ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
SUKAH 21 (Rosh Hashanah) - sponsored by Hillel and Elisheva (Ali) Kagan of Baltimore. May Hashem bless them with a year of Berachah and joy, and all of their prayers should be answered "l'Tovah"!
(a) According to the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Ohalos, a hole that the water or rodents bored into the lower section of the banks of a river or, that 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 Din of Tum'as Ohel.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - on the grounds that it is only a man-made Ohel that has the Din of an Ohel, but not a natural one.
(c) And he learns this - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ohel" "Ohel" (from Mishkan).
(d) The Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah hold 'Ohel Ohel Ribah' - meaning that from the superfluous word "Ohel" (which appears a number of times in the Parshah of Parah), we learn that any, even a man-made Ohel has the Din of an Ohel.
(a) 'Kever ha'Tehom' is - Safek Tum'ah (i.e. based on the possibility that someone might just be buried underneath that spot).
(b) They built courtyards in Yerushalayim on top of rocks - in order to avoid Kever ha'Tehom, which they did by building them on top of large cavities, to ensure that, even if there was an unknown grave there, the cavity would prevent the Tum'ah from reaching the courtyards.
(c) They brought pregnant women there, so that the babies that were subsequently born would grow up without being subjected to Tum'as Mes. Later, they were the ones who would prepare the Parah Adumah. The children only worked in this capacity until they reached the age of six or seven, the age when one begins to see Tum'as Keri.
(a) Chazal initiated this unusual series of stringencies (which we only find in connection with the Parah Adumah) - to balance out a leniency which they introduced in order to refute the theory of the Tzedokim, who maintained that the Parah had to be burnt by a Kohen who was not a Tevul-Yom (after Tevilah, before nightfall). So they were deliberately Metamei the Kohen, had him Tovel and burn it ... before nightfall.
(b) They considered it necessary to do so - because otherwise, they felt, when people saw the above leniency put into effect, they would proceed to treat the Parah Adumah with disrespect.
(c) Only stone vessels and the like (which are not subject to Tum'ah) - were used in preparing the Parah Adumah.
(a) The Kohen who was designated to burn it - had to separate from his wife and move to the Beis Hamikdash for seven days (as we already learned in Yoma).
(b) On each of those days he was sprinkled with the ashes of previous Paros Adumos ...
(c) ... as a result of which no Kohen was permitted to touch him.
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Parah, the children rode to the spring of the Shilo'ach to draw the water for the Parah Adumah sitting on top of a door that was placed on the backs of bulls - (which have wide bellies, making it more difficult for the riders to lean over the top and become Tamei through Tum'as ha'Tehom), stone vessels in hand.
(b) The ...
1. ... door - was an additional Chumra, to make leaning over the side of the bull more difficult still.
2. ... water was going to be used - to sprinkle on the Kohen.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah maintains - that the children did not ride on doors but directly on the wide backs of the bulls.
(a) Upon their arrival at the Shilo'ach, the Tana Kama requires the children to dismount and draw water from its water with their stone jars. Rebbi Yosi rules - that they must fill their stone jars from the backs of the bulls ...
(b) ... rather than dismount and enter the water - to avoid Tum'as ha'Tehom.
(c) The Tana Kama insists that they dismount - because, in his opinion, the water must be filled in the regular way, and not by lowering the jar via a string.
(d) He is not concerned about Tum'as ha'Tehom - because there is little likelihood of there being a grave underneath the water.
(a) The problem with Rebbi Yehudah (who does not require the door and) who permits the children to sit directly on the backs of the bulls - is that it clashes with his earlier ruling precluding a natural Ohel from the Din of Ohel).
(b) Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Elazar, differentiates between a natural Ohel of a Tefach - (which Rebbi Yehudah's initial ruling is referring to) and one of a 'M'lo Egrof' (i.e. the size of the fist of Ben Avti'ach, which as as large as a human head, and into which category the back of a bull belongs), which Rebbi Yehudah agrees is Chashuv, and is therefore considered an Ohel.
