stalk to remain a Yad when it already had that status, so, too, a stalk used to weigh down the grain should remain a Yad when it already had that status.
</p><p>
The answer is that usage of the Shiboles to weigh down the stalk is not a usage which can maintain its present status of Yad. Until now it was a Yad because the <i>stalk served the Shiboles</i> by being a handle to it, enabling it to be carried around. When he uses the grain for Sechach, he clearly indicates that he does not want to use the stalk to carry the Shiboles at all. To say that it should be a Yad because he wants the <i>Shiboles to serve the stalk</i> by weighing it down is to suggest a completely <i>new</i> reason to make it a Yad, and we already know that it is not enough of a reason to make something a Yad in the first place according to Rav Menashya. This is why the Gemara attempts to find a way for the original form of Yad to remain even after it was trampled upon (i.e. the stalk served as a handle to carry the Shiboles). (M. Kornfeld. See Rav Simchah mi'Desvi and the Chazon Ish (loc. cit.) for other possible answers.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: A PRAYER AND A PITCHFORK</b></font><b>
<br></b>Rebbi Elazar says that the reason why the prayer of a Tzadik ('Atirah,' as in Bereishis 25:21) is compared to a pitchfork ('Atar') is to teach that just as a pitchfork is used to turn over bushels of grain and move them from place to place, the prayer of a Tzadik 'turns over' the attributes of Hash-m from the attribute of strict justice to the attribute of kindness. (Although the word 'Atar' is an Aramaic word that does not appear in Tanach, the root of 'Atar' is found in Tanach to connote turning over or reversing; see Rashi and Tosfos in Ta'anis 20a, DH v'Na'ataros.)
</p><p>
In Yechezkel (8:11), the word 'Atar' is used to describe the Ketores. The verse there says, 'A thick cloud (Atar) of Ketores rose up.'
</p><p>
The Ketores reflects the Atar's ability to turn things over and its power to 'reverse' the wrath of Hash-m and transform it into mercy and kindness. Indeed, the verse compares Ketores to prayer: 'May my prayer be accepted like Ketores before You' (Tehilim 141:2), which implies that Ketores is even more effective in reversing Hashem's anger than is prayer. The Chachamim teach that 'Ketores has the ability to stop plagues' (Shabbos 89a).
</p><p>
This may explain why the name of Mordechai ha'Tzadik is hinted to in the Torah in the Parshah of Ketores ('Mor Deror,' Shemos 30:23, Chulin 139b). Mordechai was unique in his ability to <i>reverse</i> the fate of the Jews through the power of his <i>prayer</i>, as the Gemara says, '[Mordechai was called] 'ben Ya'ir' because he lit up the eyes of the Jews with his prayer, [he was called] 'ben Shim'i' because his prayer was heard by Hash-m, [he was called] 'ben Kish' because he knocked on the gates of mercy and they were opened for him' (Megilah 12b). Through Mordechai's prayer, the prayer of a Tzadik compared to a pitchfork, the Divine decree against the Jews was reversed ('v'Nahafoch Hu,' Esther 9:1) and Hashem's mercy was aroused to save the Jews. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Meir):</font></b> Planks are like cloth 
               (presumably to combine to four Tefachim of 
               Sechach Pasul to invalidate the Sukah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Shmuel understands why two planks of three 
               Tefachim would combine to invalidate the 
               Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> But when, according to Rav, would planks 
               combine to invalidate a Sukah!?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A four Tefach plank invalidates 
                    without any need for combining it 
                    with another.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Planks of less than four Tefachim are 
                    fine (like reeds) no matter how many!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The planks in the Beraisa are four 
          Tefachim wide, and we are speaking of combining 
          to four <i>Amos</i> at the side of the Sukah 
          (invalidating the Sukah because they are beyond 
          the limits of Dofen Akumah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa is a question on Rav 
          (second version).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel understands that the combining of 
               the Beraisa involves planks of three 
               Tefachim combining to four Amos, and 
               invalidating the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav can understand R. Meir similarly with 
               boards of four Tefachim (combining on the 
               side of the Sukah to invalidate it).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> However, R. Yehudah (who accepts boards of 
               four Tefachim), why would the Mishnah say 
               that they do not combine (implying that we 
               accept that they are Pasul, but we reject 
               the principle of combination)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The language (boards do not combine) 
          used by the Tana Kama of the Beraisa is meant 
          to parallel the language used by R. Meir (they 
          combine), but not to imply that there is 
          anything wrong with such four-Tefach boards.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  There is a Beraisa to support each, Rav and 
          Shmuel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (In support of Rav):</font></b> All agree that planks 
               of less than four are Kosher, R. Meir 
               holds that planks of four Tefachim are 
               Pasul and R. Yehudah holds that they are 
               Kosher. (R. Yehudah attempts to support 
               himself there from an incident during a 
               time of danger, a support which is 
               disputed by the Chachamim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (In support of Shmuel):</font></b> Four Tefachim 
               planks are surely Pasul, while planks of 
               less than four Tefachim are permitted by 
               R. Yehudah while R. Meir allows their use 
               only if space equal to the size of the 
               plank is left between the planks (R. 
               Yehudah there allows a plank of four 
               Tefachim at the side of the Sukah to be 
               used, but not slept under).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>TURNING THE PLANKS ON THEIR SIDES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Huna):</font></b> If planks four Tefachim wide but 
          less than four Tefachim thick are placed on 
          their sides, they still are Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda and Rabah. bar R. Huna):</font></b> They are 
          Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Nachman ruled that they are Pasul since they 
          are like metal, meaning these boards bear the 
          label of Sechach Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Huna asserted that this is how he had 
          previously taught.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Chisda and Rabah bar R. Huna responded that 
          R Huna had never provided a rationale, the way 
          R. Nachman did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Huna responded that they had never <i>asked</i> 
          for a reason!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shall the following Beraisa be used 
          in support of Rav Huna's rule (to invalidate 
          the board on its side)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> After mentioning the Pesulim of a small 
               Sukah and one with an opening at the 
               bottom of the wall, the Beraisa 
               invalidates a Sukah which has a plank that 
               is four Tefachim wide, but which only 
               takes up three Tefachim in the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This appears to be the case of a 
               four-Tefach board which has been turned on 
               its side, giving us the Din of R. Huna!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, the Beraisa is speaking of special 
          Halachah called Pesel ha'Yotzei min haSukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A plank of four Tefachim is placed across 
               the Sukah at the end where there is no 
               wall, with three Tefachim within the line 
               created by the opposite walls and one 
               Tefach protruding beyond the Sukah line.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> That additional Tefach is considered a 
               legitimate part of the Sukah, and could be 
               used as Sukah (Pesel ha'Yotzei - Sechach 
               protruding onto an open side of the 
               Sukah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> As such, the four-Tefach board invalidates 
               the Sukah, since its entire area is 
               considered part of the Sukah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) A FOUR-TEFACH BOARD THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE SIDE OF A SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Amora'im dispute whether or not a wooden board that is four Tefachim wide (but less than four Tefachim thick) invalidates a Sukah when it is placed on top of the Sukah on its side. One opinion maintains that the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' applies regardless of how the board is placed, while the other opinion maintains that the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' applies only when the board is placed flat, in the manner in which it is normally placed on the roof of a house.
</p><p>
The Gemara attempts to prove from a Beraisa that the board invalidates the Sukah. The Beraisa states that when a board that is four Tefachim wide is placed upon the Sukah in such a way that only three of the four Tefachim of its width are on the Sukah, it invalidates the Sukah. The Gemara assumes that the Beraisa refers to a board that is four Tefachim wide and three Tefachim thick, and that the board was placed on its edge. Accordingly, the Beraisa is a proof for the opinion that says that a board placed in such a way invalidates the Sukah.
</p><p>
The Gemara refutes the proof and says that in the case of the Beraisa, the board is placed flat atop the Sukah, but it is at the open edge of the Sukah such that one Tefach of the board extends beyond the Sukah and only three Tefachim of the board actually cover the Sukah. The Beraisa teaches that in such a case, the fourth Tefach joins the other three and all four are considered to be on top of the Sukah and thus invalidate it. The reason the fourth Tefach is viewed to be on the Sukah is because of the principle, 'Pesel ha'Yotzei Min ha'Sukah Nidon k'Sukah' -- 'Sechach which extends beyond the open edge of the Sukah is considered like part of the Sukah itself.'
</p><p>
Why does the four-Tefach board invalidate the Sukah in the case of the Beraisa? A board is considered a 'Pesel ha'Yotzei' and is part of the Sukah only when it extends over the <i>open</i> side of the Sukah (when three sides of the Sukah have walls and one side is left open). If that is the case of the Beraisa, however, the rest of the Sukah should be valid even without the unacceptably wide board of Sechach, because there are three walls around the valid Sechach. Even if the space which the board occupies would be left open, the Sukah would be valid; one piece of invalid Sechach at the edge of the Sukah does not invalidate the entire Sukah. (It is not reasonable to suggest that the Beraisa means that only the area <i>beneath</i> the board is not considered a valid part of the Sukah, because the Beraisa compares this case with the case of a Sukah that does not have an area of seven by seven Tefachim, and with the case of a Sukah that does not have proper walls. In both of those cases, the entire Sukah is invalid.)
</p><p>
It must be that the Beraisa's case involves a <i>small</i> Sukah, the area of which is not larger than nine by seven Tefachim, as the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (19a) asserts. In such a case, when the space that the board occupies is subtracted from the nine-Tefach length of the Sechach, the Sukah is left with a width of only six Tefachim -- less than the minimum area of seven by seven Tefachim that a valid Sukah must have. If the board is only three Tefachim wide, then the Sukah is valid, because a three-Tefach-wide wooden board is valid Sechach. If the board is four Tefachim wide, then it is not valid Sechach and thus it diminishes the size of the Sukah and invalidates it.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b>, however, does not learn this way. Rashi writes that if the board was placed on a side of the Sukah that has a wall (and it is not a 'Pesel ha'Yotzei' hanging over the open side of the Sukah), the Sukah is valid because of the principle of 'Dofen Akumah.' (The <b>RITVA</b> makes the same comment.) If the case of the Beraisa involves a board of four Tefachim that is placed on top of a <i>small</i> Sukah, how does the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' make the Sukah valid? In a normal case, 'Dofen Akumah' works because it turns the invalid Sechach into part of the wall of the Sukah and thereby permits one to use the rest of the Sukah (but not the area beneath the invalid Sechah-turned-Dofen). According to Rashi's explanation of the case, if the invalid Sechach (the four-Tefach board) becomes part of the wall, the rest of the Sechach still does not contain the minimum size of a Sukah. 'Dofen Akumah' should <i>not</i> make the Sukah valid in this case. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 632:1) answers that when Rashi mentions the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' here, he does not intend to apply it in the way that it normally applies. Rather, Rashi means that 'Dofen Akumah' merely 'cuts off' the part of the board that extends beyond the side of the Sukah so that it can be ignored. 'Dofen Akumah' enables us to view the part of the board on top of the Sukah as though it does not continue past the wall, but rather it bends with the wall at the point at which it makes contact with the wall. Once the board is viewed as only three Tefachim wide one may sit in the Sukah underneath it, because a three-Tefach board is valid Sechach.
</p><p>
The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> rejects the Magen Avraham's explanation for several reasons. First, we do not find that the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' connects Sechach to the wall while it remains, at the same time, valid Sechach. If it is part of the wall, then it cannot be used as Sechach, and if it is Sechach, then it is not part of the wall (and it joins with the fourth Tefach that extends beyond the wall).
</p><p>
Second, why does Rashi need to mention the concept of 'Dofen Akumah' altogether? If a wall is placed underneath a board and it separates the part of the board that protrudes beyond the edge of the Sukah from the rest of the board, then the part that protrudes is not considered a 'Pesel ha'Yotzei Min ha'Sukah.' That part is not able to join the rest to be considered part of the Sechach of the Sukah due to the wall that separates it from the Sechach. Accordingly, the wall that cuts off the extension of the board and prevents it from being a 'Pesel ha'Yotzei' should suffice to prove that the extra Tefach is not part of the Sechach. Why, then, does Rashi need to mention that the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' applies to the three Tefachim of board inside the wall to prove that the board that extends beyond the wall is not part of the Sukah? 
</p><p>
The <b>YAD EFRAIM</b> (OC 632) offers a beautiful answer to the questions on the Magen Avraham's explanation. He asserts that the Magen Avraham understands that the 'Dofen Akumah' is not the three Tefachim of the board that are in the Sukah. Rather, Rashi applies the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' to the <i>fourth</i> Tefach, the one which extends beyond the walls of the Sukah. Although that Tefach is connected to the rest of the board, it is viewed as a perpendicular extension of the wall, due to the principle of 'Dofen Akumah,' and not as a part of the Sechach. 'Dofen Akumah' Halachically removes the fourth Tefach from the board, and it thereby transforms the three Tefachim inside the Sukah into valid Sechach, and the fourth Tefach into a wall that is not used as Sechach.
</p><p>
(The <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b> and <b>CHIDUSHIM</b> U'VI'URIM suggest that it is possible that the word 'Akumah' in Rashi is a printer's error. However, the appearance of the same expression in the Ritva makes it unlikely that it is a printer's error. See also <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> and <b>CHIDUSHIM</b> U'VI'URIM who offer more complex explanations for Rashi.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' TURNING A CEILING INTO 'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Beis Shamai requires the shaking 
          of each plank as well as the removal of every 
          second plank while Beis Hillel permits the 
          Sechach after either of these acts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Meir):</font></b> He must remove every second plank 
          (and shaking is irrelevant).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE RATIONALE FOR THE ARGUMENT IN OUR 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand that Beis Hillel 
          requires an act to remove the stigma of Ta'aseh 
          v'lo Min he'Asuy, but why does Beis Shamai 
          demand <i>two</i> acts (one should suffice)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> To remove the concern of Gezeiras 
               Tikrah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then, again, removing every 
               second plank should be sufficient!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is owing to Gezeiras Tikrah and Beis 
          Shamai means that <i>even though</i> he shakes the 
          planks, he must remove every second plank in 
          order to make the Sukah usable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then R. Meir is not arguing, he is 
          only restating the position of Beis Shamai!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir is telling R. Yehudah that Beis 
          Hillel and Beis Shamai do not argue on the 
          matter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It seems that R. Meir and R. Yehudah 
          have already argued over Gezeiras Tikrah in the 
          previous Mishnah (14a)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya b. Aba citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> 
          The previous Mishnah speaks of planks which are 
          less than four Tefachim wide (thus are not 
          subject to Gezeiras Tikrah), but which have 
          been smoothed (and may be prohibited lest they 
          be confused with Kelim having a Beis Kibul 
          [Gezeiras Kelim]).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But given the position of R. Yehudah 
          citing Rav (who on 12b permitted male arrows, 
          in spite of the possible decree forbidding them 
          because of female arrows) if they did not issue 
          a Gezeirah there, why should they do so here?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, both Mishnayos discuss Gezeiras 
          Tikrah with the first Mishnah introducing the 
          Machlokes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why would the Mishnah need to discuss 
          it twice?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In our Mishnah, R. Yehudah points out 
          that Gezeiras Tikrah is the opinion only of 
          Beis Shamai, to which R. Meir responds that it 
          is unanimous.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But, according to Shmuel, why are 
          they arguing in our Mishnah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand that, according to Rav (who 
               says that R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue 
               regarding four-Tefach planks) that they 
               argue over Gezeiras Tikrah (since most 
               ceilings use four-Tefach planks).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But for Shmuel (who says that all agree to 
               invalidate four-Tefach planks) why should 
               even Beis Hillel (according to R. Yehudah) 
               permit the use of the ceiling (whose 
               planks, presumably, are four Tefachim)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah concedes that planks of four 
          Tefachim invalidate a Sukah, but only if one 
          can do nothing about it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> However, if one does something to be 
               Mevatel their status as planks of a 
               ceiling it is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because the suspicion that one may 
               come to use a ceiling no longer exists.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The Machlokes in our Mishnah is over what 
               is required to be Mevatel the status of 
               the planks as a ceiling.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' METAL RODS AND A SUKAH IN A HAYSTACK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  It is permitted to use metal rods or bed-posts 
          provided one leaves space between them equal to 
          the rods themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One who burrowed out a room within a haystack 
          has not made a Sukah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'PARUTZ KE'OMED'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah seems to refute R. Huna 
          bar R. Yehoshua in his position regarding 
          Parutz Ke'Omed!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Papa):</font></b> Parutz ke'Omed is permitted by 
               the walls of Shabbos (if the spaces 
               between the posts of a wall are the same 
               as the posts themselves, the wall is 
               Kosher).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Huna bar R. Yehoshua):</font></b> It is not 
               permitted to carry there unless the Omed 
               exceeds the Parutz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah seems to permit with Sechach 
               equal to the rods!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah, which says 'like spaces,' 
          does not mean identical spaces, but spaces 
          which would allow rods of the same width to be 
          moved in and out easily (so the Sechach covers 
          more than 50% of the surface).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MEFAKPEK' AND 'TA'ASEH V'LO MIN HE'ASUY'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah disagree with regard to the opinions of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
</p><p>
According to Rebbi Yehudah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about a case of a Sukah that has wooden boards as its roof. Beis Shamai (as the Gemara explains) maintains that it does not suffice to pick up the boards and place them back down ('Mefakpek'). Rather, one must remove at least every other board and replace it with valid Sechach ('Notel Achas mi'Beintayim'). According to Beis Hillel, it suffices to pick up the boards and place them back down.
</p><p>
Rebbi Meir maintains that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not argue. They both require that every other board be replaced with new Sechach.
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes Rav who explains that Beis Hillel, according to Rebbi Yehudah's understanding, maintains that there is no 'Gezeiras Tikrah' at all -- even a board that is four Tefachim wide is valid Sechach. The only reason why boards may not be used as Sechach for the Sukah is because they were not placed there in order to create shade but in order to construct a house. Consequently, the Sukah is 'Min he'Asuy' and the Torah's condition that it be 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy' has not been fulfilled. Therefore, Beis Hillel says that there are two ways in which one may make the boards valid: he may pick up the boards and place them back down, or he may remove every other board and place new, valid Sechach in its place.
</p><p>
Rav's explanation is difficult to understand. If the problem with the boards is that they were placed on the Sechach for a purpose other than to create shade (and the Sechach is 'Min he'Asuy'), then why does it help to remove every other board? The boards that were not removed are still invalid Sechach, and one who sits under those boards does not fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah.
</p><p>
The answer, as <b>RASHI</b> implies (DH v'Hachi ka'Amri), is that the removal of even half of the boards is considered a significant action (a 'Ma'aseh Ma'alya'), so that the entire roof is considered to have been properly made, even the boards that were not removed.
</p><p>
However, if the removal of <i>half</i> of the boards is considered a significant action to validate the entire roof of the Sukah, then why does Beis Hillel, in his second option, say that one should be 'Mefakpek,' pick up and place back down <i>all</i> of the boards on the roof? It should suffice to lift up every <i>other</i> board and place it back down, because an action done with half of the boards suffices to make all of the boards no longer considered 'Min he'Asuy.'
</p><p>
(When Beis Hillel in the Mishnah says that one may be 'Mefakpek' the boards, he clearly does not mean that one may pick up every other board, because had that been his intention, he would not have added that one may be 'Notel Achas mi'Beintayim' (replace every other board); even returning the same board that one picked up suffices. It is clear that Beis Hillel maintains that one either must pick up <i>every</i> board and place it back down, or replace <i>half</i> the boards with new Sechach.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Apparently, the act of lifting the board and placing it back down is not considered significant enough to qualify as an effective fulfillment of the condition of 'Ta'aseh' when one makes Sechach. (The reason for this is because the primary act -- placing the boards upon the roof -- was already done, and when it was done it was not done for the sake of shade.) Only when one is 'Mefakpek' <i>all</i> of the boards is that act considered significant enough to fulfill the requirement of 'Ta'aseh.' In contrast, the complete removal of the boards and the placement of new, valid Sechach in their place <i>is</i> a significant act and fulfills the requirement of 'Ta'aseh' even when only half of the boards are removed and replaced.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'BITUL TIKRAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara concludes that, according to Shmuel, both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir agree that there is a 'Gezeiras Tikrah' and, therefore, a Tikrah (wooden board) that is four Tefachim wide is invalid Sechach. The point of dispute between them is whether or not one may 'cancel a wooden board' ('Bitul Tikrah') by being 'Mefakpek' the board. What does 'Bitul Tikrah' mean? How does one cancel or nullify a wooden board?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that even though the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' normally invalidates a wooden board that is four Tefachim wide, it does not apply when a person picks up the board and places it back down. Through his action, he demonstrates that he is aware that there is a Pesul of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy,' and thus the Gezeirah is not necessary. (See Rashi 12b, DH Amar Lach, where he writes similarly that when a person performs an action that shows that he knows that there is a Pesul of 'Min he'Asuy,' the Gezeirah of Tikrah does not apply.) This is what the Gemara means when it says that the act of 'Mefakpek' can 'nullify' the Tikrah -- the act of 'Mefakpek' exempts the board from the 'Gezeiras Tikrah.'
</p><p>
How, though, does the act of 'Notel Achas mi'Beintayim' (one removes every other board and replaces it with valid Sechach) validate the Sukah? Everyone, even Rebbi Meir, agrees that such an act validates the Sukah. According to Rebbi Meir, who maintains that a mere display of one's knowledge of the principle of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy' does not remove the 'Gezeiras Tikrah,' the act of 'Notel Achas mi'Beintayim' also should not work, because four Tefachim of invalid Sechach remain between each row of valid Sechach!
</p><p>
Indeed, Rashi (on the Mishnah) explains that according to Rebbi Meir 'Notel Achas mi'Beintayim' does not remove the 'Gezeiras Tikrah'; replacing every other board with valid Sechach should not validate the remaining boards. Rather, 'Notel Achas mi'Beintayim' together with the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' makes the Sechach in the <i>middle</i> of the Sukah valid (because two rows of valid Sechach now lie side by side and together total more than seven Tefachim).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> and <b>RAMBAN</b> (in his first explanation) point out that the <b>RIF</b> does not learn like Rashi. Even though the Rif rules like Shmuel (who says that both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah agree that the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' applies to a board four Tefachim wide), he writes that the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah is whether 'Mefakpek' removes the problem of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy.' Why does the Rif not explain that the argument is whether 'Mefakpek' removes the problem of the 'Gezeiras Tikrah'?
</p><p>
The Ra'avad and Ramban explain that the Rif understands that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir agree that one may cancel the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' by lifting up the board and placing it back down, for this act shows that he knows about the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy' (as Rashi explains). When the Gemara says that they argue about 'Bitul Tikrah,' it means that they argue whether or not one may cancel the Pesul of 'Min he'Asuy' that invalidates the Tikrah. The reason why Rebbi Meir says that one cannot validate the Sukah with an act of 'Mefakpek,' lifting and returning the boards, is because 'Mefakpek' is not a significant enough action to cancel the Pesul of 'v'Lo Min he'Asuy,' but it <i>does</i> cancel the 'Gezeiras Tikrah.' Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it is able to remove the Pesul of 'v'Lo Min he'Asuy' as well.
</p><p>
(Even though the Gemara earlier (11a) says that shaking the Sechach ('Na'anu'a') fulfills the requirement of 'Ta'aseh,' perhaps the act of 'Mefakpek' is a less-significant action. 'Mefakpek' might refer merely to the removal of the nails from the boards (without lifting them), as the <b>ROSH</b> and <b>TUR</b> imply (see Korban Nesanel 29:1).) 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> concludes, however, that the <b>RIF</b> means something entirely different. The Rif means to say that according to Shmuel, the Tikrah mentioned in the Mishnah is not a board that is four Tefachim wide, or even three Tefachim wide. The Mishnah refers to a board that is even one Tefach wide. The reason why the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' applies to such boards is because they were part of an actual Tikrah (ceiling board) until now. The Tana who maintains that the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' applies to a board of four Tefachim also rules that the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' applies to anything that was part of an actual Tikrah until now.
