Daf Yomi - Sukkah 7 - Fitting for all Seven Days

The Gemora states that if one made a sukkah on a movuy that has a lechi, it is valid. The same is true regarding a sukkah by passei biroos. Rashi learns that the sukkah is only valid on Shabbos for then we can apply the principle of migu - since it is deemed a wall regarding Shabbos, it is considered a wall in respect for sukkah as well. The Aruch Lenar asks that this should be considered a sukkah that is not fitting for all seven days and it is ruled on daf 23 that this can invalidate a sukkah? He writes that this can explain the opinion of the Rif who rules that it is valid during the week as well.

The Netziv in Merumei Sadeh explains Rashi's opinion why being a valid sukkah only on Shabbos is not in contrast with the principle of the requirement to be fitting for all seven days, for that requirement invalidates a sukkah that can't physically stand erect for seven days for the walls are too weak or the s'chach will dry up, however that a halacha dictates that it will be valid for one day and not the other, that is not a problem.

There is a Gemora on daf 23 that if one makes a sukkah on top of an animal it is not valid at all, for since one cannot utilyze such a sukkah on Shabbos, it is not valid during the week as well, for it must be fitting to use all seven days. This would indicate that a halachic disqualification for one day does invalidate the sukkah? The Netziv answers that this is only true according to the Tanaim that mandate that the sukkah should be permanent and if so, the possuk is not needed to teach us that the walls should be strong, rather the possuk teaches that it must be completely fitting for all seven days. According to the othe rTanaim who maintain that a sukkah can be temporary, they learn the possuk that it must be fitting for all seven days physically, however if halachaically it was invalid for one day, that does not prevent it from being a valid sukkah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 7 - Wood Shortage

Posted by David Farkas

Concerning lavud, gud asik, dofen akuma, etc. – in the book Nefesh Harav, the intellectual biography of Reb Yoshe Ber Solevetitchik zt’l, it is recorded that a Jewish historian once commented that all the aforementioned laws of lavud, etc., were promulgated because there was a shortage of wood in Israel, and consequently chazal were forced to cut corners, so to speak. Now the Gemara here says these laws are from Moshe at Sinai! Reb Yoshe Ber said that while the historian was wrong in his conclusion, it is possible to say that what prompted chazal to examine these areas of halacah in more detail, was a shortage in wood. These laws are primarily hilchos shabbos types of laws, but it could be a shortage of wood prompted chazal to reexamine these laws, which are from Moshe at Sinai, to see if they are applicable to succah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 7 - Fruit in a Sukkah

Maharatz Chayus in Yoma 79 explains a Tosfos Yeshanim who seems to be saying contradictory statements. Tosfos Yeshonim writes that one is not required to enter a sukkah for eating fruit and he is discussing the Gemora which states that when eating fruit, a sukkah is needed. Maharatz Chayus explains based on a ruling of Rabbeinu Avigdor who states that even though one is obligated to eat in a sukkah when eating food only in the size of an egg, on Yom Tov, one is required to eat in the sukkah even for food which measures even an olive size. Tosfos Yeshonim maintains that this is true regarding fruits as well. During the week, one would not be obligated to eat fruit in a sukkah, however on Shabbos, where one can fulfill the mitzva of three seudos with fruit, he would be obligated to eat fruit in the sukkah.

This would be similar to our Gemora which states that if we consider something to be a wall regarding Shabbos, it is deemed a wall in regards to sukkah as well.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 7 - Lekavod Shabbos

The Gemara discusses allowing an abbreviated third wall to be effective for carrying on the Shabbos of Sukkos. It is worth exploring the association between Shabbos and Sukkos as they appear to be mutually exclusive. It is noteworthy that the Torah states you shall dwell in booths for a seven-day period; every native in Israel shall dwell in booths. So that your generations will know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in booths when I took them from the land of Egypt; I am HaShem, your G-d. Regarding Sukkos the Torah uses the term ידעו, will know, and
regarding Shabbos it is said, now you speak to the Children of Israel, saying, however, you must observe My Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you for your generations, to know (לדעת)that I am HaShem who makes You holy. Thus, the purpose of both Shabbos and Sukkos is to know that HaShem is our G-d and that He always protects us. This would explain why in the Shabbos Maariv prayers we end the blessing with the words ופרוש עלינו סכת שלומך and spread over us the shelter of Your peace. When we acknowledge Hashem’s Presence in our midst, HaShem will protect us from all harm.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 6 - Majority Rules

