________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
daf@dafyomi.co.il, www.dafyomi.co.il
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
________________________________________________________
 Previous |
SUKAH 16 |  Next |
 Ask the Kollel |
(a) We just cited Rebbi Ami bar Tivyumi, who invalidates worn out 'vessels' that are no longer fit for use from being used as Sechach. According to Abaye, he is referring to - clothes of less than three square Etzba'os (finger-breadths), which is no longer fit for even a poor man to wear.
(b) We know that the Halachah is like him (even though we just refuted the suggested proof from our Mishnah) - because he is supported by a Beraisa ...
(c) ... which disqualifies a straw or reed mat from being used as Sechach - even though it is worn out and now measures less than six by six Tefachim (the minimum size to be subject to Tum'as Mishkav u'Moshav).
(d) The Tana Kama also validates a large cane mat, but invalidates a small one. Rebbi Eliezer - invalidates even a small one (This Machlokes will recur later in the Perek, where it will be discussed more fully).
(e) We have now proved from the Reisha of the Beraisa - that something that was once a Kli that was subject to Tum'ah remains Pasul to be used as Sechach, even though it is no longer fit to become Tamei.
(a) Our Mishnah invalidates a Sukah that is cut out of a haystack. Rav Huna qualifies this ruling - confining it to where the haystack was initially filled in. But not if it already contained a hole of one Tefach deep measuring seven by seven Tefachim wide; in which case, the Sukah is Kasher.
(b) This is because a. seeing as the Din Ohel already exists for the entire area of the Sukah, it will be permitted to extend the walls from one Tefach to ten; and b. because the Din of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' is confined to the Sechach, and does not apply to the walls.
(c) This ruling is borne out by two Beraisos, one of which validates a Sukah that has been scratched out of a haystack, whilst the other declares it invalid. In the second Lashon, we actually query the discrepancy. Rav Huna reconciles them - by establishing the first Beraisa where a hole of one Tefach deep measuring seven by seven Tefachim had already been cut out of the haystack, and the second one, where it did not.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, the wall of a that one begins weaving from the top downwards - is Kasher provided it reaches to within at least three Tefachim from the ground (due to 'Lavud'), whereas one which is constructed from the ground - is Kasher as long as it reaches a height of ten Tefachim (even though it does not reach within three Tefachim of the Sechach).
(b) Rebbi Yosi - validates the latter wall too, even it does not reach to within three Tefachim from the ground ...
(c) ... because he holds 'Mechitzah Teluyal Materes' (which is synonymous with 'Gud Achis Mechitzasah'), whilst the Chachamim concede 'Gud Asik Mechitzasah' (when starting from the bottom upwards, such as in the Reisha) not to 'Gud Achis ... ').
(a) The Tana Kama in a Mishnah in Eruvin permits the residents of two adjoining courtyards (who did not make an Eruv) to draw water from a joint well, provided they made a partition of ten Tefachim in one of two locations - either on top of the well of at the bottom.
(b) When the Tana Kama adds 'Bein b'Soch Ugno', he means - that in any event, the Mechitzah must be within the walls of the well (and not above it).
(c) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Beis Shamai permit even a Mechitzah that is above the level of the water (see Tosfos DH 'Beis Shamai'). Beis Hillel - requires it to be at the bottom.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah is even more lenient than Beis Shamai. In his opinion - a Mechitzah between two walls of a Chatzer is Kasher even if when there is no water, and even if it was not erected specifically to serve as a Mechitzah.
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah quoting Rebbi Yochanan, equates Rebbi Yehudah with Rebbi Yosi, who permits a suspended Mechitzah in our Mishnah, by Sukah. In fact though ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah does not hold like Rebbi Yosi, who only applies his lenient ruling by Eruv, which is purely mid'Rabanan (since the Torah only forbids carrying from one Reshus to a different Reshus not from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another), but not by Sukah, which requires a Mechitzah d'Oraisa.
2. ... Rebbi Yosi does not hold like Yehudah, who permits a Mechitzah Teluyah even by Shabbos, which is basically a Chiyuv Sekilah - whereas he permits it only by Sukah, which is no more than a Mitzvas Aseh.
(b) Despite the fact that Rebbi Yosi (who does not hold of Mechitzah Teluyah by Dinei Shabbos), was the Rav of Tzipori, they nevertheless permitted a Mechitzah Teluyah there - because that was in the days of Rebbi Yosi's son, Rebbi Yishmael, who disagreed with his father in this point.
(c) They kept the Sefer-Torah for Leining in a private house on Friday night, rather than in the Chatzer where they intended to Lein the next morning - because they were afraid of the gentiles, who had issued a decree, forbidding the Jews to Lein.
16b----------------------------------------16b
(a) The problem in Tzipori was that they forgot to make an Eruv Chatzeros to carry the Sefer-Torah into the Chatzer (or a Shituf Mavo'os to carry it into the Mavoy). They nevertheless permitted transporting the Sefer-Torah to the Chatzer (or the house) where it was required, due to a Mechitzah which cordoned off the grounds in which the house where the Torah was, from the other houses by means of a Mechitzah formed by sheets hanging over the posts (or the Chatzer was cordoned off from the other Chatzeros - and a Chatzer that comprises only one house (or a Mavoy that comprises only one Chatzer), does not require an Eruv)
(b) We know that the Mechitzah under discussion - was a Mechitzah Teluyah, which did not reach within three Tefachim from the ground.
(c) The original suggestion, that they brought fresh sheets and hung them up - is unacceptable, because, seeing as there was no Eruv, how could they carry the sheets?
(a) Rav Chisda permits putting up a mat in between the Sechach of a Sukah and the floor to form the wall of a Sukah. Assuming the mat reaches all the way across the Sukah, the smallest size mat that one would need for a Sukah ten Tefachim high would be - four Tefachim and a bit (enabling us to apply 'Lavud' both at the top and at the bottom).
(b) The Chidush is that we apply the principle of 'Lavud'. Sure we know 'Lavud' already - but Rav Chisda teaches us that we even apply it twice in one case.
(c) According to Rav Chisda, the Beraisa, which gives the minimum size mat as seven Tefachim and a Mashehu - is speaking about a large Sukah that is higher than ten Tefachim. One places the Mechitzah within three Tefachim of the top, in which case, using 'Lavud', we have a Mechitzah of ten Tefachim ...
(d) ... which is Kasher, irrespective of the height of the wall from the floor (due to the principle of 'Mechitzah Teluyah' - like Rebbi Yosi.
(a) Rebbi Asi permits placing a post of four Tefachim and a Mashehu within three Tefachim of an existing wall (and adjacent to it), to form the second wall of the Sukah. Seeing as we already know the Din of Lavud, Rebbi Asi must be coming to teach us - that the minimum length of a Sukah is seven Tefachim.
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Sukah
D.A.F. Homepage
OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF | ||||||||||||||||||||
the Daf | • | to the Daf | • | Point | • | Outlines | • | Charts |
||||||||||||
l'Daf | • | Quiz | • | Charts | • | Da'as | • | on the Daf | • | Masechta | • | Lectures |
|
Other Masechtos
• Join Mailing Lists
• Ask the Kollel Dafyomi Calendar • חומר בעברית Donations • Feedback • Links |