</p><p>
However, this 'Gezeiras Tikrah' -- unlike the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' that applies to a four-Tefach-wide board -- can be corrected by 'Bitul,' by removing the boards and taking away their status of roof-boards. (That is, 'Bitul' removes the association of these boards with the 'Tikrah' which they originally formed.) What exactly constitutes 'Bitul' is the subject of the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehudah rules that even an action like 'Mefakpek' dissociates the boards from the Tikrah they once comprised. According to Rebbi Meir, only a significant action, and one which is clearly noticeable to all who enter, such as 'Notel Achas mi'Beintayim' (replacing every other board with valid Sechach) is able to remove the status of Tikrah from the boards. Merely lifting up the boards and placing them back down does not work, either because a 'Ma'aseh Rabah' (a significant action) is required (<b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RAN</b>), or because people who see the Sukah afterwards will not know that some action ('Mefakpek') was done to the boards and thus the 'Gezeiras Tikrah' still applies to them (<b>RITVA</b>).
</p><p>
This seems to be the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sukah 5:8) as well, as the <b>KORBAN NESANEL</b> (29:3) notes.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But from the language of the Mishnah 
          it would be permitted even if, indeed, they 
          were exactly equal!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> Our Mishnah requires him to 
          leave (slightly larger) spaces for the Sechach 
          to allow the Sechach (equivalent in width to 
          the rods) to be inserted easily, thus creating 
          a majority of Sechach (see Tosfos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> When he spreads the Sechach over 
          the rods, he lays the Sechach perpendicular 
          (not parallel) to the rods, which will place 
          more Sechach than rods (or the Sechach would 
          fall through the spaces).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>(FORMER) BED POSTS ARE NOT VALID 'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is our Mishnah a support for R. Ami 
          b. Tivyumi (who invalidates a Sukah whose 
          Sechach is vessels/clothes which are no longer 
          fit for use)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, because our Mishnah may be 
          explained (as R. Chanan, citing Rebbi, 
          explained another Mishnah) as speaking when the 
          bed-post (the long side post or the short head 
          post) still has its two legs still attached to 
          it, and such a bedpost is still fit for use 
          (and still subject to Tum'ah).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) EQUAL AMOUNTS OF INVALID SECHACH AND VALID SECHACH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (15a) states that when the roof of a Sukah is comprised of metal rods (invalid Sechach) and the gaps between the rods are equal in size to the width of the rods, the Sukah is valid as long as proper Sechach is placed in those gaps.
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges the opinion of Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua from this Mishnah. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua says that there must be <i>more</i> valid Sechach than invalid Sechach in order for the Sukah to be valid. In the Mishnah's case, however, the Sukah is valid even though there is an <i>equal</i> amount of valid and invalid Sechach.
</p><p>
Rava answers that in the Mishnah's case, the proper way to put the Sechach on the Sukah so that it will be valid is to place the valid Sechach perpendicularly across the invalid Sechach. In this manner, the roof is comprised of more valid Sechach than invalid Sechach, because the valid Sechach covers not only the gaps between the rods, but it also covers some of the area upon which the rods themselves are resting.
</p><p>
How can the Sechach that rests on top of the rods be considered valid Sechach? That Sechach should be no different from the Sechach of a Sukah underneath a tree, in which case the Sechach is invalid (9b). The Sechach on top of the rods should be invalid and not be included in the measure of valid Sechach. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Ha)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> (Eruvin 15b) suggests that according to the opinion of Rashi, the act of placing the valid Sechach on top of (but not mixed together with) the invalid Sechach suffices to nullify the invalid Sechach. We learned earlier (9b) that when one does an act of 'Chavtan' -- he lowers the invalid Sechach (the attached branches of a tree) onto the valid Sechach, he nullifies the invalid Sechach. The Ran appears to understand that 'Chavtan' refers to an act of merely laying the valid and invalid Sechach together, but not necessarily mixing them with each other.
</p><p>
However, this approach does not seem to be consistent with Rashi's own explanation of 'Chavtan' earlier (9b, DH b'she'Chavtan). Rashi there writes that only when the invalid Sechach is mixed with the valid Sechach, and is no longer apparent to the eye, does it become Batel to the valid Sechach. In the case of metal rods, the rods remain apparent to the eye. How, then, do they become Batel?
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps Rashi does not mean that the invalid Sechach becomes Batel to the majority of valid Sechach ('Batel b'Rov'). Rather, Rashi maintains that the invalid Sechach becomes Batel for a different reason. The Gemara (10a) teaches that when one spreads a sheet underneath the Sechach to beautify his Sukah, the sheet does not invalidate the Sechach, because it is considered Batel to the Sechach. According to Rashi, this applies to any object that does not serve to protect what is below it (the purpose of Sechach), such as a cloak laid out to dry on the Sechach (see Insights to Sukah 10:3).
</p><p>
Accordingly, perhaps Rashi here understands that since there is more Sechach than metal rods, the rods can be considered secondary ('Tafel') to the Sechach. The rods do not disqualify the Sechach, just as a sheet spread out for decorative purposes under the Sechach does not disqualify the Sechach. Only in the case of a tree, where the branches serve the purpose of Sechach and provide protection for the Sukah, is it necessary for the invalid Sechach to be bent down upon the valid Sechach and be rendered unrecognizable. In the case of metal rods, it is not necessary to perform a real act of 'Chavatah,' because the rods were not placed on the Sukah to create shade or provide protection, but rather to help support the Sechach. (This understanding is evident in the words of Rashi on the Mishnah, where Rashi emphasizes that the rods were placed there only to support the ceiling, which implies that they were not placed there to serve as the ceiling in their own right.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by Tosfos 9b, DH Ha) explains that when a Sukah has valid Sechach that creates more shade than lets in sunlight, any invalid Sechach that is above or below it that lets in more sunlight than shade cannot invalidate the Sechach (see Insights to Sukah 9:2).
</p><p>
(d) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explains the Gemara differently. He explains that the Gemara relies on what it said earlier, that there is more space between the metal rods than the exact width of the rods themselves. The Gemara questioned that suggestion and asked that 'it is <i>not</i> possible to be Metzamtzem' (this differs from our text of the Gemara, which asks that 'it <i>is</i> possible to be Metzamtzem'). The Gemara means that even though the space between the rods is greater than the width of the rods, perhaps one will not fill that space entirely with valid Sechach, and he will be left with a majority (or equal amount) of invalid Sechach.
</p><p>
Rava answers that one places the Sechach on top of the rods crosswise. In this manner, one assures that he will cover all of the space in the gaps between the rods, which are slightly larger than the width of the rods themselves. Accordingly, the amount of valid Sechach is greater than the amount of invalid Sechach.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PARTS OF A BED BEING 'MEKABEL' 'TUM'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In what Mishnah do we find the 
          position of R. Chanan citing Rebbi?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is a qualification of Chachamim in 
          the Mishnah in Kelim dealing with the Tum'ah 
          and Taharah of parts of a bed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Eliezer):</font></b> Only a complete bed is 
               subject to Tum'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Chachamim):</font></b> Sections of it can become 
               Tamei (and Tahor) independently.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> In what manner will parts be 
               Tameh according to Chachamim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Chanan citing Rebbi):</font></b> Such as 
               one length of bed with its two legs, or 
               one width with its two legs.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is that good for?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One can attach ropes to it 
                    and then lean it against the wall and 
                    sleep on it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WORN OUT 'KELIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What are the worn out Kelim which R. 
          Ami b. Tivyumi referred to as being Sechach 
          Pasul?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Clothes of less than the minimum size 
          garment (3x3 Etzba'os).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa which invalidates the worn out 
          grass mats from being Sechach supports R. Ami 
          b. Tivyumi (parenthetically, a large mat which 
          was made as Sechach is Kosher while a smaller 
          mat, made for sleeping, is not valid as 
          Sechach.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SUKAH CUT FROM WITHIN A HAYSTACK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Huna):</font></b> The Pesul of the Mishnah is only if 
          there is no Tefach-deep (and 7x7 Tefachim 
          large) hole.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If there already is such a hole in the 
               haystack, and Ohel already exists for the 
               entire area of the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It is then permitted to extend the height 
               of the walls from one Tefach to ten.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This ruling is supported by being the 
          resolution to a contradiction between our 
          Mishnah and a Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One Beraisa permits a Sukah cut from 
               within a haystack, while our Mishnah 
               forbids it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The resolution is the ruling of R. Huna, 
               and the Beraisa speaks of a case where a 
               one-Tefach hole already exists.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Others learn the ruling of R. Huna as having 
          been taught in order to resolve this 
          contradiction (and not having the contradiction 
          being brought as a support to his prior 
          ruling).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' SPACE AT THE BOTTOM OR TOP OF THE WALLS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> A wall of a Sukah which is woven 
          from the top down is Kosher only if it reaches 
          to within at least three Tefachim from the 
          ground (Lavud).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A wall which begins from the ground is Kosher 
          as long as it reaches a height of ten Tefachim, 
          even though it does not reach within three 
          Tefachim of the Sechach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> A wall which is woven from the 
          Sechach down, for at least 10 Tefachim, is 
          Kosher, even if it ends more than three 
          Tefachim from the ground, just like a wall 
          built from the bottom up.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MECHITZAH TELUYAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the basis for the Machlokes 
          in the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Whether a Mechitzah Teluyah (more than 
          three Tefachim off the ground) is considered a 
          Mechitzah to permit carrying (R. Yosi) or not 
          (Tana Kama).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The issue is the subject of the Mishnah in 
          Eiruvin:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> The residents of adjoining 
          courtyards may draw water from a shared well, 
          provided they made a partition for this purpose 
          (not relying on the property divider).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The partition must be 10 Tefachim tall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It may extend down to the water or only 
               into the lip of the well, as long as it is 
               built inside the well.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shimon b. Gamliel):</font></b> The matter is subject 
          to a Machlokes Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A DISMANTLED BED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Kelim (18:9) in which the Chachamim teach that a slat and two legs of a bed are Mekabel Tum'ah, according to the interpretation of Rebbi Chanan in the name of Rebbi. In the Mishnah there, Rebbi Eliezer states that a bed becomes Tamei only when it is a 'Chavilah,' completely assembled into one unit. Similarly, Rebbi Eliezer maintains that in order to be Metaher the bed from its Tum'ah, the entire bed must be immersed in a Mikvah as one unit.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the bed can become Tamei only when it is whole. If the bed is dismantled into parts, those parts cannot become Tamei. Even if a slat remains with two legs attached to it, which is a significant part of the bed and can be used on its own by leaning it against a wall, nevertheless it is not considered a complete Kli with a normal use and it cannot be Mekabel Tum'ah. When Rebbi Eliezer says that a bed can become <i>Tahor</i> only as a 'Chavilah,' he means that if a bed that became Tamei is dismantled and then immersed, it does not become Tahor.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are unclear. If, according to Rebbi Eliezer, a bed that is dismantled into separate parts is no longer considered a Kli, it should lose its Tum'ah just as any Kli loses its Tum'ah when it is broken (because it is no longer a Kli). Why does Rebbi Eliezer say that the separate pieces of a dismantled bed must be reassembled and then immersed in order to become Tahor?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b>, the <b>ROSH</b>, and the <b>RASH</b> (in Kelim) explain that, indeed, Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a bed that is Tamei becomes Tahor when it is dismantled. Nevertheless, when the bed is reassembled, it <i>returns</i> to its state of Tum'ah and needs Tevilah. Tevilah is not effective while the bed is dismantled, because the Tum'ah does not return until it is reassembled.
</p><p>
This answer is problematic for two reasons. First, as the <b>RASH</b> himself asks, the beginning of the Mishnah in Kelim explicitly says that if half of a bed was stolen, when one recovers the stolen part and reassembles the bed, it does not return to its previous state of Tum'ah.
</p><p>
Second, the Mishnah earlier in Kelim (11:1) says that the only type of Kli which returns to its old Tum'ah when it is repaired is a <i>metal</i> Kli. All other types of Kelim become Tahor when they are taken apart and remain Tahor when reassembled. A wooden bed, therefore, should also remain Tahor when reassembled. (<b>VILNA GA'ON</b> to Kelim 18:7)
</p><p>
To answer the first question, the <b>RASH</b> says that when half a bed is <i>stolen</i>, the owner despairs of ever recovering that half and reassembling his bed. Therefore, the bed is considered as though it is irrevocably destroyed. Consequently, even if one eventually does put it back together, it does not return to its old Tum'ah. In contrast, when the owner of the bed disassembles the bed himself, all of the pieces are available, and the owner does not despair of reassembling it. Accordingly, it returns to its old Tum'ah when reassembled.
</p><p>
The Rash's explanation may also answer the second question. Although broken Kelim (that are not made of metal) normally do not become Tamei when they are reassembled, a wooden bed is different. Since it is common to dismantle and reassemble a bed, it is not considered a broken Kli when it is dismantled, and thus it returns to its Tum'ah when it is reassembled. Why, though, does the bed not become Tamei when it is dismantled, if it is not considered broken? Rebbi Eliezer teaches that in order for a Kli to become Tamei, not only must it not be broken, but it must also be <i>usable</i>. Even though a dismantled bed is not considered broken, it does not become Tamei because it is not usable in its present state.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Kelim 18:7 and 9) explains that when Rebbi Eliezer says that the bed becomes Tamei only when it is complete, he does not mean that when it is dismantled it becomes Tahor. Rather, if it was already Tamei before it was dismantled, its parts <i>remain</i> Tamei when dismantled, because it is not considered to be a broken Kli. However, if the bed was <i>Tahor</i> when it was dismantled, and now a part of the bed touches something that is Tamei, it cannot become Tamei. The parts of a dismantled bed cannot acquire new Tum'ah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Eliezer's statement that the bed becomes Tahor only when it is whole means that it becomes Tahor only when it is reassembled, but until then it remains Tamei. (The bed cannot be immersed in its disassembled state, because it is Tamei only due to what it used to be (a usable bed); it can become Tahor only when it is in the same state that it was in when it became Tamei.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>RASH</b> cite sources from the Tosefta for an entirely different way to understand Rebbi Eliezer's statement. Rebbi Eliezer does not mean that a bed becomes Tamei <i>only</i> when it is assembled. Rather, he means that it becomes Tamei <i>even</i> when it is assembled. 'Chavilah' does not mean that the bed is completely assembled; rather, it means that as little as one slat and two legs ('Aruchah u'Shnei Kera'ayim') are assembled. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that any part of a bed that is dismantled not only remains Tamei, but even can become Tamei. When the parts of the bed are attached to each other and a Tamei person touches one part of the bed, that part becomes Tamei and spreads Tum'ah to the entire bundle of pieces.
</p><p>
The Chachamim argue and say that <i>only</i> the parts that were touched become Tamei. Those parts do not transfer the Tum'ah to other pieces attached to them. Since the bed is not whole, it is not considered a single, cohesive unit that can spread Tum'ah to all of its parts. Only when the bed is completely assembled can the entire bed become Tamei when any part of it is touched by a person who is Tamei.
</p><p>
When Rebbi Eliezer says that a bed becomes Tahor only when it is a 'Chavilah,' he means that since an 'Aruchah u'Shnei Kera'ayim' are considered a cohesive unit, one may immerse the bundle together, and the point at which they are connected is not considered a Chatzitzah, an intervention that invalidates the Tevilah. The Chachamim argue and say that each part of the Tamei bed must be immersed separately, because the points at which they are connected are considered Chatzitzos. Only when all the parts are assembled into a complete bed is the entire bed viewed as a single unit and may be immersed as one. When the parts are not completely assembled into one complete bed, each piece is viewed as a separate part and must be immersed by itself.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The opinion of the Tana Kama is that of 
               Beis Shamai while according to Beis 
               Hillel, the wall must extend close to the 
               level of the water.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Tosfos DH Beis Shamai reverses the 
               opinions of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The wall of the courtyard may 
          fill that role.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. 
          Yehudah above holds like R. Yosi in our Mishnah 
          (who permits a suspended Mechitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  In fact though, R. Yehudah does not hold like 
          R. Yosi, nor does R. Yosi hold like R. Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah may only apply his lenient 
               ruling by Eruv (d'Rabanan, from one Reshus 
               ha'Yachid to another), but not by Sukah, 
               which requires a Mechitzah d'Oraysa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi may permit a Mechitzah Teluyah 
               only by Sukah (a Mitzvas Aseh) while R. 
               Yehudah permits it even by Shabbos 
               (largely a Chiyuv Sekilah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But if R. Yosi concedes that a 
          Mechitzah Teluyah does not work on Shabbos, 
          then on what basis did they permit the incident 
          in his town, Tzipori!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That was in the days of R. Yishmael, 
          the son of R. Yosi, who disagreed with his 
          father in this point.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What was that incident?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They constructed a make-shift Mavoy 
          with sheets hanging from the posts to transport 
          the Sefer Torah for use on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How could they have brought out the 
          sheets without an Eruv!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They <i>found</i> sheets hanging, which did 
          not reach the ground, and they permitted their 
          use, even though they were a Mechitzah Teluyah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN APPLICATION OF 'MECHITZAH TELUYAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Chisda permits putting up a mat in between 
          the ceiling and the floor to form the wall of a 
          Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The smallest height for the mat (in a 
               minimum height Sukah) would be four 
               Tefachim and a bit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We would be applying Lavud both at the top 
               and at the bottom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the law of Lavud is well 
          established!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might not have known to apply Lavud 
          twice.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we see from the Beraisa (which 
          requires that a wall be seven-plus Tefachim) 
          that we do <i>not</i> apply Lavud twice!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That Beraisa is speaking about a large 
          Sukah, taller than ten Tefachim where he hangs 
          the seven-plus Tefachim within three Tefachim 
          of the Sechach (Lavud).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then what is the news of the Beraisa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mechitzah is allowed to hang down 
          to within any distance from the bottom 
          (Mechitzah Teluyah is permitted in a Sukah, 
          like R. Yosi).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>MINIMUM LENGTH OF A SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> It is permitted to place a mat or 
          beam of four-plus Tefachim within three 
          Tefachim of an existing wall (and adjacent to 
          it), to form the second wall of the Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the news of this teaching 
          (since Lavud is well established)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That the minimum size of a Sukah is 
          seven Tefachim (by seven Tefachim).
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' 'DOFEN AKUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  An open space of three Tefachim between the 
          wall and the Sechach invalidates the Sechach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A skylight in a room is invalid if it four Amos 
          away from the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A courtyard (three adjoining homes with a 
          covered porch in front of each) will be invalid 
          if the ceiling of the porch is four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Similarly invalid is Sechach which is 
          surrounded with four Amos of invalid Sechach.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DETAILS OF 'DOFEN AKUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did we need three illustrations 
          of Dofen Akumah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Each case has a potential leniency 
          which might cause us to limit the application 
          of Dofen Akumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The case of the skylight might be lenient 
               in that the walls were constructed to 
               enclose a dwelling (unlike the walls of 
               the homes in the courtyard which were not 
               made to enclose a dwelling).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Sukah with Sechach Pasul around the 
               side might be lenient since those 
               surrounding materials are fit for Sechach 
               (their Pesul is owing to Ta'aseh ve'Lo min 
               he'Asuy).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We thus are taught that Dofen Akumah 
               applies in all cases, even if the material 
               of which the wall was made is not fit to 
               be used as Sechach at all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah, reporting the view of Rabanan d'vei 
          Rav):</font></b> A three- Tefach break in the Sechach will 
          invalidate the Sukah and four Tefachim of 
          Sechach Pasul will interrupt the Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> But our Mishnah allows 
          Sechach Pasul up to four Amos (while three 
          Tefachim is only an open space)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (the Rabanan citing Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> The 
          Mishnah speaks of the distance to the <i>side</i> of 
          the Sukah (Dofen Akumah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> But what of the case of a 
          Sukah with less than four Tefachim of Sechach 
          Pasul next to less than three Tefachim of 
          space.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Surely it should be Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If filling in that space with Sechach 
               Pasul (which is more lenient than space, 
               since the Shiur of Sechach Pasul is four 
               Tefachim, while that of space is three) 
               will invalidate the Sukah, then why should 
               the <i>space</i> (which is stricter than 
               Sechach Pasul) not likewise invalidate it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabanan):</font></b> With that reasoning, you 
          (Rabah) should ask yourself the same question 
          (since according to you too, the Shiur of air 
          is even more stringent vis-a-vis Sechach Pasul 
          than it is according to us)!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: FOUR TEFACHIM OF INVALID SECHACH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Amora'im argue about how wide a strip of invalid Sechach must be to invalidate a Sukah (when it divides the Sukah into two sections, each of which lacks three walls or an area of seven by seven Tefachim).
</p><p>
(a) What is the Halachah in this case? Does a strip of invalid Sechach which is four Tefachim wide invalidate the Sukah, or does it invalidate the Sukah only when it is four Amos wide?
</p><p>
(b) What is the Halachah when the strip of invalid Sechach is less than four Tefachim wide? Although it is clear that such a strip does not invalidate the Sukah, is it considered valid Sechach? May a person sleep and eat directly below it, or must he make sure to sit below the valid part of the Sechach?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Rishonim disagree about the Halachah in this case.
</p><p>
1. The <b>BEHAG</b> rules leniently and says that the invalid strip must be four Amos wide in order to invalidate the Sukah. The <b>BA'AL HA'ITUR</b> (cited by the <b>ROSH</b> 1:32) cites the Yerushalmi that supports this ruling. He explains that the Gemara here also provides support for this ruling: according to the Talmidim of Neharde'a, Rav and Shmuel argue about this point (Rav says that the invalid Sechach must be four Amos wide to invalidate the Sukah, and Shmuel says that it must be only four Tefachim), and the Halachah follows Rav whenever he and Shmuel argue with regard to a matter of Isur.
</p><p>
2. The <b>RIF</b>, <b>RAMBAM</b>, and others rule like Shmuel who says that even a strip of four Tefachim of invalid Sechach invalidates the Sukah. The <b>RAMBAN</b> (cited by the Rosh) points out that the way in which the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' is applied throughout Shas supports this view. According to the opinion that a strip of four Amos of invalid Sechach invalidates a Sukah even when it is in the middle of the Sukah, 'Dofen Akumah' never has any application, because there is no difference between invalid Sechach next to the wall and invalid Sechach in the middle of the Sukah. This is also the ruling of the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 632:1).
</p><p>
(b) There are two opinions in the Rishonim with regard to whether one may sit below the invalid Sechach when it is less than four Tefachim wide.
</p><p>
1. <b>RASHI</b> (18a, DH she'Ein) writes (but does not cite proof) that one may sit below the invalid Sechach when it is less than four Tefachim wide.