Rabbi Shlomo Kluger writes that there is a novel idea that can be derived from the halacha LeMoshe MiSinai that teaches us biblical measurements. If these measurements would only be derived from a verse in the Torah, we would apply the principle of rubo kikulo, a majority of a matter is akin to the entire matter. The halacha LeMoshe MiSinai therefore teaches us that one is required to immerse in a mikveh that contains forty se’ah and it would not be sufficient if there would be just thirty-nine se’ah. Furthermore, one will not fulfill his obligation of eating matzah by eating anything less than a kezayis, because the halacha teaches that one must eat the full the entire amount. The Chasam Sofer disagrees and maintains that one cannot apply the principle of rubo kikulo in these instances, because a majority is sufficient as long as there is a complete matter. The Chasam Sofer cites a number of examples to prove this point. One example would be if the entire Sanhedrin convened, they can rule according to the majority opinion. It is obvious, however, that we do not convene a majority of the Sanhedrin and allow them to rule. Another example would be that if ten people convene to hear borchu and seven of them have not yet heard borchu, the group is deemed to have comprised a minyan quorum. Nonetheless, we cannot merely convene seven men and allow them to reckon themselves as a minyan quorum by applying the principle of a majority. Similarly, a mikveh is required to contain forty se’ah and then can we apply the principle of majority.

Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 6 - Fruits of Eretz Yisroel as Measurements

The Gemara states that various halachos regarding measurements are derived from the verse that states a land of wheat and barley and vines and figs and pomegranates, a land of oil [producing] olives and [date] honey. Rashi on 5b writes that the verse is praising the fruits of Eretz Yisroel that serve as measures for various laws of the Torah. Reshash here corroborates the words of Rashi. Sfas Emes adds that a possible reason that the verse specifically praises the fruits of Eretz Yisroel is because they are easier to eat. There are other Achronim who rule similarly. Shiurin shel Torah, however, rules that we apply halachic measurements by using the fruits of each respective country.
It is worth noting that the Tosefta in Yoma states explicitly that when measuring the size of a date in regard to the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur, we estimate with the dates found in Eretz Yisroel. Shemuas Chaim suggests that it is quite possible that regarding Yom Kippur, everyone is in agreement that we measure with the dates of Eretz Yisroel. The reason for this is that regarding Yom Kippur the deciding factor is whether one is satiated from what he has eaten and it would not be logical to presume that ones satiation is dependant on a respective location.

Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 6 - Are Four Walls One Too Many?

Tosfos in Rosh Hashanah 28b wonders why one should be allowed to build a Sukkah from four walls when the Torah states explicitly that it is kosher with three walls. The problem with building a Sukkah of four walls is that one is prohibited from adding on to a mitzvah, and this prohibition is called baal tosif.
for Tosfos' answer and further discussion, click here please
Tosfos answers that since one is required to dwell in the Sukkah as if he would be living there, it is preferable that one has a structure of four walls and not three. Olas Avrohom explains Tosfos to mean that if one extended the walls of his Sukkah to be more than seven tefachim, he certainly has not transgressed the prohibition of baal tosif. The reason for this is because the Torah does not require that the walls must be seven tefachim. Rather, seven tefachim is the minimum requirement for the length of the walls. This would be akin to one who takes a lulav and esrog that is larger than the Torah requires. Regarding the minimum requirement of walls for a Sukkah, however, one would have thought that since the Torah stated that a Sukkah consists of three walls, perhaps one would be violating the prohibition of baal tosif by adding a fourth wall, as a fourth wall is completely unnecessary to fulfill the mitzvah. Tosfos therefore answers that in truth, it is preferable to build four walls as one will then be more comfortable when dwelling in the Sukkah. The Shelah and Pri Megadim to Orach Chaim 643:4 rule that to fulfill the obligation of glorifying a mitzvah, which is derived from the verse that’s states this is my G-d and I will glorify Him, one should build a Sukkah with four walls.
One must wonder if it is prohibited to build a Sukkah of five walls because it is baal tosif.


Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 6 - Three and a bit

The Gemara quotes a verse in Yeshaya as proof to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a Sukkah requires a fourth wall. The verse quoted states and there will be a Sukkah as a shade from heat in the daytime, as a protection and refuge from storm and from rain. The Gemara earlier used this verse as proof that until twenty amos a person sits in the shade of a Sukkah, but higher than twenty amos, one is not sitting in the Sukkah but in the shade of the walls. The Aruch LaNer wonders why Rabbi Shimon uses a verse from the prophets to teach a practical halacha. One must also wonder why the Gemara continues to use this verse when the verse is referring to the Messianic Era. Perhaps we can suggest a Homiletical interpretation of this Gemara. The Medrash states that HaShem created the three directions of the world closed off and the fourth direction He left open. The reason for this is because HaShem says, “let the arrogant and the idol worshippers come and close the fourth wall.” It would follow then that in the Messianic Era, when there will no longer be idol worship and no one will be arrogant, Hashem Himself will close the fourth wall of the world. Similarly, Rabbi Shimon maintains that a Sukkah requires three walls and a fourth wall of at least a tefach. This symbolizes that one should not be arrogant. Rather, one should be humble, as is reflected in the minimal measurement of the fourth wall, and then he will merit basking in the Divine Presence when HaShem in His glory closes off the fourth direction.

Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 6 - Father and Mother

There is a debate in the Gemara if a Sukkah requires two full walls and a third wall that is at least a tefach or should there be three complete walls. This debate is based on whether one reads the word Sukkos in the Torah with the letter vav or without the letter vav. The Chachamim maintain that we say yeish eim lemasores, the transmitted written form has primacy, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that yeish eim lemikra, the pronounced form has primacy. The Rif was questioned as to why the Gemara uses the word eim, which means mother, and not av, which means father. A similar question would be that the Gemara refers to one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics as a binyan av and not a binyan eim.
Click here for the Rif's response and more
The Rif initially responded that he never heard anyone shed light on this matter, but then he proceeded to offer a possible explanation. When the purpose of a principle is to teach a concept in a different area, the Gemara uses the term av, whereas if the discussion at hand is regarding relying on a principle, the Gemara uses the word eim. Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha explains the words of the Rif. The mother is the akeres habayis, the mainstay of the house as it is said every honorable princess dwelling within. For this reason we say yeish eim lemikra or yeish eim lemasores, as the mother is the central figure in the house and it is the mother who everyone is dependant upon. The father, on the other hand, is not usually found in the house, as he leaves the house to seek a livelihood. The principle of a binyan av, however, is that we are building from one location to another, and this is analogous to a father who influences others. (See Rabbeinu Bachye to Devarim 33:8 for further discussion on the differences between the father and mother.)

Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 6 - Highlights

1. It is said a land of wheat and barley and vines and figs and pomegranates, a land of oil [producing] olives and [date] honey. The Gemara states that this verse teaches us various halachic measures.
...Daf's Highlights - Click Here
The word wheat teaches us that if one enters a house that was afflicted with tzaraas and he is carrying his clothing on his shoulders, and his shoes and his rings are in his hands, both he and all that he is carrying become tamei immediately. If he was wearing his clothes, however, and his shoes were on his feet and his rings were on his fingers, he will become tamei immediately but his clothing, shoes and rings remain tahor unless he tarries the amount of time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. The word barley teaches us that a bone from a corpse the size of a barley will transmit tumah through contact or by being carried, but a bone fragment will not impart tumah by being under one roof. The word vines teach us that a Nazir, one who took a vow to abstain from eating or drinking grape products, will be liable if he consumes a reviis of wine, which is a quarter-log. The word figs teaches us that for one to be liable for carrying from one domain to another on Shabbos, one must carry the minimum amount of food which is the size of a dried fig. The word pomegranates teaches us that regarding any utensil that belongs to a homeowner, the measure for losing their tumah is a hole that is the size of a pomegranate. The reason for this is because a homeowner will not readily discard his utensils, but once a utensil develops a hole the size of a pomegranate, the utensil is no longer usable, so the utensil is no longer susceptible to tumah. The words a land of oil [producing] olives teach us that Eretz Yisroel is a land whose every legal measure is the size of olives, i.e. any minimum measurement requirement is an olive. The words date [honey] teach us that one will be liable for eating on Yom Kippur if he eats food that is the size of a large date.
2. The halacha that one cannot have a chatzitzah, an interposition on his skin when immersing in a mikveh, is of biblical origin. The halacha LeMoshe MiSinai is necessary to teach us that if there is a single knot in ones hair, it is considered an interposition and invalidates the immersion.
3. There is a debate regarding how may walls are required for a Sukkah to be valid. The Chachamim maintain that a Sukkah requires two complete walls and a third wall that is at least a tefach long. Rabbi Shimon, however, maintains that a Sukkah requires three walls and a fourth wall that must be at least a tefach. The Gemara records various ways to explain this debate.


Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - Plundering Romans

Posted by David
I saw the tziz in Rome, etc. – Here we have an example of a Jewish artifact plundered by the Romans. Another example can be found in Avoda Zara 11b, where the Gemara mentions that the flayed face of Rabbi Yishmael, one of the ten martyrs, was preserved in Roman treasure houses. It is also commonly assumed, based on the depiction of the arch of Titus, that the menorah was also taken. This, however, is a matter of great dispute among the authorities.

Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - Eliyahu's Locker Room

The Gemara states that the presence of Hashem [as manifested in the higher worlds] never descended to within ten tefachim of the physical world. Similarly, Moshe and Eliyahu could not ascend to within ten tefachim of the upper worlds.
Discussing our Gemara, the Chasam Sofer explains that this was only as long as Eliyahu was encumbered by his physical body. However, once his soul was freed from its body, he assumed the status of an angel, and was not bound by any of these limitations. The Chasam Sofer proceeds to say that when Mashiach comes, Eliyahu will once again don his body and live as a human amongst the other great people of that great generation. He will be allowed to rule on any halachic issues (a privilege reserved for mankind) since at that time he will have reassumed the existence of a human being. Meanwhile, however, he has the status of an angel, and therefore he is not bound by any of the limitations imposed upon men. This applies for halacha as well; Eliyahu may traverse the globe on Shabbos to go to a bris milah, even though this involves traveling beyond the permitted distance, since as an angel he is not bound by halacha.
The Gemara relates an incident about an Amora who encountered Eliyahu in a graveyard. The Amora asked him how he was permitted to be there despite his being a kohein. The Chasam Sofer explains that Eliyahu must have been in his body at the time, because otherwise he would have the status of an angel, and the Amora would have known that as such these halachos do not apply to him.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - Proof from the Trop

Posted by David Farkas
The Gemara wishes to prove that the arms of their angels were above their heads, and cites the word “lemaleh” as proof for this assertion. However, that word might only mean that their arms were outstretched above the actual Aron. How does this teach us their arms were outstretched above their heads?

My good friend, Reb Naftali Gettinger, a genius in the purest sense of the word, points to the trop on the possuk. There is a ta’am mafsik (a disjunctive note) on top of the words “porsei kenafayim” – a kadma viazla. Then there is another ta’am mafsik on top of the word lemalah – a revia. The phrases are broken up, to indicate that the word lemalah is a separate idea, i.e., that their arms were outstretched noy just in relation to the aron, but in relation to themselves. If the verse simply meant they were stretching their arms out in relation to the aron, irt would have phrased is as one big idea, and would have used taamei meshores (conjunctive notes) like a mapach or a mercha to connect them.

Reb Naftali recently published an entire book, demonstrating how the sources for many statements of chazal can be found in the trop. It is an extraordinary work. The introduction alone is of overwhelming genius. If you want to be able to properly make the beracha of “ . . . Who grants wisdom to those who fear him”, read this book and pay him a visit.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - Moshe and the Malach

Posted by David Farkas
The shechina never descended below 10 amos, etc. – Mharatz Chajes offers a characteristically interesting explanation, that the shechinah never interfered with man’s free will, and never made man into an angel. But if so, how did Moshe remain in the heavens for forty days when he received the Torah? In the Gemara (Shavous) we say that a man who swears not to eat for a week is forced to eat immediately because such a vow is impossible – how, then, did Moshe not eat for 40 days?

...Read more

I would suggest a novel approach to this conundrum, which I paste hear from my notes to Chumash: The Talmud (Bava Metzia 86a), deduces from two separate incidents that a man should always follow the custom of the place he finds himself in. “Moshe went up on high [where the angels live] and did not eat; angels came down to Earth to visit Abraham, and they ate. Now, [continues the Gemara] can it be they actually ate? Rather, it appeared as if they were eating.”

Now, if these two incidents are juxtaposed by the Gemara, and it is written there that the angels only appeared to be eating, does it not stand to reason that Moshe also only appeared to be fasting? In other words, perhaps the meaning is that Moshe did not eat or drink regularly, but rather sustained himself with a morsel here, and a drop of water there. A similar idea is mentioned concerning Jacob, that upon leaving the study house of Shem and Ever, he slept for the first time in fourteen years. There, all the commentators explain, the idea is that he then slept a full night sleep for the first time, not that he had not slept at all until then. If we can say the same thing here, it would resolve all the difficulties involved with the concept of a human being transforming – even temporarily -into an angel. The verse itself is no difficulty, because it can be interpreted to mean that Moshe appeared not to be eating, the same way that the word “and they ate” (Genesis 18,8) is so interpreted, i.e., they appeared to be eating..