(a) We query Rav Dimi's answer however, from Rebbi Yehudah's own words 'but not on doors' - which we take to mean literally, because doors are not normally used as an Ohel; and if doors are not used as an Ohel, bulls are certainly not.
(b) Abaye interprets 'not on doors' to mean that it was not necessary for them to ride on doors (but not that it was Halachically wrong to do so). Rava interprets it as a prohibition, as we originally did ...
(c) ... (only not because it is not an Ohel, but rather) ... in case it gave the children a feeling of security, which in turn would encourage him to lean over the side, thereby defeating its own purpose.
(d) He is proved right - from a Beraisa, which supports him.
(a) We query Rav Dimi further from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who permits sleeping under a bed in the Sukah. The problem is - that there too, the Ohel measures a M'lo Egrof, so why is the bed not considered an Ohel to be Mevatel the Sukah?
(b) And we answer that bed is not considered an Ohel - (not just because it is temporary) but because the definition of an Ohel is one which is made to protect what is underneath it, whereas a bed is made to sleep on top of it, and is therefore not considered an Ohel (irrespective of its size).
(c) We counter that however - by pointing out that the backs of a bull too, is made to ride on top of it (so why is it considered an Ohel?)!
(a) Ravin Amar Rebbi Elazar answers that there is more reason to consider a bull an Ohel than a bed - due to the shepherds' tendency to lie underneath it as a protection from the sun and the shade.
(b) The problem with Ravin's answer is - that by the same token, people tend people to place their shoes and sandals underneath a bed.
(c) Rava finally solves the problem, based on the Pasuk in Iyov "Or u'Basar Talbisheini, u've'Atzamos u've'Gidin Tesochecheini (a Lashon of Sechach)" - which indicates that the Torah considers the back of a bull an Ohel, because of the skin's function to protect the bones and the sinews.
(a) We currently assume that Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah does not consider a bed to be an Ohel. Alternatively - it is, yet it does not negate the Sukah due to the principle 'Lo Asi Ohel Ara'i u'Mevatel Ohel Keva' (a temporary Ohel does not have the power to negate a permanent one).
(b) Rebbi Shimon, who also requires a permanent Sukah (as we learned earlier), nevertheless forbids sleeping under a bed in the Sukah - because he holds 'Asi Ohel Ara'i u'Mevatel Ohel Keva'.
(a) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa learns from Raban Gamliel's statement in our Mishnah ('Ra'isi Tavi Avdi ... '), besides the fact that Avadim are Patur from Sukah - that someone who sleeps under a bed in a Sukah is not Yotzei.
(b) And from Rebbi Shimon's choice of expression ('mi'Sichaso shel Raban Gamliel' rather than 'mi'Devarav shel Raban Gamliel'), we learn - that one can even learn from the mundane speech of Talmidei-Chachamim.
(a) The Tana Kama in our Mishnah declares Kasher a Sukah that is supported by Kar'ei ha'Mitah' - by which he means an entire bed.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - if the Sukah cannot stand by itself, it is Pasul.
(c) Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Aba argue over Rebbi Yehudah's reason. One of them explains that it is because it is not fixed (i.e. it moves with the bed) - meaning it is considered Arai, and as we learned in the first Perek, Rebbi Yehudah requires a Sukah to be permanent.
(d) The other one explains that Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the Sukah - because it is being held up by something that is subject to Tum'ah (and whatever holds up the Sechach (Ma'amid) is like the Sechach itself).
(e) The difference between the two explanations will be if the Sechach is placed on four metal posts that are fixed - on the one hand, the Sukah will then be permanent (and ought to be Kasher); on the other hand, it is resting on something that is subject to Tum'ah (and ought to be Pasul).
(a) Abaye qualifies Rebbi Yehudah's ruling - confining it to a case where the Sechach is actually resting on the legs of the bed, but not if it rests on independent posts, in which even the latter will agree that it Kasher ...
(b) ... since 'Mah Nafshach' - the Sechach is neither temporary, nor is it held up by something that is subject to Tum'ah.