</p><p>
2. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (on the Rif, 14a) argues with Rashi's ruling. He rules that one may not eat under the invalid part of the Sechach when its width is less than four Tefachim but more than three Tefachim.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> Although the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 632:1) cites only the opinion of Rashi, the <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (632:3) cites the opinion of the Ra'avad and says that it is best to avoid eating under invalid Sechach that is three to four Tefachim wide.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> According to my opinion, four 
          Amos is the fixed Shiur of Sechach Pasul that 
          disqualifies a Sukah while the Shiur of space 
          (three Tefachim) is unrelated to the Shiur of 
          Sechach Pasul and they do not combine to 
          disqualify the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to you, however, in whose 
               opinion the four Tefachim of Sechach Pasul 
               in the middle of the Sukah is not a given 
               Shiur, but a Sevara (based on four 
               Tefachim as a Makom Chashuv, ie. there is 
               a significant area of four Tefachim 
               without Kosher Sechach) then what is the 
               difference if those four Tefachim are 
               Sechach Pasul or space?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Hence Rabah's original question returns, 
               if Sechach Pasul invalidates the Sukah, 
               the certainly space should?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The case of a minimum Sukah, 
          where the Shiurim are the same (since three 
          Tefachim of either space or of Sechach Pasul 
          will invalidate the Sukah) then space and 
          Sechach Pasul should combine even by a larger 
          Sukah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> The invalidation of a minimum 
          Sukah is not the result of the Shiur of Sechach 
          Pasul or of space, but because there is lacking 
          a Shiur Sukah!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>COMBINING DISTINCT 'SHIURIM' (as learned in Sura)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rabah's premise, that when Shiurim 
          are distinct (such as four Amos for Sechach 
          Pasul and three Tefachim for space) they do not 
          combine, seems counter to the Mishnah in 
          Kelim!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Shiur Tum'ah for cloth is three by 
               three Tefachim; for sackcloth, four by 
               four; for leather, five by five; and for 
               reed mat, six by six.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Each of these will combine with the next 
               in line (if sewn together) to become 
               subject to the more lenient Shiur of 
               Tum'ah (e.g. cloth with sackcloth combine 
               to be subject to a Shiur of four Tefachim; 
               sackcloth with leather combine to a Shiur 
               of five; and leather and platted reeds to 
               a Shiur of six Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They combine to become Tameh because 
          sometimes they all have the same Shiur; whereas 
          Sechach Pasul and space never have the same 
          Shiur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> All of the above materials have the same 
               Shiur (of one Tefach) when they are sewn 
               as a patch into the saddle-cloth of a 
               donkey.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Of what use is a cloth of one 
               Tefach!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Resh Lakish citing R. Yanai):</font></b> It 
               can serve as a patch on the donkey.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>COMBINING DISTINCT 'SHIURIM' (as learned in Neharda'a)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> Sechach Pasul 
          invalidates beyond four Amos, when its area 
          four by four Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Pesul of Sechach Pasul is always 
          four Amos (the position of Rabah in the Sura 
          version).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What of the Mishnah, which allows a 
          plank of four Tefachim!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is understandable according to Rav, 
               since Sechach Pasul always invalidates 
               with four Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But for Shmuel, this should be Sechach 
               Pasul!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That plank was at the side of the 
          Sukah, within four Amos of the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (on Rav):</font></b> What of the first version of 
          the Beraisa discussed on 14a (that the Shiur 
          for planks is four Tefachim)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir holds that two planks combine 
               (like cloths).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to the first Lashon there, Rav 
               holds that in the middle of the Sukah, 
               four <i>Tefachim</i> invalidate the Sukah, then 
               of what case is the Beraisa speaking?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If each plank is <i>four</i> Tefachim 
                    wide, then why should it be necessary 
                    to combine two planks?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If they are <i>less</i> than four Tefachim 
                    then for Rav (who establishes the 
                    Machlokes between R. Meir and R. 
                    Yehudah in the Mishnah on 14a by 
                    planks of four Tefachim) anything 
                    <i>less than four</i> Tefachim is Sechach 
                    Kosher, no matter how many combine to 
                    form the Sechach!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> The Beraisa speaks by planks of 
          four Tefachim, that are placed at the side of 
          the Sukah which will invalidate it if they 
          total four Amos.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE AMOUNT OF INVALID SECHACH THAT DISQUALIFIES A SMALL SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that in a small Sukah (that has an area of seven by seven Tefachim), even three Tefachim of invalid Sechach disqualifies the Sukah. <b>RASHI</b> explains that a width of three Tefachim is too large to apply to it the principle of Lavud, and thus that part of the Sechach is considered separated from the rest of the Sukah. It does not combine with the rest of the Sechach to form the minimum area of seven by seven Tefachim that is necessary for the Sukah to be valid. <i>Less</i> than three Tefachim of invalid Sechach, however, does not disqualify a small Sukah.
</p><p>
Why does less than three Tefachim of invalid Sechach not disqualify a small Sukah? Even one Tefach of invalid Sechach diminishes the area of the small Sukah to less than seven by seven Tefachim!
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (9b) teaches that invalid Sechach that is not mixed together ('Chavtan') with valid Sechach does not become Batel to the valid Sechach and remains invalid (see Tosfos to 15b, DH v'Ha, and Insights to Sukah 15:3). Lavud does not apply because the area is not open space. Whenever something occupies the space, the principle of Lavud cannot join together the two sides of that space. Accordingly, even when there is only one Tefach of invalid Sechach, it should not become Batel to the rest of the Sechach, and thus there remains less than seven by seven Tefachim of valid Sechach.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) A Sukah does not need to be completely covered with Sechach in order to be valid. It merely needs to have more shade than sunlight from valid Sechach. In the case of a small Sukah with less than three Tefachim of invalid Sechach, the invalid Sechach is a minority while the valid Sechach is a 'Rov,' and thus the Sukah has more shade than sunlight from valid Sechach. (The strips of invalid Sechach are not worse than small gaps in the valid Sechach, which are ignored as long as there is more shade than sunlight.)
</p><p>
However, if a small Sukah is valid when it has a majority of shade from valid Sechach, then even when there are a full <i>three</i> Tefachim of invalid Sechach, the Sukah should be valid! Why does the Gemara say that a width of three Tefachim of invalid Sechach disqualifies a small Sukah?
</p><p>
Apparently, Rashi means that when there are three Tefachim or more of invalid Sechach, or three Tefachim or more of open space, it is not considered merely a gap in the Sechach that can be ignored, but rather it is considered a self-contained area that cannot be viewed as part of the Sechach at all. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explains the Gemara in an entirely different manner. He explains that in a small Sukah, the amount of invalid Sechach that invalidates the Sukah is not three Tefachim, but rather four Tefachim (or, more accurately, anything more than a majority of the area of the Sechach, or more than 3 1/2 Tefachim). He explains that as long as there is more shade than sunlight from the valid Sechach, the minority of invalid Sechach cannot disqualify the Sukah. It is not like open space, which invalidates a Sukah with merely three Tefachim.
</p><p>
According to Rabeinu Chananel, when the Gemara asks that in a small Sukah, the amount of invalid Sechach and amount of open space needed to invalidate the Sukah are the same, it does not mean that both amounts are defined by the same <i>number</i> of Tefachim. Rather, the Gemara means that both Pesulim are measured in the same <i>units</i> -- that is, in Tefachim and not in Amos. Since both are measured in Tefachim, they are considered to invalidate the Sukah with the same measure. In contrast, in a large Sukah, invalid Sechach disqualifies the Sukah only when there are four <i>Amos</i> of invalid Sechach, which is a different unit of measure than the one with which the Pesul of open space is measured (three <i>Tefachim</i>).
</p><p>
However, according to Rabeinu Chananel's approach, why does the Gemara attempt to prove from the Mishnah that different amounts combine? The Mishnah says that materials of different types combine to form the minimum amount necessary to be Mekabel Tum'ah. In that Mishnah, all of the Shi'urim are measured in Tefachim, and thus they are considered to be the same 'Shi'ur' according to Rabeinu Chananel. There is no proof from the Mishnah that <i>different</i> Shi'urim combine.
</p><p>
The answer is that the Mishnah there (Kelim 27:2) also mentions the Shi'ur of three by three <i>Etzba'os</i> (the minimum size of a cloth fabric that becomes Tamei with Tum'as Mes). Even though the Gemara here does not quote that part of the Mishnah, Rabeinu Chananel himself quotes it. He explains that when the Mishnah says that a Beged joins with a Sak, it means that even a Beged, which is measured in units of <i>Etzba'os</i>, joins a Sak to make a Shi'ur of four by four <i>Tefachim</i>. Accordingly, the Gemara has a valid proof from that Mishnah that even Shi'urim which are measured in different units still can combine with each other.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>COMBINING 'SHIURIM' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If a four-Tefach plank always 
          invalidates a Sukah, then why does R. Meir, in 
          the Beraisa, allow Sechach when there is an 
          equal amount of space as the Pasul boards 
          between each board?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Huna bar R. Yehoshua):</font></b> That Sukah 
          has a unique configuration which allows for an 
          eight-Tefach Kosher Sukah in the middle.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The alternating board-open, board-open 
               takes place three times from each side of 
               an eight-Amah-wide Sukah (the 'open' from 
               each side meet in the middle).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The boards are, indeed, Sechach Pasul, but 
               they are within the four Amos limit for 
               Dofen Akumah, leaving an eight Tefach 
               Kosher Sukah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'LAVUD LE'HACHSHIR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If one diminishes a three Tefachim 
          open space (with either Kosher or non-Kosher 
          Sechach) in a Sukah larger than the minimum, 
          the Sukah is Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There is neither the Shiur of space nor 
               that of Sechach Pasul to invalidate it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one did the same thing in a minimum 
               Sukah it would be Pasul, because it does 
               not have the Shiur Sechach for a Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If one filled in part of the space with 
               canes, the minimum Sukah is Kosher, 
               because of the principle of Lavud.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The above applies when the open space is next 
          to the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Acha and Ravina argue what the Din will be 
          in the middle of the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravina):</font></b> We would apply Lavud in the 
               middle of the Sukah, as well.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Acha):</font></b> Lavud is applied only next to a 
               wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale for Ravina?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He applies the leniency found by the 
          Koreh of a Mavoy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> To carry in a Mavoy requires (either a 
               Lechi at the entrance or) a Koreh across 
               the entrance of the Mavoy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the beam is interrupted in its middle 
               by a space of up to three Tefachim, it is 
               a valid Koreh (Lavud).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why, then, would R. Acha not allow 
          Lavud in the middle?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is restricted to the beams of a 
          Mavoy, whose application is mid'Rabanan, as we 
          see in the Beraisa where, when dealing with 
          Tum'ah d'Oraisa, Lavud does not 'close up' a 
          small skylight.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How will Ravina understand this 
          Beraisa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Hilchos Tum'ah have unique 
          specifications (the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai 
          is that regarding Tum'ah, there is no Lavud in 
          the middle).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'HALACHOS' OF R. YEHUDAH B'REBBI ILAI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah b. Ilai):</font></b> A skylight covered with 
          Sechach is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> My father taught 
          that this only applies up to four Amos from the 
          walls (Dofen Akumah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah b. Ilai):</font></b> A type of small fish 
          called Abruma is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> My father taught 
          that its Kashrus depends on which river it is 
          drawn from (some rivers grow insects, etc).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye):</font></b> A type of small fish called 
               Tzachnasa from the River Bav is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why are we not concerned that 
               this small fish will be interchanged with 
               Tameh fish?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Because the Bav is a swift-flowing 
               river and non-Kosher fish, which have no 
               spinal cord, could not survive in it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But we find non-Kosher fish in 
               other swift-flowing rivers!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is because the waters of the 
               Bav are very salty and non-Kosher fish, 
               which have no scales, could not survive in 
               it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But we find non-Kosher fish in 
               salty waters!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is because the mud on its 
               river-bed is inhospitable to insects, and 
               non-Kosher fish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravina):</font></b> Fish from the Bav are now no 
               longer permitted because the waters of 
               other rivers, which bring insects with 
               them, flow into it.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A SUKAH WITH ALTERNATING VALID AND INVALID SECHACH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that according to both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir, a Sukah that was covered with wooden boards that are each four Tefachim wide is invalid. Rebbi Meir says that the Sukah is invalid even when the boards are only three Tefachim wide. Rebbi Meir agrees, however, that when one places an equal width of valid Sechach between each board, the Sukah is valid.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that this Beraisa contradicts the view of Shmuel. Shmuel rules that the amount of invalid Sechach that disqualifies a Sukah when placed in the middle of the roof (as opposed to at the sides) is four Tefachim. According to Shmuel, why does the Beraisa say that the Sukah is valid in the case of boards that are four Tefachim wide but are separated by strips of valid Sechach? The very presence of the four-Tefach-wide boards should invalidate the Sukah.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Beraisa refers to a case of a Sukah which is exactly eight Amos long, on which one placed alternating strips of invalid and valid Sechach: He first placed a four-Tefach-wide board (invalid Sechach) atop the Sukah at each of the two far sides, followed by four Tefachim of valid Sechach, next to which he placed another strip of invalid Sechach, and so on until he reached the center. In the center of the Sukah's roof, he ended up with two pieces of valid Sechach with a total width of eight Tefachim. The Sukah is valid in this case because the three strips of invalid Sechach on each side are disregarded due to the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' (which works for a width of up to 24 Tefachim) and eight Tefachim of valid Sechach are left in the middle.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that this mechanism works only in the case of a Sukah which is <i>exactly</i> eight Amos, or 48 Tefachim, wide. Each half of the Sukah (24 Tefachim of its width) is covered by three pairs of alternating invalid and valid strips of Sechach, each of which is four Tefachim wide.
</p><p>
If the Gemara's goal is to find a case of a Sukah with alternating strips of invalid and valid Sechach such that the final two (valid) strips end up next to each other in the center, then why does the Gemara say that there must be <i>three</i> sets of invalid and valid strips?
</p><p>
It is obvious that if there would be four sets, the Sukah would not be valid, because the valid strips of Sechach in the center would be too far away from the walls of the Sukah (28 Tefachim) for 'Dofen Akumah' to work. Similarly, the Beraisa cannot be discussing a case in which there is only one set of invalid and valid Sechach on each side of the Sukah, because in such a case no two boards would have between them 'a single board's width of valid Sechach,' the Beraisa's description of how to validate the Sukah.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gemara not say that the Beraisa refers to a case in which there are <i>two</i> sets of invalid and valid Sechach? (Each set of two strips is eight Tefachim wide, and thus if two sets cover each half of the Sukah's width, then the Sukah's total width is 32 Tefachim.) In such a case, 'Dofen Akumah' still applies, and the eight Tefachim of valid Sechach in the center should be considered a full-fledged Sukah. Why does the Gemara insist that the Beraisa refers only to a Sukah that is 48 Tefachim (eight Amos) wide? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
(The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> suggests that the reason why the Gemara does not say that the Beraisa is discussing a Sukah that is 32 Tefachim wide is because 32 Tefachim is not a round number of Amos (32 Tefachim = 5 1/3 Amos, or 5 Amos and 2 Tefachim). This answer, however, is rather forced.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> In order to answer this question, we first must ask another question. Why does the Gemara say that the Beraisa is discussing a Sukah which is 'exactly' eight Amos (48 Tefachim) wide, and, as Rashi explains, 'not more and not less'? The Sukah could also be one Tefach <i>less</i> than eight Amos (7 5/6 Amos, or 47 Tefachim) and still be valid: Since one starts to cover the Sukah with alternating Sechach by placing a four-Tefach strip of invalid Sechach at each side of the Sukah, the missing Tefach will be lost from the valid Sechach at the center. Consequently, after 'Dofen Akumah' is applied, the Sukah will have only seven Tefachim of valid Sechach, but we have learned that a Sukah with seven Tefachim of Sechach is a valid Sukah!
</p><p>
(One cannot answer that the Gemara does not mention a Sukah with a width of 47 Tefachim because in such a case the width of the valid Sechach in the center (seven Tefachim) does not equal the width of the invalid Sechach on either side (each of which is four Tefachim), as the Beraisa stipulates. This answer is not valid, because even in the case of a 48-Tefach-wide Sukah, the amount of valid Sechach in the center (eight Tefachim) is not equal to the amount of invalid Sechach at its sides.)
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's intention when it limits the case to a Sukah that is <i>exactly</i> eight Amos wide?
</p><p>
The answer is as follows. Rashi (end of 17b, DH u'Modeh Rebbi Meir) explains that when the Beraisa says, 'Rebbi Meir agrees that the Sukah is valid if there is an equal width of valid Sechach between each board,' the Beraisa means that Rebbi Meir says the Sukah is valid 'also' when the boards are four Tefachim wide. That is, Rebbi Meir refers to boards of <i>both</i> widths -- boards of four Tefachim and boards of three Tefachim. Accordingly, whatever Sukah he permits with boards of four Tefachim he must also permit with boards of three Tefachim.
</p><p>
If the Sukah is one Tefach less than eight Amos (47 Tefachim instead of 48 Tefachim), it is true that it will be a valid Sukah when the boards are four Tefachim wide. However, it will <i>not</i> be a valid Sukah when the boards are <i>three</i> Tefachim wide. When each board is three Tefachim wide, how many sets of invalid and valid Sechach will fit on each side of the roof of a 47-Tefach-wide Sukah? Starting from the edge at each side, there will be three pairs of invalid and valid strips of three Tefachim (a total of 18 Tefachim), plus another invalid board of three Tefachim, plus valid Sechach of 2 1/2 Tefachim (for a total of 23 1/2 on each side). Accordingly, some of the valid Sechach is lost, but not any of the invalid Sechach, and thus a majority of invalid Sechach (six Tefachim) is left around the valid Sechach (five Tefachim), which disqualifies the Sukah. The principle of 'Dofen Akumah' is unable to cut out the invalid Sechach (as it does in the case of four-Tefach-wide boards), because there are only five (and not seven) Tefachim of valid Sechach in the middle.
</p><p>
Therefore, the Gemara says that the Sukah must be exactly 48 Tefachim wide. Only in such a case does each side have 24 Tefachim which contain four full sets of invalid and valid Sechach, and enough valid Sechach to make the Sukah acceptable (as the Mishnah and Gemara explain on 15a).
</p><p>
For the same reason, the Beraisa cannot be discussing a Sukah that is 32 Tefachim wide. Although such a Sukah indeed would be valid with alternating strips of invalid and valid Sechach that are four Tefachim wide, it would not be valid with strips of Sechach that are only three Tefachim wide. In such a case, each half of the Sukah would be 16 Tefachim wide, which would contain two sets of invalid and valid Sechach (each set is six Tefachim wide), plus one invalid board (three Tefachim), plus one Tefach of valid Sechach. The Sukah would have a total of two Tefachim of valid Sechach in the middle, leaving it with a majority of invalid Sechach and without the minimum Shi'ur of a valid Sukah in the middle. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE COURTYARD WALLS AND 'PI TIKRAH YORED VE'SOSEM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The walls of a Sukah may be made by uprights 
          placed less than three Tefachim apart (Lavud).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is taught regarding the case in the 
               Mishnah of three walls created by the 
               houses facing into the courtyard.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> There we learned that if the overhanging 
               roof extends more than four Amos into the 
               courtyard, the house walls cannot serve as 
               the walls of the Sukah, and it does not 
               suffice to put Sechach over the open area 
               beyond the overhang.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> The Sukah is allowed even without the 
          uprights, as we apply Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem 
          to create inner walls from the ceilings which 
          surround the courtyard.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> We do not apply Pi Tikrah Yored 
          ve'Sosem in this case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If Pi Tikrah indeed creates 
          walls then it should create a wall and close 
          the third wall of a Sukah, as well (where we 
          only have two parallel walls and boards for 
          Sechach between them)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Abaye concedes that Pi Tikrah 
          Yored does not apply in such a Sukah, as the 
          Rabanan forbade it because it resembles an open 
          Mavoy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shall we suggest that Rava and Abaye 
          are arguing in the Machlokes Rav and Shmuel?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> It is permitted to carry on Shabbos 
               inside an Achsadra that is not near a 
               house because Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem 
               (even by all walls).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> One may not carry beyond four 
               Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Abaye who permits an Achsadra without 
               uprights seems to be like Rav, while Rava 
               is like Shmuel who does not say Pi Tikrah 
               on four sides (only on three).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is no Machlokes Abaye and Rava 
          within the view of Shmuel, and even Rava will 
          agree that Shmuel will forbid our Achsadra 
          without uprights.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Machlokes Abaye and Rava is regarding 
               the opinion of Rav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Abaye permits the Sukah according to Rav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rava (who concedes that a field-Achsadra 
               allows for Pi Tikrah) holds that the 
               allowance there is because the roof (and, 
               by extension, the Gud Achis walls) were 
               made for the sake of a Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> But by the Sukah in the courtyard, the 
               overhangs were not made for the Sukah, and 
               Pi Tikrah will thus not apply.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) CAN 'PI TIKRAH' OF THE SECHACH FORM A THIRD WALL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava and Abaye argue whether a Sukah can be formed with the principle of 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem.' Rava says that a Sukah that has Halachic walls due to 'Pi Tikrah' is invalid. Abaye says that such a Sukah is valid.
</p><p>
Rava challenges Abaye's opinion from the case of a Sukah which has only two parallel walls. In such a case, Abaye should rule that the Sukah is valid, because the edge of the beam ('Pi Tikrah') above one of the open sides between the two walls should 'descend' and form the third wall ('Yored v'Sosem'). Rashi explains that Rava's question is that the edge of the Sechach that protrudes over the third side of the Sukah should be considered a 'Pi Tikrah.' (When the Sechach rests on an Achsadrah, the Sechach cannot be a 'Pi Tikrah' because it cannot be seen from within the structure, but when it is alone on the top of a Sukah it should be a 'Pi Tikrah.')
</p><p>
Abaye answers that in the case of two parallel walls, 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' cannot function, because people constantly walk through the area, and it is considered like a Mavoy Mefulash.
</p><p>
What is Rava's question on Abaye in the first place? Rava himself (19a) says that he follows the view of Rav, who says that 'Pi Tikrah' normally <i>does</i> work to enclose the area inside of an Achsadrah (for example, to permit one to carry in it on Shabbos). He does not apply 'Pi Tikrah' in the case of a Sukah adjacent to an Achsadrah because the beams of the Achsadrah are made only to serve what is <i>inside</i> (the porch that they cover), but not to serve what is <i>outside</i> (such as the Sukah adjacent to the Achsadrah). The Sechach on the Sukah, though, certainly was made to serve the <i>inside</i> of the Sukah, and thus even Rava should agree that 'Pi Tikrah' works in such a case. Why, then, does Rava ask this question on Abaye? It is also a question on his own opinion. (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> answers that Rava knew the answer that Abaye would give him (that such a Sukah is similar to a Mavoy Mefulash and thus 'Pi Tikrah' does not apply). Since Rava knew the answer, the question did not bother him according to his own opinion.
</p><p>
If, however, he knew the answer to the question, then why did he pose the question to Abaye? Rava reasoned that Abaye, who rules leniently and says that 'Pi Tikrah' works even to make a partition to enclose what is outside of the beam, also would rule leniently in the case of a Mavoy Mefulash and say that 'Pi Tikrah' works there as well. Since Abaye maintains that 'Pi Tikrah' is like a solid wall (and is not based on a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, which has certain limitations and prerequisites; see Rashi 19a, DH d'Mechitzos), it should be able to form a wall even where people frequently tread.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that Abaye differentiates between partitions that are made to enclose what is inside of them (in which case 'Pi Tikrah' works even to enclose what is outside of the partition), and partitions through which people walk (in which case 'Pi Tikrah' does not work). (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to Zevachim 77b, DH Odu Li, who applies a similar line of reasoning.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Sikech), the <b>RAN</b>, and the <b>RITVA</b> understand that the question of Rava is not that the edge of the Sechach should be 'Yored v'Sosem' to make a third wall. Sechach cannot be 'Yored v'Sosem,' because it is placed on the Sukah only as a temporary ('Arai') roof. Rather, Rava's question is that the side of the beam of an Achsadrah which is adjacent to the open side between the parallel walls should be 'Yored v'Sosem' to form the third wall, according to Abaye. According to Rava's own opinion, the Achsadrah cannot be 'Yored v'Sosem' to enclose the Sukah which stands outside of the Achsadrah.
