ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) According to Rava's current interpretation of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer, they both agree that a large mat is normally meant for Sechach, and they argue by a small one: The Tana Kama holds that a Stam small mat is subject to Tum'ah and is Pasul for Sechach; whereas Rebbi Eliezer maintains that both a small mat and a large one are Kasher for Sechach. Besides the tradition that their dispute concerns a large mat and that Rebbi Eliezer goes l'Chumra - the Gemara has a problem with the Lashon of Rebbi Eliezer: if he is coming to teach us that a small mat has the same lenient ruling as a large one, he should have said, not 'a small mat and a large one', but a large mat and a small one' - since it is always the way of the Tana to mention the obvious case first, and the case that he is learning from it, last.
(b) Rav Papa therefore, establishes the Machlokes by a large mat - by a small mat everyone agrees that a Stam mat is for lying on; and it is by a large mat where Rebbi Eliezer comes to argue and to forbid (because when he said 'Ase'ah li'Shechivah' - he meant 'Stam li'Shechivah' - whereas 'le'Sikuch' of the Tana Kama remains 'Stam l'Sikukuch', as we understood it originally).
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa ...
1. ... large mats made of various types of rushes are Kasher for Sechach, but small ones are Pasul - because the former are lumpy and not fit for sleeping on, whereas the latter are smooth.
2. ... large mats made of canes or reeds are Kasher for Sechach when they are hand-platted but Pasul when they are woven - because whereas cane mats are lumpy, they are sometimes woven to make them soft, in which case they become Pasul.
(b) Large hand-platted rush mats - are Kasher (just like hand-made ones), and ...
(c) ... small hand-platted cane mats - are Kasher just like large ones.
(d) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi (citing his father) and Rebbi Dosa declare - woven cane mats Kasher just like those that are hand-made.
(a) Rebbi Dosa (in another Beraisa) declares 'Chotzlos' Metam'in Tamei Mes, but not Tamei Midras - since they are not made specifically to lie on.
(b) He mentions 'Tamei Mes' - because, like Tamei Midras in the Seifa, it is an Av ha'Tum'ah.
(c) The Chachamim rule that they are Metamei Tamei Midras. We query that - since it implies but not Tamei Mes, and we have learned in the Mishnah in Nidah that whatever is Metamei Tamei Midras is Metamei Tamei Mes too.
(d) What they must therefore have really meant to say was - 'Af Tamei Midras' (and certainly Tamei Mes).
(e) Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri interprets Chotzlos as 'Marzuvli', which Rebbi Aba translates as 'the leather satchels of shepherds'. Resh Lakish interprets Chotzlos as - 'mats'.
(a) The two Tana'ic sages (each in his own day and age) who came from Bavel to reinstate Torah in Eretz Yisrael (like Ezra did after Galus Bavel) were - Hillel and Rebbi Chiya.
(b) Torah flourished in Bavel - from the time of Galus Yechonyah ha'Melech, who went into exile eleven years before the Churban, accompanied by a thousand outstanding Talmidei-Chachamim (described by the Navi as "he'Carash v'ha'Misger").
(c) When Resh Lakish said 'Hareini Kaparas Rebbi Chiya u'Vanav', he meant - that, after their death, he undertook to suffer as an atonement for their sins. This was something that a son might say about his father or a Talmid about his Rebbe.
(a) Rebbi Chiya said that ...
1. ... the reed mats of Usha were subject to Tum'as Midras (because they were designated for sleeping on) - even according to Rebbi Dosa; whereas ...
2. ... the reed mats of Teverya - were not (due to their hardness), even according to the Rabanan.
(b) The reed mats used in other towns, he claimed, were the subject of the dispute between Rebbi Dosa, who declared them Tamei Mes - because he took into account the minority of people, who tended to designate them for sleeping, and the Chachamim - who did not.
(c) We reconcile this with the Beraisa that we cited earlier, where Rebbi Dosa agrees with Rebbi Yosi that they are not subject to Tum'ah, and are therefore Kasher to be used as Sechach - by establishing the latter with regard to mats that do not have a rim (and which are therefore not subject to Tum'ah), whereas the former is speaking about mats which do.
(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Dosa declares subject to Tum'as Mes Chotzelos made of rushes, sack-cloth or horse-hair. According to the Rabanan - they are subject to Tum'as Midras as well.
(b) According to Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri (earlier in the Sugya, who translated 'Chotzelos' as the leather satchels of shepherds), 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. This is - due to the difference in the way they are woven; the former are woven with large gaps in the weaving, the latter are not.
(c) According to Resh Lakish (who translated 'Chotzelos' as 'mats'), apart from sleeping on them (for which purpose, according to Rebbi Dosa, they are not made), a mat made of ...
1. ... sack-cloth or horse-hair - might be used as a curtain or sifter.
2. ... rushes - as a cover for a beer-barrel.
(a) When Rebbi Chananya went to Bavel to declare a leap-year, that old man told him - that one may use mats (Budya) for Sechach.
(b) When, upon his return, he repeated what the old men had told him - to his uncle Rebbi Yehoshua, the latter corroborated the old man's ruling.
(c) Rav Chisda qualified the old man's ruling - confining to a mat that had no rim (because if it did, it would be subject to Tum'ah).
(a) Ula declared the Budisa of the Bnei Mechoza ineligible to be used as Sechach - because they had rims.
(b) The Beraisa that we cite in support of Ula's ruling - which permits using mats as Sechach, provided they have do not have a rim.
(c) When the Tana mentions 'Kir', he means - a rim.
HADRAN ALACH 'SUKAH SHE'HI GEVOHAH'
(a) The three major activities that constitute 'Ikar Yeshivas Sukah' are - eating, drinking and sleeping.
(b) The Tana Kama forbids sleeping underneath a bed in the Sukah. Rebbi Yehudah permits it - because in his opinion, a temporary Ohel (Ohel Arai) cannot negate a permanent one (Ohel K'va).
(c) The Tana Kama might well agree with Rebbi Yehudah on principle. According to him however, it will not apply by Sukah, because in his opinion, a Sukah does not need to be a permanent structure, so it is a matter of an Ohel Arai negating an Ohel Arai (which of course, it can).
(d) The bed must be - ten Tefachim tall for the Tana Kama to forbid it, because if it is lower than that, it is not considered an Ohel.
(a) Our Mishnah describe Tavi, Raban Gamliel's illustrious slave, as having once - slept under a bed in a Sukah
(b) Raban Gamliel subsequently boasted to the elders - what a Talmid-Chacham Tavi was, seeing as (bearing in mind the Halachah that 'Ohel Mevatel Ohel'), he knew that slaves are Patur from Sukah.
(c) Rebbi Shimon learns from Raban Gamliel's statement - that somebody who sleeps underneath a bed in the Sukah is not Yotzei.
(d) When he opened his statement with the words 'u'L'fi Darkeinu Lamadnu ... ' he was pointing out - that one can learn from even the Sichas Chulin (the mundane talk) of Talmidei Chachamim.
(a) We query our Mishnah in that a regular bed is not ten Tefachim tall - in which case it is not constitute an Ohel (to be Mevatel the Sukah).
(b) Shmuel answer the Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah by a bed of ten Tefachim.