</p><p>
If this is Rava's question, then why indeed should 'Pi Tikrah' <i>not</i> work in such a case according to Abaye? Abaye certainly should maintain that it works in such a case, because Abaye himself states that 'Pi Tikrah' works to make the beam of an Achsadrah into a wall even when there are <i>no</i> other walls to the Sukah.
</p><p>
The answer is that according to these Rishonim, 'Pi Tikrah' of an Achsadrah can form only one wall of the Sukah, but it cannot form two walls (see <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Achsadrah). The case in which Rava and Abaye argue is a case of an Achsadrah that has two adjacent (perpendicular) walls, and in order to make a Sukah one needs to make only the third wall. Rava asks that according to Abaye, even if the two walls are opposite each other (parallel) and not adjacent, the beam of the Achsadrah should work through 'Pi Tikrah' to make the third wall (as Tosfos explains in DH Sikech).
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> adds that according to this interpretation, Rava's question on Abaye is understandable even according to the second version of their dispute (on 19a). According to that version, Abaye and Rava argue about the case of an Achsadrah that has Petzimin (pillars beneath the beams). In that case, Abaye says that 'Pi Tikrah' works to enclose the third wall, while Rava says that it does not work. When there are no Petzimin, they agree that 'Pi Tikrah' does not work to enclose it.
</p><p>
According to Rashi's explanation of 'Petzimin,' the argument between Rava and Abaye is unrelated to 'Pi Tikrah.' The Petzimin are pillars that are within three Tefachim of each other, and Rava and Abaye argue about the application of the principle of 'Lavud.' In such a case, Petzimin certainly are able to enclose the third wall of a Sukah which has only two parallel walls. Accordingly, this version of the dispute maintains that Rava never asked his question on Abaye's opinion.
</p><p>
However, the Ritva points out that according to Tosfos, Rava <i>could</i> have asked this question on Abaye's opinion, even according to the second version of the dispute. According to Tosfos and the other Rishonim, Petzimin are not pillars that are within three Tefachim of each other, but rather they are posts at the end of each of the parallel walls of a Sukah. If the parallel walls are set next to an Achsadrah (with a beam that crosses from one wall to the other, and with Petzimin below the beam), then Abaye says that since there are Petzimin, 'Pi Tikrah' <i>in the presence of Petzimin</i> works to close the additional, third wall. Rava asks Abaye that if 'Pi Tikrah' works when there are Petzimin, then it should also work when there are no Petzimin, but merely two parallel walls adjacent to an Achsadrah. Abaye answers that the normal rule of 'Pi Tikrah' cannot apply here because the area is Mefulash, open on both ends with people passing through. Only in the presence of Petzimin is 'Pi Tikrah' able to form the third wall.
</p><p>
(In fact, this also explains why Rava, in the first version of the dispute, agrees that 'Pi Tikrah' works only where there are Petzimin: in the presence of Petzimin, the roof of the Achsadrah certainly forms a 'Pi Tikrah' even though it is made to serve the inside of the Achsadrah. (The wall is not formed through 'Lavud' of the Petzimin.) Although the Gemara later (19a) uses the word 'Lavud' with regard to the Petzimin, it uses the word there figuratively to mean that the wall becomes 'solid.' The way that the wall is formed, however, is not by way of the principle of 'Lavud' but by way of 'Pi Tikrah,' because the Petzimin are at a distance of more than three Tefachim from each other.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> and <b>SHITAS RIVAV</b> (on the Rif) appear to have an entirely different approach to the Sugya. They explain that even in the case of an Achsadrah adjacent to a Sukah, it is the Pi Tikrah of the <i>Sechach</i> that is 'Yored v'Sosem.' The walls of the homes around the Achsadrah, and the 'Pi Tikrah' of the Achsadrah, cannot enclose the Sukah (even according to Abaye), because they are made to serve what is inside of them, and not the Sukah that is outside of them. Only when combined with 'Pi Tikrah' of the Sukah do such walls suffice, according to Abaye. Rava, on the other hand, maintains that even with 'Pi Tikrah' such walls cannot be used. (However, in the presence of Petzimin -- that is, poles at the four corners of the Sukah that are not part of adjacent houses and therefore are considered part of the Sukah -- even Rava allows 'Pi Tikrah' to enclose the Sukah.)
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rava's question on Abaye is that if 'Pi Tikrah' of the Sechach works, then it should enclose the Sukah even when it is not adjacent to an Achsadrah, such as in the case of a normal Sukah whose third wall has collapsed. Abaye answers that 'Pi Tikrah' alone does not suffice to form the walls of a Sukah when it is not near an Achsadrah (that is, when it is not surrounded by walls of other houses), since it is similar to a Mavoy Mefulash. (This appears to be the intention of Rabeinu Chananel. -M. Kornfeld.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ABAYE AND RAVA ON 'PI TIKRAH' (as learned in Sura)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah indicates that we do not 
          say Pi Tikrah (since, if we did, the courtyard 
          Sukah would be Kosher)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava explaining for Abaye):</font></b> Our Mishnah 
          invalidates the courtyard Sukah when he placed 
          the Sechach level with the overhangs, not lying 
          on top of them (this leaves nothing visible on 
          which to say Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ABAYE AND RAVA ON PI TIKRAH (as learned in Pumbedisa)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  All agree that Sechach placed on an Achsadra 
          without uprights is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If it has uprights it is Kosher 
          (Lavud).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> It is still Pasul (Lavud does not apply 
          here since the uprights were not made for the 
          Sukah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is like Rava in the first Lashon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Ashi was surprised to find R. Kahana making 
          a Sukah in the way that Rava just invalidated 
          (with two adjacent walls, but no third wall of 
          one Tefach, thus relying on Pi Tikrah for the 
          third wall).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Kahana pointed out a third wall consisting 
          of one Tefach which jutted out into the 
          adjoining porch, and which could be seen by 
          people standing outside the Sukah but not by 
          those who were standing inside (we learned in 
          Eruvin that a Lechi, like the uprights, is 
          Kosher, and permits carrying in a Mavoy).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'PESEL HA'YOTZEI MIN HA'SUKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What constitutes a Pesel ha'Yotzei 
          which is considered part of the Sukah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> It refers to Sechach which 
          protrudes to an area behind the middle wall of 
          the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But that area would need three 
               walls!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It has them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But that area must be seven by 
               seven Tefachim!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But the area must have more 
               shade than sunshine!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It has.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then what is the news of Pesel 
               ha'Yotzei!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Even though the middle wall was 
               not made for this Sukah (it was made for 
               the Sechach on the other side) it is still 
               Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah and R. Yosef):</font></b> It refers to 
          Sechach which extends from inside the Sukah but 
          when only one of the walls fully extends to the 
          length of the Sechach (i.e. that section of 
          Sukah only has one wall and we might have 
          invalidated it on that basis).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. 
          Yochanan):</font></b> It refers to a case where the 
          majority of the Sechach casts more shade than 
          sunshine and a minority does not (the minority 
          [called Pesel] is Kosher even though it is not 
          in the [Hechsher] Sukah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Oshiya):</font></b> It refers to Sechach Pasul 
          of less than three Tefachim in a minimum small 
          Sukah (even though it has left the [laws of] 
          Sukah, it is still Kosher).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Hoshaya):</font></b> It should not 
               differ from the same amount of open space 
               in the Sechach of a minimum Sukah (which 
               we already know does not invalidate)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One may not sleep under a space of 
               even less than three Tefachim in a small 
               Sukah, whereas under Sechach Pasul of less 
               than three Tefachim sleeping is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Where do we find anything which 
               contributes to the Shiur of something 
               Kosher but is, itself, not Kosher!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A THIRD WALL FORMED BY A 'LECHI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana constructed a Sukah by placing Sechach over two perpendicular walls, with an Achsadrah on the third side. There was no wall on the third (or fourth) side. Rather, there was a pillar that was wider than a Tefach just outside of the wall perpendicular to the opening of the Achsadrah. From inside the Achsadrah, one could see the pillar just outside the wall of the Sukah. The pillar appeared to be the beginning of a third wall, but it did not extend across the face of the Sukah and thus was not visible from within the Sukah. Rav Kahana said that since such a pillar serves as a Lechi in the case of a Mavoy (and permits one to carry inside of the Mavoy on Shabbos), so, too, it serves as a third wall for the Sukah, and the Sukah is valid.
</p><p>
Rav Kahana seems to invoke the principle of 'Migu' -- 'since' it serves as a partition for the laws of a Mavoy on Shabbos, it also serves as a partition for a Sukah (7a).
</p><p>
However, the use of this method to consider the Sukah as though it has a third wall is problematic for several reasons.
</p><p>
First, <b>TOSFOS</b> (7b, DH Sikech) maintains that the principle of 'Migu' works only to fulfill a requirement that is mid'Rabanan. The requirement that a Sukah have a third wall is <i>mid'Oraisa</i>, and thus 'Migu' should not work. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Achvi)
</p><p>
Second, when the Rabanan enacted the requirement that a Mavoy have a Lechi at its entrance, they enacted that the Lechi serve as a 'Heker,' or reminder, but not that it serve as a <i>partition</i>. (Even according to the opinion that maintains that a Lechi is a full-fledged Mechitzah (Eruvin 12b), it is a Mechitzah only when it is in place of a <i>fourth</i> wall. Here, the Lechi is in place of a <i>third</i> wall.) How, then, can Rav Kahana derive that a Lechi serves as a <i>partition</i> for a Sukah from the fact that a Lechi serves as a <i>reminder</i> for a Mavoy?
</p><p>
Third, even if the principle of 'Migu' could teach that as long as a Lechi is in some way effective for a Mavoy it is also effective for a Sukah, the 'Migu' would work in this way only if a Lechi was effective for a Mavoy with regard to a Halachah <i>d'Oraisa</i>. In this case, though, the Lechi merely fulfills a <i>rabbinical</i> requirement for the Mavoy. How, then, can it fulfill the d'Oraisa requirement for a Sukah? (<b>ROSH</b> 1:34)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>ROSH</b> answers that in addition to the two walls and the pillar (Lechi) on the outside of one wall, Rav Kahana's Sukah also had a Tzuras ha'Pesach along the side with the Lechi. Indeed, it is Rav Kahana himself (7a) who rules that the only situation in which a one-Tefach-wide board may serve as the Sukah's third wall is when that side also has a Tzuras ha'Pesach. In this case, the Tzuras ha'Pesach makes the Sukah valid mid'Oraisa (because a Tzuras ha'Pesach is considered a partition), and the one-Tefach-wide board is necessary only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, the rule of 'Migu' applies and teaches that since the pillar is effective to fulfill the d'Rabanan requirement of Lechi for a Mavoy, it is also effective to fulfill the d'Rabanan requirement to have a one-Tefach-wide board on the third side of the Sukah.
</p><p>
Alternatively, the Rosh answers that even if there was no Tzuras ha'Pesach on Rav Kahana's Sukah, the need for the one-Tefach-wide board still was only mid'Rabanan, because the third wall was formed, mid'Oraisa, by the beam of the Achsadrah (through 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem'). Mid'Rabanan, though, that does not suffice, because the beam of the Achsadrah was not made to serve the outside of the Achsadrah (where the Sukah is located) but to serve the inside, and thus mid'Rabanan a third wall of at least one Tefach is required. The 'Migu' suffices to fulfill that requirement.
</p><p>
However, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Achvi) asks a fourth question. The Gemara earlier (7a) teaches that any entity that is considered a partition for the laws of Shabbos is also considered a wall for a Sukah. The Rishonim (see Rashi 7a, DH v'Chen l'Shabbos) explain that this rule applies only on Shabbos itself; that is, on Shabbos the Sukah is valid, but not on any other day. Why, then, was Rav Kahana's Sukah valid during the rest of the days of Sukos (besides Shabbos)?
</p><p>
The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> answers that the Rosh relies on the opinion of the <b>RIF</b>, who argues with the other Rishonim and maintains that since the 'Migu' works to make the Sukah valid on Shabbos, it also works to make the Sukah valid during the rest of the week.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) MUST THE WALLS OF A SUKAH BE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the Tosefta which states that when the Sechach of a Sukah extends beyond the Sukah ('Pesel ha'Yotzei Min ha'Sukah'), the area beneath that extension is considered part of the Sukah. Ula explains that this refers to Sechach which extends over the middle wall of a Sukah, when the two side walls also extend past the middle wall, so that the extension of Sechach actually covers an area surrounded by three walls. The Gemara asks that since, in this extension, there are three walls, valid Sechach, and more shade than sunlight, it obviously is a valid Sukah. What new teaching does the Tosefta intend to convey?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that one might have thought that since 'it was constructed for the <i>inside</i> of the Sukah, and it was not made to serve the outside of the Sukah,' it is not a valid Sukah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH l'Vra'i) explains that this refers to the middle wall. Since the middle wall was made to be a wall only for the inside of the Sukah, it does not serve as a wall for a Sukah constructed on the outer side of the wall (from the extension of the Sechach).
</p><p>
Rashi's words imply that he maintains that the walls of a Sukah must be constructed for the purpose of the Sukah (according to the Havah Amina). This is difficult to understand, though, because nowhere does the Gemara make any mention that the walls of a Sukah must be made for the sake of a Sukah. (Only with regard to the principle of 'Pi Tikrah' does Rava maintain that in order to apply 'Pi Tikrah' the walls of the Sukah must have been constructed for the sake of the Sukah.) On the contrary, the Mishnah (17a) states that the walls of the houses around an Achsadrah may be used as the walls of a Sukah (through 'Dofen Akumah'), even though those walls were not made to serve the Sukah.
</p><p>
This question prompts <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Vra'i) to explain that the Gemara's statement that 'it was constructed for the inside of the Sukah...' refers to the <i>Sechach</i> that extends beyond the Sukah, and not to the middle wall. Since the Sechach was placed on the Sukah for the purpose of the inside of the Sukah and not to serve the outside of the Sukah, one might have thought that the extension is not valid. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches that it is valid.
</p><p>
How does Rashi answer this question on his explanation?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the walls of a house may be used for a Sukah because they were built with intention that they would be permanent, and that they would be used for any purpose for which they might be needed. In contrast, walls built for a Sukah are temporary, and thus one might have thought that such walls are valid only for the purpose for which they were made (the inside of the Sukah).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> answers that in the case of the Mishnah (17a), the walls of the houses are considered to have been built for the use of the surrounding porch as well, since the porch is subordinate to the house (and therefore the Sukah built in that porch may utilize those walls). In the case of the extension of the Sukah, however, the middle wall was constructed specifically for the purpose of the inside of the Sukah, and thus one might have thought that the area outside of the wall cannot be a valid Sukah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> says that, indeed, the Mishnah itself teaches that the walls of the outside of a house may be used for a Sukah, and in this regard the Tosefta teaches nothing new. However, it is the manner of the Tosefta and Beraisa to teach laws that are already expressed in the Mishnah.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>MAYIM AMUKIM</b> suggests that perhaps Rashi understands that the Gemara's case involves a Sukah whose middle wall is not an actual wall but only a Halachic wall. That is, in the place of the middle wall, there is a row of vertical boards within three Tefachim of each other, and thus the principle of 'Lavud' creates a Halachic wall. Alternatively, the middle wall does not reach the Sechach, and it serves as a wall only because of the principle of 'Gud Achis.' One might have thought that 'Lavud' and 'Gud Achis' work only for the side for which the partition was constructed (just as the principle of 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' works only with Mechitzos that were made to serve the Sukah, according to Rava; see Rashi DH d'Mechitzos, and Rashi in Eruvin 95a, DH Lav l'Sukah). Therefore, the Tosefta teaches that such a partition <i>is</i> considered valid even for the area of the extension outside of the Sukah.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Soft mud is itself not Kosher, yet 
               it complements the deficient Shiur of 
               water in a Mikvah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' 'SECHACH' AT AN ANGLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> A Sukah which is shaped like a 
          tent or which is angled against a wall is Pasul 
          (its roof cannot be differentiated from its 
          walls).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim):</font></b> It is Kosher.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>METHODS FOR CORRECTING THE PROBLEM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer concedes that one could raise the 
          Sukos of the Mishnah one Tefach from the ground
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The leaning Sukah may be corrected by moving 
          the top of the Sechach one Tefach away from the 
          wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of the 
          Chachamim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They that a sloping Ohel is considered 
          an Ohel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  In the reported incident, R. Yosef justified 
          the fact that he was sleeping under a Kilas 
          Chasanim in a Sukah because he saw in a 
          Beraisa, that R. Eliezer and the Chachamim 
          switched their opinions, in which case, he was 
          following the opinion of the Chachamim (and not 
          of R. Eliezer).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But why did R. Yosef give credence to 
          the Beraisa over the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Because from another Beraisa, he 
          learned that the author of our Mishnah is a 
          lone opinion (R. Nasan quoting R. Eliezer) and 
          that the Chachamim disagree.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' REED MATS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> A large reed mat that is made to 
          sleep on, is subject to Tum'ah, and is Pasul 
          for Sechach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If it was made to be Sechach it may be used, 
          and is not susceptible to Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> Regardless of size, it depends 
          only on the intent with which it was made (as 
          bedding or Sechach).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>UNSPECIFIED REED MATS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah seems to create a 
          contradictory implication!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> From the Reisha we infer that a mat made 
               without any particular intention it is not 
               subject to Tum'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> From the Seifa we infer that if it is made 
               without specific intent it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Reisha speaks of a large mat 
          (larger than needed for sleeping), and the 
          Seifa of a small one.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But the words of R. Eliezer 
               create the same contradictory inference!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We cannot say that the first part of his 
               statement speaks of large mats and the 
               second of small, since he says explicitly 
               that regardless of size, only intent 
               matters!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> All agree that a large mat is 
          normally meant for Sechach (and is not 
          therefore subject to Tum'ah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana Kama holds that a small mat 
               (which he does not mention in the Mishnah) 
               which is made S'tam, is subject to Tum'ah 
               and is Sechach Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer maintains that a small mat has 
               the same Din as a large one in this 
               regard.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RAVA'S INTERPRETATION OF THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> A large mat is normally meant for 
          Sechach (but if made for sleeping is Mekabel 
          Tum'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana Kama):</font></b> An undesignated small mat is 
               subject to Tum'ah and is Pasul for Sechach
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Eliezer):</font></b> Both a small and a large mat 
               are Kosher for Sechach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> The language of R. Eliezer in 
          the Mishnah implies that the large is like the 
          small, not the reverse (a Tana normally 
          mentions the obvious case first, and then the 
          case that he is learning from it)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Second Question (Abaye):</font></b> It seems clear that R. 
          Eliezer is the Machmir position (as implied in 
          the Beraisa)!?
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. PAPA'S INTERPRETATION OF THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Papa):</font></b> All agree that an undesignated small 
          mat is for lying on, and they argue about a 
          large mat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana Kama):</font></b> As we understood before, an 
               undesignated large mat is for Sechach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Eliezer):</font></b> A large mat is also for 
               lying on (and may not be used).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then what did R. Eliezer 
                    mean when he spoke of a mat made for 
                    Shechivah (imply- ing that this is 
                    not its assumed state)?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He meant that its 
                    undesignated use is li'Shechivah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ANOTHER 'BERAISA' ON MATS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> Large mats made of soft grasses 
          may be used as Sechach, while small mats of the 
          same material are presumed to be made for 
          sleeping.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Those made of harder rushes are Kosher if 
               twisted (and thus are thick and lumpy) but 
               if woven (are smooth enough to sleep on 
               and) are not Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Small rush mats, even when they are 
               twisted are not Kosher for Sechach, 
               because they are fit for sleeping on 
               (small <i>reed</i> mats are Kosher when they 
               are twisted, their leniency deriving from 
               their being hard).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi citing his father):</font></b> 
          All of the harder rushes may be used as 
          Sechach, even if woven.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Dosa cited R. Yosi the same way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But elsewhere we find R. Dosa holding 
          not like R. Yosi and considering such a mat as 
          Tameh!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Dosa declares Chotzelos to be Kelim and 
               subject to becoming Tameh.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They become a Rishon, but not an Av 
                    (through the appropriate contact with 
                    a Zav, which they would be if they 
                    were Tamei Medras).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> The Chachamim say that they are 
                    <i>even</i> subject to becoming Tameh 
                    Medras (and whatever can become a 
                    Medras, will become a Rishon, should 
                    it touch an ordinary Av).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Avdimi b. Hamduri):</font></b> Chotzelos are the 
               leather satchels of shepherds.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Resh Lakish):</font></b> Chotzelos are mats.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Resh Lakish spoke in reverence about 
                    R. Chiya (Hareini Kaparas R. Chiya 
                    u'Vanav).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> This is because Ezra, Hillel and R. 
                    Chiya each came from Bavel to 
                    reinstate Torah in Eretz Yisrael.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SECHACH MADE FROM A MAT OF REEDS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to Rav Papa's explanation of the Mishnah (19b), the Mishnah teaches that a large mat made of reeds ('Machtzeles ha'Kanim') is normally made for use as Sechach (even without expressed intent). Therefore, it is valid for use as Sechach. In contrast, a small mat of reeds is normally made for the use of reclining upon, and thus it is invalid for use as Sechach. The Beraisa states that a mat of reeds may not be used for Sechach if it is interwoven ('Arugah'), but it may be used if it is braided ('Gedulah'). <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> point out that the Beraisa means that even a small mat (that was made with no expressed purpose) may be used for Sechach if it is braided.
</p><p>
In the end of the Beraisa, Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Dosa say that a mat may be used for Sechach even if it is interwoven. According to Rashi, this means that a small mat of reeds may be used regardless of how the reeds are intertwined (Arugah or Gedulah).
</p><p>
However, this opinion seems to contradict the Mishnah which states that a small mat of reeds that was made with no specific intent is presumably made for the sake of reclining upon and may not be used for Sechach.
</p><p>
How can the opinion expressed in the Beraisa be reconciled with the Mishnah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> writes that Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Dosa disagree with the Tana of the Mishnah. The Halachah follows the Mishnah, and not their opinion. This is the ruling of the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Sukah 5:4).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sukah 5:4) make no mention of the difference between woven and braided mats of reeds. The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> explains that they rule like Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Dosa in the Beraisa, who say that both types of mats are valid as Sechach.
</p><p>
However, the Rif and Rambam understand that the word the Beraisa uses is not 'Gedulah' (braided) but 'Gedolah' -- large. Accordingly, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa means that a <i>large</i> reed mat is valid, as the Mishnah says, but not if it is a woven. The Rambam rules like Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Dosa who argue with the Tana Kama of the Beraisa and say that a large mat is always valid (even when it is woven), which is the same opinion expressed by the Mishnah (which permits all large mats to be used as Sechach and does not differentiate between woven or braided mats).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The difference between woven and braided mats is not cited by the Shulchan Aruch (who rules like the Rambam in this regard). In practice, however, the Halachah depends on the purpose for which mats are normally used in that particular place and time (<b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> 629:18).
</p><p>
In recent years, reed mats have been introduced to the market with the claim that they were expressly manufactured for the purpose of Sechach. There are four issues that are relevant to the Halachah with regard to these mats.
</p><p>
1. Were the mats made in a place in which most mats of that sort are used for reclining upon? (Several types today are manufactured in the Far East.) Regardless of where they will be used as Sechach, if in their place of origin they are normally used for reclining, they are Mekabel Tum'ah and may not be used for Sechach.
</p><p>
2. The Halachah is that, l'Chatchilah, one should not support the Sechach with an object that itself is unfit to be used as Sechach (the 'Ma'amid' must fit the criteria for Sechach; see Insights to Sukah 21b). A string or rope that binds the separate parts of the mat together is considered a 'Ma'amid.' Since some ropes are Mekabel Tum'ah, they should not be used to bind the parts of the mat together. (Vines and natural fibers may be used, since they are not Mekabel Tum'ah and are valid Sechach themselves.)
</p><p>
3. The Rabanan instituted that a board with a width of three Tefachim or more is invalid for Sechach. This decree is known as 'Gezeiras Tikrah' (14a). Does this decree apply to a mat? While each individual slat in the mat is not four Tefachim wide, the combined width of the tied slats is greater than four Tefachim. Perhaps all of the slats are viewed as one entity, since they are tied together, and the decree of 'Gezeiras Tikrah' should apply to such a mat. (This consideration might not apply to a mat woven with unprocessed bamboo or sticks, since such pieces may be considered separate even when tied together. Only a mat comprised of wooden slats tied together might pose a problem of 'Gezeiras Tikrah,' since the may of slats may be considered a single entity.)
</p><p>
4. The Gemara discusses the 'Gezeiras Chavilah,' a decree of the Rabanan that disqualifies a bundle comprised of 25 or more sticks from being used as Sechach. Is a mat of tied slats considered a Chavilah? (Interwoven slats obviously are not considered a Chavilah. The question of Chavilah arises only with a mat that consists of parallel slats tied together.)
</p><p>
Since not all mats are the same, and there are various opinions among the authorities how to rule in each case, one should consult a competent rabbinical authority in order to determine which mats may be used for Sechach. 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: 'HAREINI KAPARASO' -- 'I AM AN ATONEMENT FOR HIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> When Reish Lakish quoted a teaching in the name of Rebbi Chiya and his sons, he added, 'I am hereby an atonement for Rebbi Chiya and his sons.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that since Rebbi Chiya was the Gadol ha'Dor, Reish Lakish honored him and treated him like his Rebbi. The Halachah is that when one quotes or refers to his Rebbi and father after their death, he should say, 'Hareini Kaparaso' (or 'Hareini Kaparas Mishkavo') -- 'May I be an atonement for him,' out of respect. Rashi explains that this phrase means, 'May Hash-m inflict upon me punishment to atone for the sins of my Rebbi (or father) who passed away.'
</p><p>
How can one person's afflictions serve as atonement for the sins of another person? The person who sinned should be punished for his own sins.
</p><p>
(<b>RAV EFRAIM ZALMAN STERNBUCH</b> shlit'a discusses this topic at length in <b>SEFER YISSACHAR U'ZEVULUN</b>, chapter 3. The sources cited here are culled from his discussion.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>THE MAHARSHAM</b> (3:151) explains that the principle, 'Kol Yisrael Arevin Zeh la'Zeh' -- 'all of the Jewish people are responsible for one another,' means that every Jew is in some way responsible for the sins of every other Jew. This principle enables one Jew to make himself a guarantor ('Arev') for another. When one person serves as guarantor for the repayment of a loan, the lender has the option to collect from either the debtor himself or from the guarantor. Similarly, one who says 'Hareini Kaparaso' makes himself a guarantor for the sins of his father or Rebbi and gives Hash-m the option to collect either from him or from the actual sinner.
</p><p>
However, the <b>MACHANEH CHAIM</b> (Choshen Mishpat #20) points out that it is evident from numerous verses that one must bear personal liability for his own sins (see, for example, Yechezkel 18:20 and Tehilim 49:8). Rav Efraim Zalman Sternbuch also cites <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b> (quoted by <b>MAHARAM ALSHAKER</b> #101), who writes that one certainly is unable to trade or sell the reward for a Mitzvah or the punishment for an Aveirah which he did.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MACHANEH CHAIM</b> suggests instead that the declaration of 'Hareini Kaparaso' is merely a way to give honor to the deceased or to pray for his soul. It is as though one says, 'I wish that my afflictions could be an atonement for him' (but not that they actually can be).
</p><p>
Rav Efraim Zalman questions these two explanations from the Gemara in Kidushin (31b). The Gemara there teaches that during the first twelve months after the death of one's father (or Rebbi), the son is <i>required</i> to say 'Hareini Kaparas Mishkavo' every time he mentions his father (or Rebbi). However, the Halachah is that a person is not required to undergo physical torture or hardship in order to honor his parents. For example, he is not required to beg from door to door in order to raise money to honor them (see Shulchan Aruch YD 240:5). Similarly, one is not required to suffer by giving up a prospective spouse because his father disapproves (see <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> to YD 240:5). Accordingly, one should not be required to undergo afflictions to attain atonement for his father. Why, then, does the Gemara obligate him to say that he wants to have afflictions in order to atone for his father if he is not obligated to suffer afflictions for his father's benefit? Even if he does not really receive the afflictions, as the Machaneh Chaim suggests, he should not be required to say that he 'wishes' he could if the Halachah does not obligate him to honor his father in such a manner.
</p><p>
Rav Efraim Zalman rejects the proposition of Rav Binyamin Stern in <b>B'TZEL HA'CHOCHMAH</b> (6:17-22) who writes that one's obligation to honor his parent is greater after his parent's death than when his parent is alive. Moreover, it seems clear from a number of sources that the afflictions that a son or disciple experiences indeed atone for the sins of his father or Rebbi (see, for example, <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> OC 284). Rashi's words also imply that a person's own afflictions are able to atone for the deceased.
</p><p>
(c) Rav Efraim Zalman Sternbuch and his father, <b>RAV MOSHE STERNBUCH</b> shlit'a (Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 2:47), write that according to <b>TOSFOS <b><b>RI</b></b> HA'ZAKEN</b> in Kidushin, one says 'Hareini Kaparas Mishkavo' only when he <i>quotes a teaching</i> of his father or Rebbi. Accordingly, this declaration is not necessarily an expression of one's acceptance of afflictions to atone for the sins of his father. Rather, with this declaration one expresses, 'If I made a mistake when I repeated my father's statement, then let me be punished for misquoting him, instead of him for not teaching me properly, because it is my mistake and not his.'
</p><p>
The Rishonim, however, do not seem to agree with this ruling. The <b>DARCHEI MOSHE</b> (YD 240) cites <b>RABEINU YERUCHAM</b> who says explicitly that <i>whenever</i> one mentions his father and Rebbi during the first year after his death, he should say 'Hareini Kaparas Mishkavo,' even when he does not quote a teaching in his name.
</p><p>
(d) Rav Efraim Zalman Sternbuch (in Sefer Yisachar u'Zevulun, p. 55) writes that perhaps one may attain atonement for his father only for the sin of not raising his son properly. The son says, 'If I sin, and as a result my father becomes deserving of punishment because of his failure to educate me properly, I should be punished and not my father.' He bases this approach on the words of the Rishon, <b>RABEINU SHNEUR</b>, quoted by the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 284).
</p><p>
The logic behind this is that one is able to atone for someone else's sin <i>which caused</i> his own sins by forgiving the other person and suffering for his own sins. Alternatively, when he says that he accepts upon himself afflictions for his sins (which were committed as a result of a deficiency in his education), he does Teshuvah for what he did wrong and he thereby corrects his wrongdoing, which consequently corrects his father's failure to educate him (since the son eventually became educated properly as his Teshuvah demonstrates), and thus his father also benefits.
</p><p>
According to this, it is clear why the son is obligated to accept such afflictions for his father or Rebbi, since it is <i>his</i> actions that cause the father or Rebbi to be punished. The same reasoning may apply for a Gadol ha'Dor like Rebbi Chiya. Such a preeminent sage is responsible for the deeds of everyone in his generation. As such, Reish Lakish was able to accept afflictions in order to atone for any failure of Rebbi Chiya to educate his students that might have caused Reish Lakish (his student's student) to sin.
</p><p>
(e) Rav Efraim Zalman writes that he later found a responsum of the <b>MAHARAM CHALAVAH</b> (#17) who discusses at length the principle that the punishment for one's sin cannot be redirected to another person. However, he shows that the declaration of 'Hareini Kaparaso' indeed provides atonement for the deceased, and not merely by serving to forgive the father or Rebbi for the sin of not providing a proper education for the son or disciple. He refers to the Gemara in Sanhedrin (104a) which implies that a son may exonerate his father from punishment ('Bera Mezakeh Aba'). Similarly, the Gemara in Chagigah (15b) implies that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yochanan were able to procure atonement for Acher (Elisha ben Avuyah).
</p><p>
The Maharam Chalavah explains how the atonement works. 'It is appropriate for him to atone for his father,' he writes, and since the son 'is the produce, the fruit, of a Tzadik,' he is able to effect atonement for that Tzadik. Likewise, a Talmid is able to effect atonement for his Rebbi, since he learned Torah from him, and thus it is appropriate for the Talmid to save his Rebbi just as a son saves his father. (A similar answer is given by the <b>TESHUVOS HA'RASHBA</b> 5:49.)
</p><p>
His intention might be as the Gemara in Yoma (87a) says, 'One who causes merit for others, no sin will come upon his hands.' The Gemara explains that Hash-m saves such a person from sin, because it is not proper for the Rebbi to suffer punishment in Gehinom while his Talmidim bask in the reward of Gan Eden. Similarly, when one teaches Torah to his son or disciple who then fulfills the Mitzvos as a result, it is not appropriate that the father or Rebbi should suffer for his sins while the son or disciple is rewarded for his merits, which themselves are to the credit of the one who taught him. Consequently, the son or disciple has a moral obligation to save his father or Rebbi who caused him to merit reward. This moral obligation is what obligates him to accept even physical suffering to atone for his Rebbi, and it is what enables his acceptance of suffering to effect atonement for his Rebbi. 
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>R. Dosa and the Chachamim agree about 
                    the mats of Usha (Tameh) and those of 
                    Teveriah (Tahor) and they argue about 
                    whether people normally sit on the 
                    other mats of the world.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Thus, according to Resh Lakish, R. Dosa 
               declares mats to be Tameh!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is speaking of a mat which has a 
          raised lip around it (making it a Kli) while we 
          are speaking of a flat mat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In another Beraisa, R. Dosa teaches 
          that Chotzelos are subject to Tumas Mes (not 
          Medras, while the Chachamim add Medras).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is understandable according to R. 
               Avdimi b. Hamduri.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  One might use a satchel made of 
                    rushes for large fruit, and one made 
                    of sack-cloth or horse-hair for 
                    legumes and smaller fruit.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> This is due to the difference in the 
                    way they are woven (with or without 
                    large gaps in the weaving).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> However, according to Resh Lakish, once R. 
               Dosa has taught that they are not made for 
               sleeping, mats are useless!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They each have a use.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A mat made of sack-cloth or horse-hair 
               might be used as a curtain or sifter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A mat made of rushes may serve as a cover 
               for a beer-barrel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  The above question and answer could also be 
          reframed as a question on R. Avdimi (trying to 
          discover the use of the sacks), while 
          understanding the use of the mats according to 
          Resh Lakish.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chanayah citing an old man he met in 
          Bavel):</font></b> One may use mats for Sechach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua, his uncle agreed with the old 
               man.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Chisda added that this ruling would 
               only apply to a mat that had no lip.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> The mats of the B'nei Mechuza would have 
          been eligible for Sechach had they not had rims 
          (a Beraisa supports this distinction).
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK HA'YASHEN</b>*****
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' SLEEPING IN THE SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> One may not sleep underneath a bed 
          in the Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is permitted (a temporary Ohel 
          cannot negate a permanent one) and supports his 
          view from his experience.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Tavi, R. Gamliel's slave, once slept under a 
          bed in a Sukah and R. Gamliel boasted that Tavi 
          was a scholar, knowing the relevant Halachos 
          (that one Ohel is Mevatel another and that 
          slaves are exempt from Sukah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  We learn from R. Gamliel's statement that 
          someone who sleeps under a bed in the Sukah has 
          not fulfilled his obligation.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>SLEEPING UNDER A BED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But given that beds are less than 10 
          Tefachim off the ground, why would it be 
          considered an interrupting Ohel?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> The Mishnah is speaking of a 
          bed raised 10 Tefachim from the ground.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DEFINING AN 'OHEL' (from the Mishnah in Ohalos)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> A hole that the water or rodents 
          bored into the lower section of the banks of a 
          river or which appeared there after the earth 
          crumbled by itself, or a pile of stones or of 
          beams where some of them formed an Ohel over 
          others all have the Dinim of Tumas Ohel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Only a man-made Ohel has the Din 
          of Ohel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is learned as a Gezeirah Shavah (the 
               shared word Ohel) from Mishkan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Tana Kama understands the extra words 
               Ohel to add more types of Ohalos, 
               including natural ones.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa indicates that, 
          according to R. Yehudah, the backs of oxen 
          (surely not man-made) create an Ohel!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> As one of the many precautions from Tum'ah 
               mentioned regarding drawing water for the 
               Parah Adumah, we learn that the children 
               were brought to the Shiloach on the backs 
               of oxen, with platforms attached upon 
               which the children sat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This created an Ohel which protected the 
               children from contracting Tum'ah from 
               unknown Tum'ah in the ground beneath them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah taught that the children were 
               borne on the oxen themselves, without the 
               platforms.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Thus we see that R. Yehudah recognized a 
               natural Ohel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Dimi citing R. Elazar):</font></b> R. Yehudah 
          concedes the existence of natural Ohalos when 
          they are large (as seen in the cited Beraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we find that R. Yehudah objected 
          to the use of the platforms, presumably because 
          this is not a normal way to make an Ohel!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> R. Yehudah did not mean that 
          the platforms were invalid as Ohalos, but that 
          they were not needed since the wide oxen served 
          as Ohalos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> R. Yehudah meant that they did 
          not use the platforms because the children were 
          used to them (unafraid) and might look over 
          their edge, exposing themselves to possible 
          Tum'ah (whereas they would stay scared in their 
          seats on the backs of the oxen).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) NOT 'KEVA': SECHACH PLACED ON THE LEGS OF A BED</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> In the Mishnah, the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah disagree about a Sukah constructed by placing Sechach atop the legs of a bed. The Tana Kama says that such a Sukah is valid. Rebbi Yehudah says that it is not valid.
</p><p>
The Gemara gives two reasons for Rebbi Yehudah's opinion. According to one Amora, he invalidates the Sukah because it is not 'Keva.' Another Amora says that he invalidates the Sukah because it is supported by an object that can become Tamei (see following Insight).
</p><p>
What does the Gemara mean when it says that Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the Sukah because it is not 'Keva'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that since the bed-poles support the Sukah, when one moves the bed the Sukah also moves, and a movable Sukah is not a 'Diras Keva,' a permanent dwelling place. Rebbi Yehudah invalidates this Sukah because he requires that a Sukah be a 'Diras Keva' (7b).
</p><p>
However, the Mishnah later (22b, and cited on 7b) says that a Sukah may be built on top of a wagon or camel, which implies that a movable Sukah <i>is</i> valid. Rashi apparently maintains that Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Halachah expressed in that Mishnah, just as Raban Gamliel disagrees with it (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH she'Ein Lah). It is possible that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the other ruling in the Mishnah there, that a Sukah built on a boat is valid, because in that case the Sukah is considered stationary and 'Keva.' A boat on water is never fully stationary, and thus any position of the boat is considered a stationary position (see Tosfos).
</p><p>
According to this explanation, the Halachah should not follow the view of Rebbi Yehudah in this case. A Sukah made by placing Sechach on the legs of a bed should be valid, because this is the Halachah with regard to the case of a Sukah atop a wagon.
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> gives a different answer to reconcile the ruling of the Mishnah later with Rebbi Yehudah's ruling. In the case of a Sukah on the legs of a bed, the floor of the Sukah is the ground beneath the bed; the Sechach is merely supported by the bed-poles. In that case, when the bed is moved, the Sechach is moved to cover an entirely different area of floor. In contrast, a Sukah built on a wagon has the floor of the wagon as its floor, and thus as the wagon moves the Sukah's floor moves with it and does not change. Therefore, even though the Halachah is that a Sukah on a wagon is valid, the Halachah can also follow the view of Rebbi Yehudah in the case of a Sukah on a bed (and the Sukah is invalid).
</p><p>
According to the Ran's explanation, when the Gemara concludes that the Sukah is valid when the Sechach is placed over the bed (and is not supported by the legs of the bed), it means that the Sechach is placed on the bed in such a way that the bed is the floor of the Sukah. When the bed moves, the floor of the Sukah also moves.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>RAMBAN</b> quote the Yerushalmi and explain that 'Keva' here means that this Sukah is not a residence in which one <i>easily</i> lives, because there are less than ten Tefachim from the top of the bed until the roof of the Sukah. Since it is not a residence that can be used in a normal way, it is not a valid Sukah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> on the Rif explains that the Sukah is not on the bed itself, but rather the bed supports the Sukah on one side. When one moves the bed to sleep in it, the whole Sukah will tumble down. Therefore, it is like a Sukah which cannot endure a Ru'ach Metzuyah (a wind of ordinary strength; that is, normal usage will cause it to fall down). Such a Sukah is invalid (even according to those who permit a Sukah which is a 'Diras Arai,' on 22a).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) NOT 'MA'AMID': SECHACH PLACED ON THE LEGS OF A BED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> In the Mishnah, the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah disagree about a Sukah constructed by placing Sechach atop the legs of a bed. The Tana Kama says that such a Sukah is valid. Rebbi Yehudah says that it is not valid.
</p><p>
The Gemara gives two reasons for Rebbi Yehudah's opinion. According to one Amora, he invalidates the Sukah because it is not 'Keva' (see previous Insight). Another Amora says that he invalidates the Sukah because it is supported by an object that can become Tamei.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the object ('Ma'amid') which serves to support the Sechach is considered like the Sechach itself, and thus if it can become Tamei it is invalid, just like Sechach itself which can become Tamei. However, there are several sources that seem to contradict this law of Ma'amid:
</p><p>
(a) Rava (15b) discusses Sechach placed on metal rods atop a Sukah. He rules that when the Sechach is placed across the rods the Sukah is valid even though the Sechach is supported by the rods. Why is the Sukah valid? It should be invalid because the Sechach is supported by a Ma'amid which is Mekabel Tum'ah.
</p><p>
(b) The Mishnah (22b) says that a Sukah built atop a tree is valid. Why is it valid? The Sukah is supported by the tree, which is attached to the ground. Since any object attached to the ground is invalid for use as Sechach, a Ma'amid that is attached to the ground should invalidate the Sukah as well.
</p><p>
(c) Common practice is to allow the Sechach of a Sukah to be supported by a solid wall made of bricks or cement (manufactured from rock, sand, or clay). Those materials are not valid for use as Sechach (as the <b>RITVA</b> states on 4a, 11b, and at the end of 21b). Why, then, may such a wall be used as a Ma'amid?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Apparently, Rava rules that Sechach may be supported by metal rods because he maintains that the reasoning for Rebbi Yehudah's ruling in the Mishnah here is that a Sukah built on top of the legs of a bed is not 'Keva.' Rava does not agree with the Amora who says that Rebbi Yehudah invalidates a Sukah built on the legs of a bed because the Ma'amid is Mekabel Tum'ah. Therefore, Rava permits Sechach to be supported on an object which is Mekabel Tum'ah. (<b>KORBAN NESANEL</b>)
</p><p>
(b) With regard to a Sukah built in a tree, the <b>RA'AVAD</b> explains that Sechach supported by a Ma'amid that is Mekabel Tum'ah is invalid only mid'Rabanan. The Rabanan enacted a Gezeirah to prevent people from thinking that just as an object which is Mekabel Tum'ah may be used as a Ma'amid, so, too, it may be used as the Sechach itself. Since it is an uncommon practice to build a Sukah in a tree, the Rabanan did not apply their Gezeirah in such a case.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> answer that even if Sechach supported by a Ma'amid that is Mekabel Tum'ah is invalid mid'Oraisa, as Rashi says ('Ma'amid is considered like Sechach'), perhaps the Mishnah's case of a Sukah in a tree refers to Sechach that is supported by wooden boards, and those boards are supported by the tree. The tree itself does not directly support the Sechach; it merely supports the boards which in turn support the Sechach. Accordingly, the tree is 'a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid' (Ritva; see following Insight), and therefore it is no different from every other Sukah which ultimately is supported by the ground (which may not be used for Sechach).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> suggests logical grounds for the common practice to use a solid wall (made of bricks or cement) to support the Sechach of a Sukah. First, it is highly uncommon that one uses earth or stone for the Sechach of a Sukah. Therefore the Ra'avad's reasoning (see (b) above) applies in this case as well.
</p><p>
Second, the Ran and Ritva explain that everyone knows that earth or stone cannot be used for Sechach, because such a roof is that of a permanent house and not that of a temporary Sukah. Since everyone knows that such material cannot be used for Sechach, there is no basis to prohibit it from being used as the Ma'amid for Sechach, because no one will confuse the Ma'amid with the Sechach. (This approach justifies the practice to support Sechach on a stone wall only according to the view of the Ra'avad, who says that the Isur of Ma'amid is mid'Rabanan. It does not justify the practice according to the view of Rashi, who maintains that the Isur of Ma'amid is mid'Oraisa.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) HALACHAH: 'MA'AMID' AND 'MA'AMID D'MA'AMID'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah says that a Sukah constructed by placing Sechach atop the legs of a bed is not valid. The Gemara gives two reasons for Rebbi Yehudah's opinion. According to one Amora, he invalidates the Sukah because it is not 'Keva.' Another Amora says that he invalidates the Sukah because it is supported by an object that can become Tamei. Since such an object may not be used as Sechach, it also may not be used to support the Sechach.
</p><p>
This issue is very relevant in practice. Is one permitted to use metal rods to support the Sechach of his Sukah? May one secure the Sechach by tying it with processed strings of cotton or linen? Similarly, may one use metal nails to hold down the boards which support the Sechach?
</p><p>
(a) In the Mishnah, the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah. The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> rules that the Halachah follows the view of the Rabanan. He rules this way apparently because that opinion is the opinion of the majority, or, as the <b>RA'AVAD</b> explains the Ba'al ha'Me'or's intention, because the Mishnah later (22b) permits one to place Sechach on a portable object or on an object which may not be used as Sechach itself.
</p><p>
(b) Other Rishonim assert that since the Amora'im discuss the reason for Rebbi Yehudah's ruling, the Halachah follows his opinion. Accordingly, a Sukah built by placing Sechach on the legs of a bed is invalid. (According to the <b>ROSH</b>, the Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah do not even argue; Rebbi Yehudah merely explains the opinion of the Rabanan.)
</p><p>
The Amora'im give two reasons for Rebbi Yehudah's opinion. The <b>ROSH</b> says that the primary reason is because such a Sukah is not 'Keva.' He accepts the definition of 'Keva' as explained by Tosfos and the Ramban in the name of the Yerushalmi (see Insights to 21:1:b): Rebbi Yehudah disqualifies the Sukah because its Sechach is too low (it is less than ten Tefachim from the top of the bed) and thus it is not 'Keva.' This is how the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 630:3) rules.
</p><p>
However, the <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RITVA</b>, and <b>RAN</b> rule stringently and maintain that the Halachah also follows the second reason -- that one may not support Sechach with an item that is Mekabel Tum'ah. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 629:7) indeed writes that it is questionable whether one may use a Ma'amid that is Mekabel Tum'ah. (Some, however, explain the words of the Shulchan Aruch differently. They explain that the Shulchan Aruch rules elsewhere (OC 628) that rods, which are Mekabel Tum'ah, may be used as a Ma'amid.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHA'AR HA'TZIYUN</b> (OC 630:60) lists many Rishonim who place no limits on the type of Ma'amid that may be used to support the Sechach. Therefore, he concludes that although it is best to be stringent l'Chatchilah and use only a Ma'amid that is fit to serve as Sechach, b'Di'eved the Sukah is valid even with a Ma'amid that is Mekabel Tum'ah.
</p><p>
What is the Halachah with regard to a 'Ma'amid d'Ma'amid' -- a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid? This refers to an object that supports the Ma'amid that in turn supports the Sechach. Is the Sukah valid when the object that supports the Ma'amid that supports the Sechach is itself <i>not</i> valid for Sechach?
</p><p>
The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> and the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in his comments to the Shulchan Aruch OC 629:8) rule that a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid is permissible even though it can be Mekabel Tum'ah. The proof is that the Ramban, Ritva, and Ran -- who say that one should be stringent when it comes to a Ma'amid -- explain that if one supports the Sechach on wooden poles (a valid Ma'amid) that are supported by a bed, the Sukah is valid even though the bed is Mekabel Tum'ah and supports the Ma'amid (that is, the bed is a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid).
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (143:2), however, rules stringently, based on the Ramban. The Ramban permits the use of a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid that is Mekabel Tum'ah only because the Ma'amid (which is invalid as Sechach) is a horizontal surface that serves the same purpose as the ground ('Ma'aseh Karka b'Alma'). This reasoning applies, however, only when the invalid object serves as the floor of the Sukah. If the object stands upright and supports the Ma'amid of the Sechach, such as metal nails that hold down the beam that supports the Sechach, then that logic does not permit one to use a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid that is invalid for Sechach. (The <b>RITVA</b> presents the arguments of the Ramban slightly differently. According to the Ritva, the allowance to use a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid that is invalid for Sechach applies when the secondary Ma'amid is farther away from the Sechach than the primary Ma'amid, and not because it merely serves as the ground of the Sukah. Accordingly, the proof of the Chazon Ish may actually be the subject of a Machlokes Rishonim between the Ramban and Ritva.)
</p><p>
The Chazon Ish presents a second argument. He says that if the Ma'amid (even one which is valid for use as Sechach) of the Sechach rests on an object that is Mekabel Tum'ah, then that Ma'amid may no longer be used as Sechach. Consequently, the Sechach that rests on that Ma'amid is considered to rest on an object which cannot be used as Sechach (a domino effect), and thus the Sukah should be invalid.
</p><p>
However, it could be that this logic does not apply here to prohibit the use of a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid. These Rishonim (Ramban, Ritva, Ran) maintain that a Ma'amid that is Mekabel Tum'ah invalidates the Sukah only mid'Rabanan -- the Rabanan enacted a Gezeirah lest one err and think that he is permitted to use such material for the actual Sechach of the Sukah. Since the Pesul of a Ma'amid that is unfit for Sechach is only a Gezeirah d'Rabanan, the Rabanan limited their Gezeirah to an actual Ma'amid. They did not apply it to a secondary Ma'amid.
</p><p>
The Chazon Ish concludes that, in practice, one should be careful not to use even a Ma'amid of a Ma'amid that is Mekabel Tu'mah (except for the cases mentioned in the previous Insight, in which one is permitted to use material that is invalid for Sechach as a Ma'amid according to all opinions). As mentioned earlier, the Sha'ar ha'Tziyun writes that b'Di'eved the Sukah is valid.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa supports Rava in its report of R. 
          Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How could R. Yehudah permit sleeping 
          under a bed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Given its width, it should be an Ohel, 
               just as the platform or the oxen 
               constitute an Ohel!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Yet in our Mishnah it is not an 
               intervening Ohel, while in the Mishnah 
               regarding Parah Adumah it is!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A bed is made for use above it, thus 
          negating the Ohel status of that which is below 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But oxen are also for use above 
          them!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravin citing R. Elazar):</font></b> The underside 
          of the oxen provides shade and rain-cover for 
          the shepherd.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If that is why it is an Ohel below, 
          then the same can be said of the bed which 
          protects the shoes beneath it!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Rather, oxen are an Ohel below 
          since their backs protect their lower parts (as 
          in the Pasuk).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah requires that a 
          Sukah be a fixed dwelling and a bed is a 
          temporary dwelling, which is not Mevatel the 
          fixed dwelling above it (the Sukah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But R. Shimon also requires a fixed 
          dwelling yet he holds that a temporary dwelling 
          does invalidate at fixed one!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, they are arguing over whether a 
          temp- orary dwelling invalidates the fixed 
          dwelling above it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>LESSONS FROM R. GAMLIEL AND FROM TAVI HIS SLAVE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa (like the Mishnah) learns the two 
          lessons from the Sichah (conversation) of R. 
          Gamliel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We typically speak of learning from 
          his words (Devarav) not from his Sichah 
          (conversation)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches us, inter alia, that even 
          the casual conversations of the sages warrant 
          analysis.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' A SUKAH ON A BED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> It is permitted to place Sechach 
          on a bed with three walls of 10 Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> If the Sukah could not stand 
          independent of the bed it is Pesulah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MA'AMID L'SECHACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehudah's rationale?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is a Machlokes (R. Zeira and R. Aba 
          b. Mamel) whether the Pesul is because the bed 
          is not fixed or because the Sukah is being 
          supported by that which is Mekabel Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When will we see a difference between 
          them?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> When a Sukah is built on iron poles 
          (which are fixed, but are Mekabel Tum'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> The Pesul of R. Yehudah is only if the 
          Sechach is resting on the bed, but if the beds 
          are serving as the walls of the Sukah, while 
          the Sechach is on Kosher poles, the Sukah is 
          Kesheirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why would such a Sukah be Kesheirah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Either because the poles are fixed or 
          because he is not resting the Sechach on that 
          which is Mekabel Tum'ah.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' SUKAH 'MEDUVLELES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Sukah Meduvleles (to be explained) and/or 
          whose shade is greater than its sun is/are 
          Kesheirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If the Sechach is very thick (even though stars 
          cannot be seen from within) the Sukah is 
          Kesheirah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MEDUVLELES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Meduvleles?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> A 'poor' Sukah (thin Sechach).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> One whose Sechach is 'mixed,' 
          laid one piece high and one low.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rav taught 1.a. (above) as one case (it is 
          Kosher even though it is thin provided that its 
          shade exceeds its light).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Shmuel taught it as two cases (mixed as one 
          Kosher case; shade exceeding light as a second 
          Kosher case).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHAVOT RAMI'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> The Heter of Shmuel only applies if 
          the higher and lower pieces are not separated 
          by three Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Heter applies even if they are 
          three Tefachim apart, provided that each plank 
          is a Tefach wide.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If less, then they need to be within three 
               Tefachim of one another.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This Heter is based on the principle of 
               Chavot Rami.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> My source for limiting Chavot Rami to a 
          board whose width is one Tefach is the Mishnah 
          in Ohalos and the Beraisa taught regarding that 
          Mishnah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah provides the Halachah in every 
               permutation where a two-story structure 
               has beams in the ceiling of each story.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Tum'ah is either allowed to flow upward or 
               is blocked by the Ohel created by the 
               boards.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If the boards of the two stories are 
               aligned with one another, then Tum'ah 
               rises unimpeded; if the upper boards are 
               above the spaces between the lower boards, 
               then Tum'ah anywhere in the building is 
               trapped as though it were all one room.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa qualifies the Mishnah as 
               applying when the boards and the spaces 
               between them are a Tefach wide, in order 
               to allow for Chavot Rami.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Ashi of R. Kehana who had just 
          reported Rava's assertion):</font></b> But we see in the 
          Beraisa that there is Chavot Rami even with 
          less than a Tefach width!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa permits incomplete Koros at 
               the entrance to a Mavoy with three (or, 
               according to R. Shimon b. Gamliel, four) 
               Tefachim of space in between.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'CHAVOT RAMI'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the case of a Sukah which has two layers of Sechach, a lower level and an upper level, and the boards of each level cover alternating areas. Abaye says that the Sukah is valid only when the lower and upper boards are less than three Tefachim away from each other; the principle of 'Lavud' transforms them into one complete, flat roof. When the boards are more than three Tefachim away from each other, the Sukah is invalid.
</p><p>
Rava disagrees with Abaye and says that the Sukah is valid because of the principle of 'Chavot Rami' -- the upper boards are considered to descend to the space between the lower boards, and they thereby complete the roof of the Sukah. The Halachah follows the opinion of Rava.
</p><p>
The Gemara qualifies the principle of 'Chavot Rami.' The Gemara says that 'Chavot Rami' works only when the width of each board on the upper level is at least one Tefach. The Rishonim argue whether this is the only requirement, or whether there are other conditions that must be fulfilled in order to apply the principle of 'Chavot Rami.'
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (end of DH v'Tani Alah) and <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Koros) imply that this is the only requirement; as long as each of the upper boards has a width of one Tefach, they are viewed as though they fill-in the spaces below and form a complete roof. The width of the spaces below, between the lower boards, is immaterial. (See <b>CHIDUSHEI ANSHEI SHEM</b> on the Rif, and <b>BACH</b> OC 631.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> add a second requirement. The space between the lower boards must also be at least one Tefach wide. If the spaces between the boards below are less than one Tefach wide, 'Chavot Rami' does not apply.
</p><p>
This requirement is derived from the Mishnah in Ohalos (12:5) cited by the Gemara here, which says that between the lower boards there must be at least one Tefach of space in order for 'Chavot Rami' to work.
</p><p>
(Rashi and Tosfos understand that the reason why the Mishnah in Ohalos says that there must be a Tefach between the lower boards is merely because it already stated that the width of the upper boards must be equal to the space below them. Since the upper boards must be one Tefach wide, the Mishnah expresses this requirement by saying that the space below them is one Tefach wide. However, even if the upper boards are one Tefach wide and the spaces below are not, 'Chavot Rami' still applies.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> cites a third opinion that maintains that the spaces between the boards on the bottom row must not only be one Tefach wide, but they must be wide enough to contain the boards on top (that is, if the boards on top are two Tefachim, the spaces below must also be two Tefachim). Although the Ritva rejects this opinion, the <b>PISKEI RID</b> rules like this opinion, and this is also the ruling of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sukah 5:21) according to the <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b>.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 631:5) rules like the Rambam (c). The <b>REMA</b> rules like the Ran (b).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Twin Koros, each less than the minimum 
               Tefach width, may be combined.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon b. Gamliel permits a space 
               between the two twin Koros, provided they 
               are strong enough to hold an Ariach 
               (half-brick).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> If the two twin Koros were at a different 
               height, then R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah 
               teaches that we view them as at the same 
               height, provided that the upper Korah is 
               not above 20 Amos, and the lower one is 
               not below 10 Tefachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> It would thus appear that we are 
               permitting Koros of less than a Tefach to 
               combine through Chavot Rami!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Kehana):</font></b> The Koros must be within 
          three Tefachim of one another (using Lavud, 
          since we do not say Chavot Rami with such 
          narrow boards), and the Beraisa is only 
          reminding us of the minimum and maximum 
          permitted height for Koros.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>SHADE EXCEEDING LIGHT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah implies that were the 
          shade and light to be equal, the Sukah is 
          Pesulah, while the earlier Mishnah implies that 
          equal shade and light is Kesheirah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is Pesulah if equal at the Sechach 
          level and Kesheirah if it is equal at the 
          ground-shade level (since the shade must be 
          greater at the Sechach level).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>SECHACH AS THICK AS A ROOF</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Sukah is still Kesheirah even if the stars 
          are not visible.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If sunlight does not penetrate the Sechach it 
          is Pasul according to Beis Shamai and Kosher 
          according to Beis Hillel.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' A SUKAH WHICH IS MOVABLE OR IN A TREE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Sukah built on a wagon or boat is Kesheirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  On a tree or a camel is Kesheirah, but may not 
          be entered on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If one or more of its walls are in the tree, 
          even if the second or third are on the ground, 
          it is viewed as in the tree and may not be 
          entered on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If three walls are on the ground we are not 
          concerned if the fourth wall is supported by 
          the tree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Sukah is tested by checking if it could 
          stand without the tree.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) MEASURING THE SHADE OF A SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks that the Mishnah here (22a) and the first Mishnah in the Maseches (2a) contradict each other. The Mishnah here states that when the amount of shade in the Sukah is more than the amount of sunlight, the Sukah is valid. This implies that when there is an <i>equal</i> amount of shade as sunlight, the Sukah is invalid. The Mishnah earlier, however, states that when the sunlight in the Sukah is more than the shade, the Sukah is invalid, which implies that when they are equal, the Sukah is <i>valid</i>.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that one Mishnah refers to 'on top' and the other refers to 'on bottom.' <b>RASHI</b> explains the Gemara's answer as follows: Sunlight spreads in the Sukah as it moves farther away from the Sechach. The Mishnah here, which implies that a Sukah with equal amounts of shade and sunlight is invalid, refers to the amount of shade and sunlight at the level of the Sechach itself. When there is an equal amount of Sechach as there is open space, the Sukah is invalid. The reason it is invalid is because when the sunlight reaches the floor of the Sukah, there is more sunlight than shade.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are difficult to understand. Why does Rashi say that the Sukah is invalid because there is more sunlight than shade at the floor of the Sukah? He should say that it is invalid simply because at the <i>top</i> of the Sukah, there is not more Sechach than open space, and thus the open space is not Batel to the Sechach (see Rashi, beginning of 2a). Why does Rashi say that the validity of the Sukah depends on how much light there is at the <i>floor</i> of the Sukah, and not on how much Sechach and open space there is on the roof?
</p><p>
It must be that Rashi's words here are based on the opinion of Rav Papa (15a) who maintains that Sechach that is Parutz k'Omed (it has equal amounts of Sechach and open space) is valid. Therefore, Rashi needs to give another reason for why a Sukah with equal amounts of Sechach and open space is <i>invalid</i>, and thus he says that it is because there is more sunlight than shade at the bottom of the Sukah.
</p><p>
Two points are clear from the words of Rashi. First, when the shade and sunlight are equal, the Sukah is valid. Second, the amount of shade and sunlight that the Sechach produces is measured by how much shade appears on the <i>floor</i> of the Sukah.
</p><p>
Rashi, however, contradicts these points in his following comment. Rashi explains that the Mishnah at the beginning of the Maseches, which implies that the Sukah is valid when there are equal amounts of shade and sunlight, refers to when the shade and sunlight are equal on the <i>floor</i> of the Sukah, because that indicates that there is <i>more</i> shade than sunlight at the <i>top</i> of the Sukah, at the level of the Sechach. Rashi now says that it depends how much shade is created at the <i>top</i> of the Sukah! Rashi should say instead that the Sukah is valid because the amount of shade is measured at the floor of the Sukah, and since the Halachah is that Parutz k'Omed is valid, the Sukah is valid because there is an equal amount of shade as sunlight. Rashi, though, implies that the shade is measured at the <i>top</i> of the Sukah. Moreover, Rashi implies that there must be a <i>majority</i> of shade (on top), and not equal amounts of shade and sunlight. Rashi contradicts himself in two regards.
</p><p>
How are the words of Rashi to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHASH</b>, based on the <b>RAN</b>, answers that Rashi purposely contradicts himself. Rashi's explanation of the two Mishnayos is based on two different opinions. First, Rashi explains that even according to Rav Papa, who says that Parutz k'Omed is valid, a Sukah that has equal amounts of Sechach and open space on top will be invalid because the amount of shade is measured at the floor of the Sukah, and at the floor there is less shade than sunlight. According to Rav Papa's opinion, it is obvious why the Sukah is valid when there is an <i>equal</i> amount of shade and sunlight on bottom, for Parutz k'Omed is valid.
</p><p>
Next, Rashi explains that the implication of the first Mishnah -- that the Sukah is valid when there are equal amounts of shade and sunlight on the bottom -- is true even according to Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who says that Parutz k'Omed is <i>not</i> valid. According to his opinion, it must be that the shade is measured at the <i>top</i> of the Sukah, and not on the floor. The reason why the Sukah is valid even when there is an equal amount of shade and sunlight on the floor is because we may assume that there is <i>more</i> shade than sunlight at the level of the Sechach. Thus, Rashi's first comment explains the Mishnah here according to Rav Papa, and his second comment explains the first Mishnah according to Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua.
</p><p>
However, the <b>TUR</b> (OC 631) makes a statement similar to Rashi's second comment. The Tur's objective, however, is to teach the Halachah, and not merely to explain the meaning of the Gemara's answer. Why does the Tur need to mention the opinion of Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua? Since the Tur rules like Rav Papa that Parutz k'Omed is valid (OC 628 and 631), he should explain the Halachah only according to Rav Papa!
</p><p>
(b) It appears that Rashi and the Tur understand the Gemara like the <b>ROSH</b>. The Rosh (2:3) writes that the argument of Parutz k'Omed applies only in a case in which half of the Sechach on the Sukah is valid and half of the Sechach is invalid. In contrast, the allowance of Parutz k'Omed does <i>not</i> apply in a case in which half of the Sechach is valid and the other half of the roof is <i>open space</i>. In that case, a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai requires that there be a <i>majority of shade</i> in the Sukah. (Similarly, the principle of 'Lavud,' which serves to close an open space, does not validate the Sukah when there is more sunlight than shade.) What, then, does Rashi mean when he says that a Sukah that has equal amounts of Sechach and open space is invalid because it has more sunlight on the bottom? He should say that it is invalid because the shade and sunlight are equal <i>on top</i>!
</p><p>
The answer is that when the amount of shade in the Sukah is measured, the <i>total amount</i> of shade that is cast from the top of the Sukah until the floor is assessed. Therefore, it does not suffice to measure only the amount of shade at the level of the Sechach, or the amount of shade only on the floor. Rashi says that if, at the level of the Sechach, the shade and sunlight are equal, then it may be assumed that by the time the sunlight reaches the floor of the Sukah, there is <i>more</i> sunlight than shade, and thus the entire Sukah (from top to bottom) has more sunlight than shade (and is invalid). On the other hand, if, at the floor of the Sukah, the shade and sunlight are equal, then it may be assumed that at the top of the Sukah, there is more shade than sunlight. Although the light spreads and the shade diminishes as the sunlight approaches the floor, the entire amount of shade throughout the height of the Sukah may be assumed to be more than the sunlight, because at the floor they are equal. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A MOVING SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana who permits a Sukah 
          on a wagon or boat?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Akiva (and R. Gamliel argues).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa reports an incident in which 
               R. Akiva's Sukah blew off the boat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel asked R. Akiva regarding the 
               whereabouts of his Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> The point of dispute between R. Akiva 
          and R. Gamliel is only regarding a Sukah strong 
          enough to withstand land winds but not strong 
          enough to withstand normal sea winds.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva judges the walls as whether they 
               are Halachically viewed as Mechitzos for a 
               temporary dwelling, an assessment made on 
               land.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel looks for Mechitzos which befit 
               a permanent structure, such as a Sukah, to 
               his view.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SUKAH ON AN ANIMAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana who permits such a 
          Sukah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir (and R. Yehudah argues).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehudah's rationale?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk indicates that the Sukah must 
          be a residence for seven days which this Sukah, 
          due to the prohibition of entering it on Yom 
          Tov, does not fulfill.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> And what will R. Meir claim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, this Sukah <i>is</i> valid for 
          seven days (as the prohibition to go on the 
          animal is mid'Rabanan)!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>USING AN ANIMAL AS A SUKAH WALL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Meir):</font></b> An Sukah is Pesulah if an animal is 
          serving as a wall (R. Yehudah permits it).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Meir):</font></b> Anything alive may not serve as 
               a Sukah wall, as a Lechi, as posts around 
               a well nor will it receive Tum'ah as the 
               cover on a grave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi ha'Gelili):</font></b> Gittin may not be 
               written on it, as well.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Meir's rationale for 
          prohibiting an animal's use as a Sukah wall?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Lest the animal die.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> Lest the animal run away.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  A case which would illustrate the difference 
          between them is an untied elephant.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Its death would not invalidate the Sukah 
               since it would remain 10 Tefachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It might well run away, however.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Surely Abaye should be concerned that 
          the animal may run away!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, and an untied elephant may not 
          be used.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue, instead, by a tied smaller 
               animal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We are concerned for its death (Abaye).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We are not concerned lest it run away (R. 
               Zeira).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Surely R. Zeira should be concerned 
          lest it die!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We view death as improbable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But there is open space under the 
          animal's legs (which would invalidate the 
          Sukah)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We close up the opening with foliage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the animal may crouch!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is tied upright with ropes from 
          above.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Such tying should eliminate our 
          concern for its dying, as well (it would still 
          be a Mechitzah even if it died)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If it is exactly the minimum wall when 
          alive (seven Tefachim and a bit, with less than 
          three Tefachim from the Sechach) its death 
          would cause it to shrink, invalidating the 
          Sukah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>VIEWING DEATH AS (IM)PROBABLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But, unlike the above, Abaye holds 
          that R. Meir is <i>not</i> concerned for death (and 
          R. Yehudah <i>is</i>)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There is a contradiction where a Mishnah 
               allows the wife of a Kohen to eat Terumah 
               on the assumption that her husband is 
               alive, and a Beraisa where such a woman 
               must refrain from eating Terumah lest her 
               husband has died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Abaye resolves the contradiction by saying 
               that the Mishnah is R. Meir who is not 
               concerned about death, and the Beraisa is 
               R. Yehudah, who is.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Abaye supports this distinction by citing 
               a Beraisa regarding the tithing of wine.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yehudah <i>is</i> concerned about the 
                    designated barrel breaking (and would 
                    certainly be concerned about a person 
                    dying).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Meir <i>is not</i> concerned about the 
                    barrel breaking (and would not be 
                    concerned about a person dying).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We must reverse Abaye's positions of R. 
          Meir and R. Yehudah in the above resolution, to 
          bring his positions in line with 3.b. and c. 
          above.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir <i>is</i> concerned for death and R. 
               Yehudah <i>is not</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In support of this distinction, Abaye may 
               cite our Beraisa, wherein R. Meir forbids 
               the use of an animal and R. Yehudah 
               permits it.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A SUKAH ON TWO HORSES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Beraisa, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah disagree about a Sukah built on top of an animal. Rebbi Meir says that the Sukah is valid, and Rebbi Yehudah says that it is invalid. <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Beraisa refers to a case in which one takes doors and places them flat on top of two horses in order to serve as the floor of the Sukah.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi say that the case involves two horses? The Beraisa says that the Sukah was built 'on top of <i>an animal</i>,' and not on top of two animals. (Indeed, <b>TOSFOS</b> says that the Sukah was built on top of one animal.) (<b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> answers that the Gemara later cites another case in which Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah disagree. In the case of a Sukah that has an animal as one of its walls, Rebbi Meir invalidates the Sukah while Rebbi Yehudah says the Sukah is valid. Abaye suggests that Rebbi Meir's reason is because he maintains that 'we must be concerned for death'; that is, the Rabanan decreed that such a Sukah is invalid because of the concern that the animal might die, and one will be left without a Sukah with which to perform the Mitzvah (Rashi DH Gezeirah).
</p><p>
Rashi is bothered with Rebbi Meir's ruling in the case of a Sukah built atop an animal. If Rebbi Meir invalidates a Sukah whose <i>wall</i> is an animal because the animal might die, then why does he also not invalidate a Sukah that is built entirely atop an animal? He should invalidate the Sukah in that case as well, out of concern that the animal might die and the Sukah will collapse! Therefore, Rashi explains that in this case, there are <i>two</i> horses. There is no concern that <i>two</i> animals will die, as the Gemara in Yoma (13a) says, 'for the death of one we are afraid, but for the death of two we are not afraid.' If one of the two animals dies, the owner of the Sukah will still be able to set the Sukah atop the animal that remains.
</p><p>
This answer is difficult to understand, because in the case of a Sukah atop an animal, the Sukah is whole even without the animal below. If the animal dies, one simply can take the Sukah and place it on the ground, and thus there is no reason to invalidate the Sukah just because of a fear that the animal will die. (If, for some reason, the Sukah must rest on an animal, he can find another animal upon which to place the Sukah.) Furthermore, the Mishnah (22b) clearly states that a Sukah upon 'a camel' is valid, and the Gemara says that the Mishnah there expresses the view of Rebbi Meir. Why, then, does Rashi say that the Beraisa refers to a Sukah built on <i>two</i> animals?
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps Rashi is bothered by a different problem. The Mishnah discusses a Sukah built upon a 'camel.' Why does it not use the same wording as the Beraisa and discuss a Sukah built upon an 'animal' ('Behemah')? Why does it specifically mention a camel?
</p><p>
The answer might be as follows. The Gemara (10a) teaches that a Sukah is valid only when its floor is strong enough to support the people and furnishings inside it. An ordinary animal is not strong enough to support an entire four-walled Sukah, together with the Sechach, beds, table, and people inside it. However, a camel <i>is</i> strong enough. By mentioning a camel, the Mishnah teaches that the animal upon which the Sukah is built must be strong enough to support the Sukah.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Beraisa mention only an 'animal' and not a camel? The answer is that a Sukah on top of another type of animal <i>is</i> valid if one finds a way to support the Sukah and all of its contents on top of the animal's back. In what case is an ordinary animal strong enough to support a Sukah and its contents? Rashi explains that such a case exists when one uses <i>two</i> animals instead of one. (The word 'Behemah,' that the Beraisa uses, can also refer to 'animals' in the plural form, as in Yonah (4:11), 'u'Vehemah Rabah.') (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A SUKAH THAT WALKS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah built on top of an animal is invalid. The Gemara explains that his ruling is based on the principle derived from a verse that requires that a Sukah be fit for use all seven days of the festival. A Sukah built on top of an animal is not fit for seven days.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier teaches that Rebbi Yehudah requires that a Sukah be a 'Diras Keva' (7b, 21b), a permanent dwelling place. A Sukah that moves is not a 'Diras Keva,' as Rashi writes (7b, DH b'Rosh; 21b, DH she'Ein Lah Keva; 22b, DH ha'Oseh). Why, then, does the Gemara need to give a different reason for why Rebbi Yehudah invalidates a Sukah built atop an animal? The Gemara should say that his reason is because such a Sukah is not a 'Diras Keva.' Why does Rebbi Yehudah need the principle that a Sukah must be fit for all seven days of the festival?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos, 21b) disagrees with Rashi and says that the fact that a Sukah moves does not make it a 'Diras Arai.' It is still considered a 'Diras Keva.' Wherever the animal goes, the entire Sukah goes with it, and thus it is considered 'Kavu'a' (permanent) in its place atop the animal.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi agrees that a Sukah is considered a 'Diras Keva' even though it moves about (as Rashi (7b) implies, it only <i>looks</i> like it is 'Arai,' but it is not actually 'Arai'). Even though Rashi elsewhere (loc. cit.) states clearly that a moving Sukah is not considered 'Keva,' Rashi may understand that this is the subject of a Machlokes Amora'im. Two Amora'im (on 21b) argue with regard to Rebbi Yehudah's reason for invalidating a Sukah built atop the legs of a bed. According to the first Amora, the reason is because such a Sukah is not a 'Diras Keva' because it moves. Perhaps the other Amora, who gives a different reason, maintains that a moving Sukah <i>is</i> considered a 'Diras Keva.' The Gemara here gives a different reason for Rebbi Yehudah's ruling (for why a Sukah atop an animal is invalid) in order to satisfy the second opinion there.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, perhaps the verse that the Gemara here cites as Rebbi Yehudah's reason for invalidating a Sukah built atop an animal is itself the source for Rebbi Yehudah's opinion that a Sukah must be a 'Diras Keva.' The fact that the Torah requires a Sukah to stand for seven days teaches that a Sukah must have a quality of permanence. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Al Gabei) suggests that the case of a Sukah atop an animal refers to Sechach that is supported by poles that reach the ground. The animal supports only the floor and the walls of the Sukah. If the animal walks away (with the floor and walls of the Sukah), the Sechach of the Sukah will remain in place, and thus the fact that the Sukah moves does not make it a 'Diras Arai' (since the <i>Sechach</i> remains stationary). Therefore, the Gemara gives another reason for why the Sukah is invalid according to Rebbi Yehudah. 
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>VIEWING DEATH AS (IM)PROBABLE (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But that creates a contradiction 
          between R. Meir's position regarding the animal 
          (suspecting that it will die) and his position 
          regarding the barrel (where he does not suspect 
          that it may break)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Death is more likely (and out of one's 
          control) than breakage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we have created a contradiction 
          in the positions of R. Yehudah who permits 
          using the animal but forbids relying on the 
          barrel!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah forbids the case of the 
          barrel because he does not hold of Bereirah, 
          not because of concern for the barrel's 
          breaking.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we have an indication from the 
          Seifa of the barrel Beraisa that R. Yehudah 
          <i>is</i> concerned about the breaking of the 
          barrel!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They (including R. Yehudah) challenged R. 
               Meir by asking if he is not concerned 
               about the barrel breaking (leaving the 
               person having drunk Tevel)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir responded with lack of concern.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Clearly, then, R. Yehudah <i>is</i> concerned 
               about its breakage!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah was asking R. Meir only 
          according to R. Meir's position, holding of 
          Bereirah (R. Yehudah himself would not be 
          bothered by the question since the option of 
          designating future barrels does not exist).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we find R. Yehudah concerned 
          about death (as R. Yehudah teaches that we 
          designate a replacement for the wife of the 
          Kohen Gadol, lest his wife die)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We were already taught regarding that 
          Mishnah that extra measures were taken to 
          insure the Kaparah of Yom Kipur.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ANIMAL AS A MECHITZAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Regardless of which concern we adopt, it is 
          clear that the prohibition of using an animal 
          is mid'Rabanan, and that, mid'Oraisa, an animal 
          could be a Mechitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, then is there a Machlokes 
          whether an animal receives Tum'ah when it 
          serves as a grave cover?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We reject the explanations given by 
          Abaye and R. Zeira (see 23a Para. 3.c and d.) 
          and provide new explanations (by R. Acha b. 
          Yakov) for the position of R. Meir forbidding 
          he use of an animal as a Mechitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir holds that any Mechitzah which 
               depends on air is not a Mechitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Alternately, R. Meir holds that anything 
               which is not man-made cannot serve as a 
               Mechitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> When will these explanations 
               differ?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> In the case of a wall supported by 
               a balloon.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The first explanation would 
                    invalidate such a Mechitzah since it 
                    is supported with air.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> It is, however, man-made.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MAN-MADE 'MECHITZOS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara earlier (23a) quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah disagree about a Sukah that has an animal as one of its walls. Rebbi Meir says that the Sukah is invalid, and Rebbi Yehudah says that it is valid. The Gemara refutes the first two reasons that are given for the view of Rebbi Meir.
</p><p>
Rav Acha bar Yakov offers another reason. He says (according to the second version of his statement) that Rebbi Meir disqualifies such a Sukah because any Mechitzah that is not made by man is not a valid Mechitzah.
</p><p>
Why, though, is an animal that a man positioned in place to serve as a Mechitzah not considered a Mechitzah made by man? Since the man brought the animal to the Sukah and situated it at the Sukah's open side, he <i>did</i> make the Mechitzah! It seems that, according to Rebbi Meir, the material itself from which the Mechitzah is made must be processed by man and not just put in its place by man. However, the Mishnah (24b) clearly states that a Sukah that has a tree as one of its walls is valid, but according to Rebbi Meir it should be invalid, since man did not make the material of the Mechitzah. (<b>SEFAS EMES</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> points out that <b>TOSFOS</b> in Eruvin (15a, DH Tel) explains that when Rav Acha bar Yakov says that Rebbi Meir maintains that a Mechitzah must be made by man in order to be a valid Mechitzah, he does not mean that the material itself must be manmade. Rather, he means that it must be the <i>type</i> of material that <i>can</i> be made by man. The only item considered something that cannot be made by man is a living being, because it is impossible for man to create a living being. Any other object, though, is valid as a Mechitzah, even though that object itself was not processed by human hands, such as a tree, since it is possible for man to process wood. This is likely the intention of Rashi here as well (DH Ru'ach Chayim) when he says that it is impossible for a person to fill up something with 'Ru'ach Chayim' (the 'spirit of life'). In contrast, a person can process wood, cut it, and nail it into the shape that he wants.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WRITING A 'GET' ON AN ANIMAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale for R. Yosi 
          ha'Gelili who taught (above 23a para. 3.a.2.) 
          that Gitin may not be written on an animal?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa derives it from the 
          requirement of Sefer, which is inanimate.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of the Rabanan 
          who argue with R. Yosi ha'Gelili on this 
          matter?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Sefer refers to the nature of the thing 
          written, not to the material written upon 
          (which would have been implied by <i>Ba</i>Sefer).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then how do the Rabanan, who do not 
          need VeChasav to teach that other things (wood, 
          leaves, etc) may be used (since Sefer does not 
          limit the materials used), interpret VeChasav!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They learn from it that a woman may 
          only be divorced with the writ, not with money 
          (we might have derived this from Kidushin).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whence will R. Yosi ha'Gelili learn 
          this restriction?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> From the words Sefer Kerisus, teaching 
          that only a Sefer, and not anything else 
          (including money) may effect a divorce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't the Rabanan learn this 
          from Sefer Kerisus, as opposed to learning it 
          from VeChasav?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Sefer Kerisus is needed to proscribe 
          the use of conditions in a Get which would 
          permanently bind the wife in the future (as 
          taught in the Beraisa that a permanent [as 
          opposed to a temporary] condition would 
          invalidate the Get).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whence will R. Yosi ha'Gelili derive 
          this Din?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> From the expansion of the sufficient 
          word Kares to the word Kerisus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What will the Rabanan do with this 
          expansion?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They do not use the difference between 
          Kares and Kerisus for this Derashah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' USING TREES AS 'MECHITZOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  It is permitted to use trees as the Mechitzos 
          of a Sukah (where the Sechach does not rest on 
          them).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>SWAYING OF THE TREES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Acha b. Yakov):</font></b> A Mechitzah must be able to 
          withstand a normal wind.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But what of the swaying of the trees 
          in our Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah speaks of firm trees.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the branches and leaves (which 
          fill in the spaces of the walls) are subject to 
          the wind?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The branches must be secured.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, what is the news of our 
          Mishnah which permits the use of trees as 
          Mechitzos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have prohibited such a Sukah 
          lest the person come to make use of the trees 
          during Sukos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we find that a tree may serve as 
          a Mechitzah when we are looking for a corner 
          Deyumad around a public well!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, too, its branches are secured.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If a tree is a secured Mechitzah, 
          then why, regarding the Halachos of Eiruvin, 
          does it only permit the area of a Beis Sasayim 
          (the underside of the tree should constitute an 
          area which has been intentionally closed off 
          for residence, which can be up to any size)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is not designed to be a Mechitzah 
          for the purpose of the area underneath it, 
          rather it is a Mechitzah for the field which 
          lies beyond it (which makes it an area closed 
          off for non-residence which only permits a Beis 
          Sasayim).
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SWAYING 'MECHITZAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We find that standing sheaves 
          surrounding a person create a Mechitzah, and 
          surely they sway in the wind!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Here, too, we are speaking where the 
          sheaves have been tied up so that they cannot 
          sway.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' EXEMPTIONS FROM SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Those en route to perform a Mitzvah are exempt 
          from Sukah, as are those who are ill and their 
          attendants.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One is permitted to snack outside of the Sukah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'OSEK B'MITZVAH PATUR MIN HA'MITZVAH</font></b>
'(a)	Question: What is the source for the Din of Osek 
     b'Mitzvah Patur Min ha'Mitzvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa learns from BeShivtecha 
          BiVeisecha that one who is doing a Mitzvah is 
          Patur from Shema.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa lists others who are exempt 
               from Shema.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Also included are a groom on the day of 
               his marriage to a Besulah (but not to an 
               Almanah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does this Pasuk infer an 
          exemption to the Osek B'Mitzvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Huna):</font></b> The word Derech implies that 
          the obligation is only upon one who is 
          traveling for his personal needs, not for a 
          Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But surely Derech can also refer to 
          (and obligate) one who is travelling for 
          Mitzvah needs!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The suffix of Uv'Lechtecha implies 
          personal travel, not Mitzvah travel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then one who marries an Almanah (a 
          Mitzvah) should also be exempt!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He is not preoccupied as is one who 
          marries a Besulah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If every preoccupation creates an 
          exemption, then one who is in sorrow over his 
          financial loss should be similarly exempt!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps this is true.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But we know that a mourner is 
               obligated in all Mitzvos except Tefilin 
               (based on the Pasuk in Yechezkel which 
               refers to Pe'er)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A groom is exempt due to his 
          preoccupation with a Mitzvah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TRAVELING TO LEARN TORAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that a person who is en route to perform a Mitzvah is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. <b>RASHI</b> gives three examples: one who is traveling to greet his Rebbi, one who is traveling to learn Torah, and who is traveling to redeem captives.
</p><p>
Why is one who is traveling to learn Torah exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah? The Gemara in Moed Katan (9a) teaches that a person must interrupt his Torah study in order to perform any Mitzvah which cannot be performed by others. Why, then, does the act of traveling to learn Torah exempt a person from the Mitzvah of Sukah? Traveling to learn Torah certainly is not a greater Mitzvah than the learning of Torah itself.
</p><p>
Moreover, the Yerushalmi (Berachos 1:2) says that even Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai would stop learning in order to perform Mitzvos such as Sukah and Lulav, since 'if one learns Torah but does not accept upon himself to perform the Mitzvos, it would have been better had he not been created.' The same should apply to one who is traveling to learn Torah; he should be required to interrupt his traveling in order to perform the Mitzvah of Sukah.
</p><p>
(The <b>MAHARACH <b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b> #183 says even more than Rashi: even when one has arrived at his place of learning and has started to learn, he is exempt from Mitzvos for the entire time that he learns.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Talmud Torah 3, and in <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b>, Parshas Ki Savo 28) quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> of <b>KURVEILLE</b> (as cited by Tosfos to Kesuvos 17a, DH Mevatlin), who says that even though the Mitzvah of learning Torah does not exempt one from performing the Mitzvah of Hotza'as ha'Mes (burial of the dead), the Mitzvah of 'Shimush Talmidei Chachamim' <i>does</i> override the Mitzvah to bury the dead (even in the case of a 'Mes Mitzvah'). 'Shimush Talmidei Chachamim' refers to learning the reasons and explanations of the Torah directly from a Rebbi. It is not in the same category as normal Torah study, because it is done only through close interaction with a Rebbi who transmits the tradition that he has received for the reasons and explanations of the Mitzvos. Therefore, it overrides even a Mitzvah which cannot be done by someone else.
</p><p>
The Mishnah here refers to this type of learning. When the Talmidim travel to the home of their Rebbi in order to learn Torah from him, they have the status of those who are fulfilling 'Shimush Talmidei Chachamim,' which overrides other Mitzvos.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b> quotes the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in the beginning of Pe'ah) who points out that every word of Torah that a person learns is another Mitzvah. This might explain why one must stop learning Torah in order to fulfill another Mitzvah, but one who is on the way to learn Torah does not have to stop traveling in order to perform a Mitzvah. When one is involved in the Mitzvah of learning Torah, he fulfills a Mitzvah with every word that he learns. If the opportunity to perform another Mitzvah arises, he must do that Mitzvah first before he begins to fulfill another Mitzvah of Talmud Torah (by learning the next word). His fulfillment of the second Mitzvah is not an interruption of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, because he completed one Mitzvah of Talmud Torah and did not yet start the next, when the other Mitzvah needed to be performed. In contrast, when one travels to learn Torah, the act of traveling itself is one Mitzvah, and therefore he is not required to interrupt it in order to perform another Mitzvah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: ONE WHO IS INVOLVED IN A MITZVAH IS EXEMPT FROM OTHER MITZVOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that one who is involved in a Mitzvah is exempt from the Mitzvah of Keri'as Shema. This is the source for the general rule, 'ha'Osek b'Mitzvah Patur Min ha'Mitzvah' -- 'One who is involved in one Mitzvah is exempt from another Mitzvah.'
</p><p>
If one is exempt from a Mitzvah while he is involved in the performance of another Mitzvah, then every man who wears Tzitzis or Tefilin should be exempt from all other Mitzvos! This certainly is not the Halachah, though. When exactly does involvement in one Mitzvah exempt a person from another Mitzvah? (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Sheluchei Mitzvah)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that only when the second Mitzvah will interrupt one's performance of the first Mitzvah is one exempt from the second Mitzvah. If the fulfillment of the second Mitzvah will not interfere with one's performance of the first Mitzvah (such as in the case of the Mitzvah of Tzitzis or Tefilin), he is not exempt from the second Mitzvah.
</p><p>
The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b> questions the answer of Tosfos. It is obvious that one may not interrupt one Mitzvah in order to perform another. Why would one have thought that one Mitzvah takes precedence over another, had the verse not taught otherwise?
</p><p>
Perhaps Tosfos learns from the verse that one who is involved in one Mitzvah is exempt from other Mitzvos even in a case where the opportunity for the second Mitzvah will pass if it is not done right away. One might have thought that in such a situation, he should interrupt the performance of the first Mitzvah and fulfill the second Mitzvah. The verse teaches that even in such a case, one may not interrupt the first Mitzvah to perform the second. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> in the name of <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b>, the <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Sukah 6:4) in the name of the <b>GE'ONIM</b>, and the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b> (Hilchos Sukah) explain that as long as a person is involved in the preparations for a Mitzvah, such as one who is traveling in order to perform a Mitzvah, he is not obligated by the Torah to perform other Mitzvos even if they do not distract him from the first Mitzvah. Hash-m does not expect a person to do two things at once.
</p><p>
Accordingly, with regard to Tzitzis and Tefilin, one has already done all that was necessary in order to prepare for the Mitzvah. The man who wears Tzitzis or Tefilin is now in the process of passively <i>fulfilling</i> the Mitzvah and not in the process of <i>preparing</i> to fulfill the Mitzvah. The exemption from other Mitzvos applies only when one has not yet fulfilled the first Mitzvah and is involved in the preparatory stages of fulfilling the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> suggests a compromise. He agrees with the Rashba that one is exempt from the second Mitzvah even if its performance does not distract him from the first Mitzvah. However, if there is a way for him to fulfill the second Mitzvah and still perform the first Mitzvah <i>in its normal manner</i>, then he is not exempt from the second Mitzvah (as the Ran writes, 'why not fulfill a Mitzvah if nothing is lost while doing so?'). Only when he must change the normal way in which he performs the first Mitzvah in order to fulfill the second Mitzvah is he exempt from the second Mitzvah.
</p><p>
(According to the Ran, it is possible that the obligation to do the second Mitzvah does not stem from the normal obligation to perform Mitzvos, but rather from the requirement that one avoid <i>disgracing</i> a Mitzvah. Technically, he may be exempt since he is involved in another Mitzvah, but in practice -- since he could perform the second Mitzvah without any deviation from his normal way of performing the first Mitzvah -- he must perform the second Mitzvah in order not to disgrace it. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>REMA</b> (OC 38:8) cites the opinion of the Ran as the Halachah. When there is a way to fulfill the second Mitzvah and still perform the first Mitzvah in its normal manner, he is not exempt from the second Mitzvah. If there is no way to fulfill the second Mitzvah and perform the first Mitzvah in its normal way, he is exempt from the second Mitzvah. (See also Insights to Berachos 11:1 and Bava Metzia 82:2.)
<br> 
<br><br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the source for the exemption of 
          Osek B'Mitzvah is learned from the exemption 
          from Korban Pesach given to those who were 
          involved in the Mitzvah of burying Nadav and 
          Avihu!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa asks who were those who were 
               Tameh and unable to bring the Korban 
               Pesach such that they were given Pesach 
               Sheni?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi ha'Gelili):</font></b> The pallbearers of 
               Yosef ha'Tzadik.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Akiva):</font></b> Mishael and Eltzafan, who 
               buried Nadav and Avihu.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> These should have 
               been able to use the Parah Adumah and 
               become Tahor in time to bring the Korban!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, they were dealing with a 
               Mes Mitzvah, and the seventh day of the 
               Taharah occurred on Erev Pesach, such that 
               they were unable to participate in the 
               Korban that day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We need both sources (Pesach and Krias 
          Shema).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> From Pesach alone we might have exempted 
               only one who became preoccupied prior to 
               the arrival of his obligation (as they 
               became Tameh before the Pesach could have 
               been brought).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> From Krias Shema alone we might only 
               exempt one from an obligation which does 
               not carry a Kares.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'AVEL' AND 'TEFILIN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does the Pasuk in Yechezkel 
          exempt a mourner from Tefilin?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Aba b. Zavda citing Rav):</font></b> The Pasuk 
          obligates Yechezkel in his mourning to be 
          unlike all other mourners and to wear his 
          Tefilin, implying the exemption to all other 
          mourners.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This exemption only applies on the first 
               day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is derived from 'Yom Mar' implying 
               the first bitter day.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN AVEL AND SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba b. Zavda citing Rav):</font></b> An Avel is 
          obligated to dwell in the Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is this not obvious?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have exempted him as a 
          Mitztaer (he suffers from the obligation not to 
          sit dark and alone in his mourning).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The exemption of Mitztaer only applies to 
               discomfort caused by the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Here his discomfort is from within 
               himself, and he must set his mind right to 
               do the Mitzvah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'CHASAN' AND SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba b. Zavda citing Rav):</font></b> A Chasan and the 
          wedding party are exempt from Sukah for seven 
          days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why should this be so?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Because they are engaged in the 
               Mitzvah of rejoicing with the Chasan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then let them eat and rejoice in 
               the Sukah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The joy is centered on the Chupah, 
               and is not to be taken away from there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Then let them eat in the Sukah 
               and rejoice at the Chupah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The rejoicing surrounds the 
               Seudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Let them make the Chupah in the 
          Sukah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> We are concerned lest someone 
          violate the prohibition of Yichud.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We are concerned for the 
          embarrassment of the Chasan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What difference will derive from 
          their dispute?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A case where many people are around, 
          thus obviating the problem of Yichud, but 
          leaving the embarrassment of the Chasan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira reported that he ate and rejoiced in 
          the Sukah (all the moreso because of the double 
          Mitzvah).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) WHY A MOURNER IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE MITZVAH OF SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Aba bar Zavda says in the name of Rav that an Avel (mourner) is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah. The Gemara says that without his statement, one might have thought that an Avel is exempt since he is distressed ('Mitzta'er'), and one who is distressed is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. Rebbi Aba bar Zavda teaches that distress exempts a person from the Mitzvah of Sukah only when the distress comes from an external source. In the case of an Avel, the mourner causes his own anguish, and therefore he is not included in the category of 'Mitzta'er.' He is obligated to perform the Mitzvah of Sukah because 'he should settle his mind.'
</p><p>
The Gemara implies that if the Avel does not 'settle his mind,' he will not be able to fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah and he is exempt. This is difficult to understand. The distress of an Avel is not related to his sitting in the Sukah in any way. Why should it prevent him from fulfilling the Mitzvah? The only reason why one who is 'Mitzta'er' is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah is because of the principle of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' -- one must live in the Sukah during Sukos in the same manner in which he lives in his house during the rest of the year. Normally, when one becomes uncomfortable in his house, he leaves it (<b>TOSFOS</b> 26a, DH Holchei). If, however, a person is 'Mitzta'er' in such a way that leaving the house or the Sukah will not relieve his distress, then he certainly is not exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah (as the <b>MORDECHAI</b> (#740) writes in the name of the <b>YERE'IM</b>, and as is clear from many Rishonim; see Rashi 26a, DH Mitzta'er). Why, then, does the Gemara say that an Avel must 'settle his mind' and alleviate his distress? His distress is not the type that exempts him from the Mitzvah of Sukah! (<b>MAHARIK</b>, Shoresh 176, cited in an addition to the <b>MORDECHAI</b> here.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> apparently is bothered by this question. He explains that an Avel prefers to be alone and to sit in the dark. If he leaves the Sukah, he will be <i>more</i> 'comfortable' (according to his subjective experience of 'comfort'), because he will no longer be with other people (who stay in the Sukah) or be in a place with food to eat. For the Avel to remain in the Sukah will cause him more distress; he wishes that he could <i>avoid</i> the relaxing environment of the Sukah. (In other words, the Avel experiences distress in the Sukah because of the lack of distress there. The distress he experiences in the Sukah is that as long as he is in the joyful atmosphere of the Sukah he is unable to experience the distress that he seeks for himself.)
</p><p>
If, however, being in the Sukah causes the Avel more distress, then why indeed is he not exempt? The Gemara teaches that even though he experiences discomfort by being in the Sukah, he is not exempt from the Mitzvah because his discomfort is a result of his own <i>choice</i> to feel uncomfortable in the Sukah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (28b, DH Bar mi'Metalalta) implies that a person in distress, such as an Avel, usually feels more comfortable in the open outdoors than in an enclosed Sukah. Why, then, is an Avel not exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah due to his distress?
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> answers this question with a novel interpretation of the Gemara's words. When an Avel enters the Sukah, the joyful atmosphere there contributes to the alleviation of his distress and he begins to feel better. Since the cause of his distress is psychological and not physical, once he overcomes his initial apprehension and enters the Sukah the atmosphere of the Sukah relaxes him and makes him less distressed, so that he feels completely comfortable in the Sukah.
</p><p>
(The <b>TAZ</b> (OC 640:7-8) suggests that perhaps any type of distress exempts a person from the Mitzvah of Sukah, even if the distress is unrelated to the Sukah, because the Mitzvah requires concentration and one who is distressed is unable to concentrate properly. When one sits in a Sukah, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah he must have in mind that Hash-m protected the Jewish people in Sukos when they left Mitzrayim (Vayikra 23:43). A person who is distressed is unable to have such concentration, and therefore he is exempt.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) 'YICHUD' IN A SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a Chasan and the members of his wedding party are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah during the seven days of the wedding celebration, because they are obligated to perform the Mitzvah of rejoicing in the Chupah and not in the Sukah. The Gemara asks that they should simply make the Chupah inside of the Sukah.
</p><p>
Abaye answers that the Chupah is not made in the Sukah because of the problem of Yichud. There is a concern that the Chasan might leave the Sukah to fulfill his needs, and his Kalah will be left alone with one of the members of the wedding party.
</p><p>
Rava says that the Chupah is not made in the Sukah because of the distress of the Chasan. According to <b>RASHI</b>, this means that the Chasan will be embarrassed to express his happiness with his Kalah when others are able to see him through the open wall of the Sukah. According to the <b>ME'IRI</b>, this means that the Sukah is too narrow for him to be able to invite all of his friends.
</p><p>
Why does Abaye say that there is a problem of Yichud? The Halachah is that when a woman's husband is in the city, the prohibition of Yichud does not apply, because he might walk in at any time (Kidushin 81a). In this case, the Chasan certainly is in the city, as he walked out of the Sukah merely to fulfill his needs. Why should Yichud pose a problem?
</p><p>
Moreover, according to Rashi's explanation, when Rava says that the Chasan is exempt because of his distress, he means that the Chasan is distressed that he cannot express his happiness with his Kalah because others can see him through the open side of the Sukah (an ordinary Sukah, in the times of the Gemara, had only three walls). If the Sukah has only three walls and people are able to see inside of it, why does Abaye say that there is a problem of Yichud? There is no prohibition of Yichud when the place is visible to others.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHAM</b> (in 'Mafteichos' to Teshuvos, Even ha'Ezer 2:76) writes that when Abaye says that the Chasan is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah because of the concern for Yichud, he does not mean the <i>prohibition</i> of Yichud. There certainly is no prohibition of Yichud when the Chasan goes out of the Sukah and his friend is left with his Kalah, because the Chasan is still in the city and people can see into the Sukah through the open side. Rather, Abaye means that there might be a <i>suspicion</i> of Yichud. The Chasan -- if he goes out and leaves his Kalah alone in the Sukah -- might have misgivings about his Kalah and suspect her of being with another man. In order to prevent the Chasan from having such suspicions, he is exempt altogether from the Mitzvah of Sukah. (See also the comments of Rav Elyashiv shlit'a in <b>HE'OROS</b> </p><center><font color='ff0000'><b><b>B'MASECHES SUKAH</b>.)
<br></b></font></center><p>
<br>(b) Alternatively, perhaps Abaye means that there <i>is</i> a prohibition of Yichud, even though the husband is in the city. The Gemara in Kidushin (ibid.) says that even when the husband is in the city, a man who is very friendly with the wife is prohibited to be alone with her. In this case, some of the members of the wedding party (Shoshvinim) are very friendly with the Kalah, and thus there is a concern for Yichud even when the Chasan is in the city. (<b>HE'OROS B'MASECHES SUKAH</b> in the name of Rav Elyashiv shlit'a)
</p><p>
(Perhaps this approach also answers the second question. When the Kalah is left alone with a Shoshvin, the problem of Yichud remains even in an area that is only partially secluded.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'PETURIM' FROM MITZVOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  First Beraisa:</font></b> Wedding participants.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana Kama):</font></b> A groom and all of the 
               wedding participants are Peturim from 
               Tefilah, Tefilin but are obligated in 
               Shema.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Shila):</font></b> The groom is even Patur from 
               Shema.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Second Beraisa:</font></b> Dealers in Tashmishei Kedushah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chananya b. Akavya):</font></b> Scribes, 
               wholesalers and retailers of STa'M, and 
               similar others involved in divine service 
               are Peturim from all Mitzvos
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This was as taught by R. Yosi ha'Gelili 
               (Osek B'Mitzvah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Third Beraisa:</font></b> Travelers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Travelers are Peturim from Sukah when they 
               travel and are obligated when they are not 
               traveling.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Those travelling for Mitzvos are exempt 
               day and night regardless of the time they 
               travel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> In the reported incident R. Chisda and 
               Rabah bar R. Huna saw themselves as exempt 
               when they went to the home of the Resh 
               Gelusa in Sura.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Fourth Beraisa:</font></b> Watchmen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Watchmen are Peturim from Sukah when they 
               watch and are obligated when they are not 
               watching.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The same holds for watchmen who remain in 
               one place (at their posts).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Let them make a Sukah there!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> One does not live that way 
               during the year, and the Sukah must recall 
               one's normal residence (Teshvu k'Ein 
               Taduru).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> Seeing the watchman with 
               his Sukah would invite thieves to the 
               other direction.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> When will these answers show a 
               difference?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> When watching a mound of fruit (it 
               can be watched from one spot, but it does 
               not recall normal residence).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SICK PERSON IS EXEMPT FROM SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> Even one who is moderately sick 
          (enough that residing in the Sukah would be 
          hard for him) is exempt from Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shimon b. Gamliel):</font></b> R. Yosi exempted me due 
          to my eye discomfort.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav permitted R. Acha to sleep under a 
               Kilah because of insects (mosquitoes-Ran).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava exempted R. Acha b. Ada due to the 
               foul smell he experienced (from the floor) 
               in the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rava is consistent with his assertion that 
               one who is distressed by the Sukah is 
               exempt from it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah only exempt the 
               ill!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It exempts even the <i>attendants</i> 
               of the ill, while the distressed are 
               personally exempt, but not their 
               attendants.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>EATING 'ARAI' (A CASUAL MEAL/SNACK) OUTSIDE OF THE SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What quantity of food is considered 
          Arai?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosef):</font></b> Two or three (Beitzim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But that amount could suffice for 
          some as a full meal (Keva)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, Arai is the mouthful 
          that a student takes on his way to the Academy 
          (one Beitzah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>EATING 'ARAI' VERSUS SLEEPING 'ARAI' OUTSIDE OF THE SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One is permitted to eat Arai outside 
          of the Sukah, but not sleep Arai (nap) outside 
          of the Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why may he not nap?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> We are concerned lest he fall 
          into a deep sleep.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Abaye):</font></b> Then why is it permitted 
               to sleep Arai with Tefilin, given the 
               concern lest he fall asleep.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Yosef b'Rebbi Ilai):</font></b> He 
               instructs another to wake him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Mesharshia):</font></b> The guarantor 
               (the waker) needs a guarantor!!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. 
               Yochanan):</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa regarding 
               Tefilin speaks where he put his head down 
               between his knees (where we are not 
               concerned lest he fall deeply asleep in 
               that position).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Because there is no amount of 
          sleep which can universally be called 
          sufficient (a nap might suffice for some, 
          constituting their full sleep).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THREE BERAISOS ON 'TEFILIN' AND SLEEP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  First:</font></b> A person with Tefilin may sleep Arai but 
          not Keva (when wearing them).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Second:</font></b> A person may sleep Arai or Keva (when 
          the Tefilin are covered and lying near his 
          head).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Third:</font></b> A person may not sleep Arai or Keva 
          (when holding the Tefilin in his hand, lest 
          they fall).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ARAI' SLEEP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How much time constitutes Arai?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rami b. Yechezkel):</font></b> The time to walk 
          100 Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is supported in the Beraisa which 
               instructs one who sees Keri when napping 
               regarding the procedure for removing his 
               Tefilin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He may handle the straps but not the 
               Batim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The Chachamim, who permit Arai (only 
               during the day - Tosfos), state that Arai 
               is the time to walk 100 Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> It is not permitted to sleep, during the 
          day, more than a horse (60 breaths).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> Rabah b. Nachmani napped as long as 
          Rav, who napped like Rebbi, who napped like 
          Dovid ha'Melech, who napped like a horse, 60 
          breaths.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye napped for longer (time to walk six 
               Parsah from Pumbedisa to Bei Kuvi).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosef cited a Pasuk indicating that 
               this was excessive for Abaye.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Nasan):</font></b> One who naps during the day may 
          either remove or remain wearing his Tefilin, 
          but at night he must remove them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> Young men must always remove their 
          Tefilin, because they are accustomed to Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is this to imply that R. Yosi forbids 
          a Ba'al Keri from wearing Tefilin!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> No, he is speaking of young men 
          who are with their wives, and they must remove 
          their Tefilin before sleeping.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  One who cohabits with his wife and forgets that 
          he is wearing Tefilin must wash his hands 
          before touching any part of the Tefilin.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' INCIDENTS REGARDING SMALL AMOUNTS OF FOOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan b. Zakai insisted on bringing small 
          amounts of food into the Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Tzadok ate less than a KeBEtzah outside of 
          the Sukah without Netilas Yadayim or Bircas 
          ha'Mazon.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>BEING 'MACHMIR' ON ONESELF</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The incident of R. Yochanan b. Zakai 
          contradicts the principle set forth (that Arai 
          is permitted outside of the Sukah) for which it 
          is serving as an example!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> By emending the Mishnah we learn that 
          one is permitted to be stringent and bring even 
          small amounts into the Sukah without fear of 
          conceit, which the incident supports.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The incident of R. Tzadok (in which 
          he ate less than a KeBEtzah outside of the 
          Sukah) should disprove those (R. Yosef and 
          Abaye) who speaks of larger measures as being 
          permitted!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The incident may be reporting the 
          amount for Netilas Yadayim and Bircas ha'Mazon 
          (a KeBEtzah), not the measure for bringing food 
          into the Sukah.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A SUKAH IN THE FIELD WHERE ONE WORKS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that the watchmen of orchards and gardens are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. The Gemara asks that they should not be exempt; they should be required to build a Sukah in the field where they sleep.
</p><p>
Abaye answers that the principle of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' teaches that one is required to live in a Sukah only in the manner in which he lives in a house. Since it is the manner of watchmen not to live in a house (but to sleep in the field), they do not need to live in a Sukah during the festival.
</p><p>
Rava answers that the watchman is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah because if he stays in a Sukah, thieves will take advantage of his inability to guard the entire field from within the Sukah and they will steal the crops.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier quotes a Beraisa that says that travelers are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah while they are in transit. The Gemara there, however, does not ask why they are exempt, as it asks here with regard to the watchmen of fields. Why does the Gemara not ask this question there?
</p><p>
In addition, the Beraisa that mentions the watchmen of fields and orchards also says that the watchmen of a city are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah, and yet the Gemara does not ask that they should be required to build a Sukah in their place. The Gemara asks only about watchmen of fields and orchards (as the Gemara implies when it asks, 'v'lei'Avdi Sukah <i>Hasam</i>' -- i.e. 'there, in the orchard'; see Rashi DH Pirtzah).
</p><p>
It is clear that when the Gemara asks its question about the watchmen of fields, it is not aware of the principle of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru.' The fact that Abaye introduces that principle in response to the Gemara's question indicates that the Gemara was not familiar with this principle until now. Accordingly, why does it not ask that the other people -- travelers and watchmen of cities -- should be required to build a Sukah wherever they are?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> asks another question. According to Rava, why should one be exempt just because of a fear that thieves will come and steal some fruit? A potential loss of money (or the inability to do one's job properly) does not exempt one from the Mitzvah of Sukah. Since Rava, who argues with Abaye, does not apply the principle of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' in this case, the watchman should be obligated to dwell in a Sukah despite the risk that some fruit might be stolen.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> explains that Rava agrees that there is a requirement of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru.' However, he does not apply it in this case in the same way that Abaye does. Abaye maintains that 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' suffices to exempt people such as watchmen from living in a Sukah. A person who lives in any place where people usually live without furniture (such as a watchman who lives in a field) is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah, because dwelling in a place without furniture is not the type of 'Taduru,' residence, that the Torah commands for the Mitzvah of Sukah (Rashi). (Alternatively, according to the Ritva, Abaye maintains that when one is in a place where a person normally eats or sleeps outside of his house (such as in a field), he does not have to live in a Sukah.)
</p><p>
Rava does not agree with this application of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru.' Even if a person lives in a place with no furniture, he is obligated to live in a Sukah during Sukos, because that is his normal way of living, his way of 'k'Ein Taduru.' Rava agrees, however, that if one stands to lose money as a result of living in a Sukah, or there is some other difficulty posed by living in a Sukah in that place, then he is exempt because of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru.' He would not live in a house under such conditions.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not ask this question with regard to travelers and the watchmen of a city? They, too, should be required to build a Sukah in their place and live in it during Sukos. Why does the Gemara ask this question only with regard to watchmen of fields and orchards?
</p><p>
The answer is that the Gemara earlier was aware of the principle of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru,' which exempts travelers and city watchmen from the Mitzvah of Sukah. However, at that point the Gemara assumed that 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' teaches that <i>during the time</i> that a person normally does not live in a house, he does not have to live in a Sukah; a guard who works during the day is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah during the day, but since he normally sleeps in his house at night, he must sleep in a Sukah at night during Sukos. However, in the case of orchard watchmen who guard the orchards both during the day and during the night, at no time does the watchman stay in his home; he is a professional, full-time watchman whose job is to stay in the field at all times (Rashi). Consequently, his residence in the field is akin to an ordinary person's residence in a house, since that is how he lives throughout the year. Hence, the Gemara asks that he should be obligated to live in a Sukah during Sukos because of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru.'
</p><p>
Abaye answers that 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' does not mean that one must live in a Sukah during Sukos the way <i>he</i> lives in a place the rest of the year. Rather, it means that one must live in a Sukah during Sukos the way an <i>ordinary</i> person lives during the rest of the year.
</p><p>
Rava answers that since the watchman may suffer a financial loss by living in a way that is different from the way he normally lives (in the open field), 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' does not apply. If, however, he will incur no loss by living in a Sukah, then he is obligated to live in a Sukah in the field because of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' (even though ordinary people do not live in the fields). This is in contrast to the view of Abaye.
</p><p>
This approach still does not explain why the Gemara does not ask that <i>city</i> watchmen should be required to build a Sukah. They, like orchard watchmen, live at their watch-posts throughout the year, day and night. Why does the Gemara not ask this question in that case?
</p><p>
In the text of the Gemara of the <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, <b>RIF</b>, <b>RITVA</b>, and <b>ROSH</b>, as well as in the manuscripts cited by the <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b>, the words 'ba'Yom uva'Lailah' -- '[city watchmen who work] during the day and during the night' -- do not appear in the case of travelers nor in the case of city watchmen. The first time the Gemara mentions 'during the day and during the night' is in the case of the orchard watchmen. Travelers and city watchmen do not remain in their places during both the day and night. Accordingly, there is no basis to ask that travelers and city watchmen should be obligated to dwell in Sukos. (It seems that the difference between orchard watchmen and city watchmen is that no city watchman risks his life to work at night and sleep outside of the safety of the city walls.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: A PICNIC DURING SUKOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa says that 'Holchei Derachim' (travelers) are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. <b>RASHI</b> explains that they are exempt because of the principle of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' -- one is obligated to live in a Sukah during Sukos in the same manner that he lives in his house during the rest of the year. Since, during the rest of the year, a person does not stay in his house at all times but he departs on business and pleasure trips (at which times he does not live in his house), during Sukos he does not have to stay in his Sukah all the time, but he may go on a trip without a Sukah.
</p><p>
This ruling is cited as the Halachah by the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 640:8). The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (640:40) adds that if one can find a Sukah without difficulty during his trip, then he is required to dwell in that Sukah. Also, if he travels only during the day but not during the night, he is obligated to sleep in a Sukah at night.
</p><p>
The Acharonim, however, disagree about the extent of his obligation to sleep in a Sukah at night. The <b>LEVUSH</b> rules that he is obligated only if he can find, in the town in which he lodges, a Sukah that is already built, but if there is no Sukah (such as in a town with no Jews) he is not obligated to build his own Sukah. In contrast, the <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> rules that he is obligated to build his own Sukah wherever he lodges. The Mishnah Berurah (in <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b>) and others side with the Levush, because one is not obligated to spend half the night building a Sukah in order to sleep in it for the remainder of that night. Rather, one is required only to make an effort to find a Sukah that is already built.
</p><p>
In practice, is one who departs on a trip during Sukos exempt from eating and sleeping in a Sukah? Similarly, is one permitted to eat outside of a Sukah during a picnic outing?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> zt'l (Igros Moshe OC 3:93) writes that when the Gemara says (and the Shulchan Aruch rules) that travelers are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah, it refers only to those who travel for the sake of business. One who travels for pleasure, on the other hand, is <i>not</i> exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. Accordingly, one who goes on a picnic outing during Sukos is obligated to eat in a Sukah, and if he does not eat in a Sukah he transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh. Even though it is the normal manner for people to leave their homes to eat outside during the rest of the year, the principle of 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' does not permit one to leave the Sukah to eat outside during Sukos.
</p><p>
Rav Moshe Feinstein supports this opinion from Rava's teaching that one who is 'Mitzta'er' is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. This means that if one experiences more distress while inside a Sukah than he would experience in the house (or anywhere outside of the Sukah), he is exempt. 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' teaches that just as a person leaves his house during the year when it is uncomfortable for him there, so, too, he is not obligated to dwell in his Sukah during Sukos when it is uncomfortable for him there. If it is true that one who goes on a picnic outing is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah, then Rava should not have focused on the negative element (one who is uncomfortable in the Sukah is exempt), but on the positive element -- one who <i>enjoys</i> being outside of the Sukah more than he enjoys being inside is exempt.
</p><p>
Rav Moshe Feinstein also cites the Gemara in Menachos (41a) that states that a person should not attempt to exempt himself from a Mitzvas Aseh (such as by wearing a garment that does not have four corners so that he does not have to fulfill the Mitzvah of Tzitzis). On the contrary, a person should make effort to put himself in a situation in which he is obligated to perform a Mitzvas Aseh, as the Gemara in Sotah (14a) relates with regard to Moshe Rabeinu, who requested permission to enter Eretz Yisrael in order to be able to fulfill the special Mitzvos Aseh that are observed there (Sotah 14a).
</p><p>
He concludes that one should not go out for a pleasure trip during Sukos to a place where there is no Sukah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a (quoted in <b>HE'OROS</b> </p><center><font color='ff0000'><b><b>B'MASECHES SUKAH</b>) disagrees with the above view.</b></font></center><p> He says that it is the normal manner for people to go out for pleasure trips from their homes just as they go out for business trips. Since this is the manner in which one lives in his home during the year (that is, he leaves his home occasionally for a trip), he may live in the Sukah during Sukos in this manner as well. Hence, one should be permitted to leave his Sukah to go out on a pleasure trip.
</p><p>
How does Rav Elyashiv understand the Gemara in Menachos that says that one should not attempt to exempt himself from a Mitzvas Aseh? Rav Elyashiv explains that in the case of a pleasure trip during Sukos, one is <i>not</i> exempting himself from the Mitzvah; he still has his Sukah. He simply is living in it the way he lives in his house during the rest of the year. When one leaves his Sukah to go on a pleasure trip, he does not forfeit the Mitzvah of Sukah. Rather, he is living in the Sukah the same way he lives in his house. (When Rashi says that 'Holchei Derachim' are those who go on business trips, he does not mean to limit the exemption to those who go out on <i>business</i>. He mentions 'business' merely as an example of why one would travel during Sukos.)
</p><p>
Perhaps the difference of opinion in this matter may be explained as follows. There are two different types of pleasure outings. When a person travels in order to tour or visit certain places, his trip is similar to a business trip in that he has a specific destination and objective. 'Teshvu k'Ein Taduru' exempts him from the Sukah during the trip. If he finds himself near a Sukah during his trip, he must eat there (as the Mishnah Berurah writes), because that is what he would do during a trip at any other time of the year -- if he would find a house in which he could eat, he would enter the house and eat there.
</p><p>
A second type of pleasure outing is a trip that one takes merely to be outside, with no particular destination. He may not exempt himself from the Sukah simply because he enjoys the outdoors and wants to eat in the outside air. Such a case would be considered an attempt to exempt oneself from a Mitzvas Aseh, because even if there would be a Sukah nearby when he picnics, he would not want to enter it to eat. Moreover, since he specifically wants to eat outdoors, he not only does the type of act that does not <i>need</i> a Sukah (such as touring), but he also does an act that shows that he does not <i>want</i> a Sukah. By going on a picnic during Sukos, he shows that he specifically wants to eat outside of the Sukah, and this is considered an insult to the Sukah. Such a person is instructed to enjoy the outdoors during the rest of the year, but not during Sukos. The intent of the tourist, on the other hand, is to travel in order to see the sites, but not to avoid sitting in a Sukah.
</p><p>
The ruling of Rav Elyashiv (the preeminent Posek in Eretz Yisrael) refers to the average Israeli, who travels in order to reach a destination. The ruling of Rav Moshe Feinstein (the preeminent Posek in America), on the other hand, addresses the Western phenomenon of picnicking in order to experience the pleasure of being outdoors. Such an intent implies that one specifically seeks to get out of the Sukah, and thus it is prohibited. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