The problem with this is, of course, that Moshe himself says that he fasted. It is one thing to interpret a narrative figuratively. It is quite another to say the same of a personal narrative. Besides, this is not the only time in Tanach we find mention of a man fasting for 40 days. In Kings I, 19:8 ח וַיָּקָם, וַיֹּאכַל וַיִּשְׁתֶּה; וַיֵּלֶךְ בְּכֹחַ הָאֲכִילָה הַהִיא, אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לַיְלָה, עַד הַר הָאֱלֹהִים, חֹרֵב, Elijah traveled on the strength of one meal for the exact same time of forty days – interestingly, the verse there continues, “until he reached the mountain of God, Horeb [Sinai]”!

Thus, this is how we might resolve the problem of Moshe. Returning to Succah however, we might offer an alternative explanation. We know that mankind yearns for leaders who are better than them. They do not want their leaders to be on the same plane as them, although they do not want them impossibly far from them either. Thus, it could be that Hashem lowers himself, as it were, to our level, but never descends beyond a demarcation line of 10 amos. There is a line that must not be crossed between God and us. This should be seen in contra-distinction to the Christians, who actually made a god out of a man.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - Keruvim’s Wings… Straight Ahead or at an Angle?

The Gemara uses the Keruvim as a source that s’chach must cover an airspace ten tefachim high. The Keruvim standing on the kapores (the lid of the ark) stood ten tefachim high. The pasuk says that their wings were “sochechim” (providing “s’chach”) over the kapores. This shows that the word s’chach denotes a covering over an airspace of ten tefachim height.

Harav Dovid Meyers, in his sefer מלאכת המשכן וכליו points out that according to this it would seem that the popular style of drawing the wings of the Keruvim extending from their heads at an upward angle is inaccurate. If the wings extended upward diagonally, than the area underneath the wings did not have a uniform height; the area under the tips of the wings was indeed ten tefachim, but the area closer to the head was lower! If so, why does the Gemara arbitrarily pick the height of ten tefachim? Therefore, it seems more likely that the wings extended horizontally straight ahead from their heads to where their tips met, and indeed the whole area under the wings was ten tefachim high. Harav Meyers presented this argument to Harav Chaim Kanievsky, and the latter expressed his agreement.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - No Dates Today

The Gemara states that the source for any of the quantities pertaining to the mitzvos is halacha le’Moshe mi’Sinai (a tradition received by Moshe at Sinai). Rashi cites two examples; in general, forbidden foods may not be consumed at a quantity equivalent to the size of an olive, and on Yom Kippur, any food equaling the size of a date or more may not be eaten.
...Read more

There is an interesting discussion regarding the definition of the prohibition to eat on Yom Kippur. Is the prohibition defined as eating per se, with the quantity being established as the equivalent of a date’s size since that eases the hunger, or is the prohibition to ease your hunger which is generally done by eating a date sized piece of food. This may sound like a play on words, but this question actually has some serious halachic implications. Consider the following- what happens if a person ate a little less than the equivalent of a date right before Yom Kippur and is still somewhat hungry. As Yom Kippur begins, he eats a little bit more, and it combines with what he ate before Yom Kippur to ease his hunger. This person has eased his hunger on Yom Kippur, but without eating the full forbidden quantity! The K’sav Sofer says that in such a case the person has indeed transgressed Yom Kippur. Obviously, he holds that the issue is eaing the hunger, and not the eating per se. Along similar lines, R’ Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky, in his sefer Achiezer, discusses intravenous feeding on Yom Kippur. If the prohibition is eating per se, it would be permitted. If, however, the prohibition is easing hunger, intravenous feeding may be prohibited as well.

According to the Ksav Sofer, the size of a date is not an amount which the Torah prohibits, satiation is prohibited. Rashi, who states that the size of a date on Yom Kippur is an amount which is learned from a halacha le’Moshe mi’Sinai seems to be saying not like the Ksav Sofer and rather that eating is prohibited and the amount is food in the size of a date.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - Highlights

1. There are various sources cited for the Halacha that a Sukkah which is not ten tefachim high is invalid. One of the sources is learned from the Aron, the Holy Ark. The Aron was nine tefachim high and the kapores, the Ark-cover, was one tefach thick. Hashem spoke to Moshe from on top of the kapores and we have learned that the Divine Presence never descended below into the human domain. It is thus evident that ten tefachim from the ground is considered a separate domain. It follows, then, that the Sukkah must be at least ten tefachim high.

...More Highlights

2. The Gemara states that the source that the kapores was a tefach thick is derived from the least, (not a vessel itself but an auxiliary feature) of the utensils in the Bais HaMikdash. It said regarding the Shulchan, the table, that its border was one tefach all around. Just like the border of the Shulchan was a tefach high, so too the kapores measured a tefach high. An alternative source is that it is said regarding the kapores, upon the eastern face of the Cover, and there is no human face less than a tefach tall.
3. There is a debate regarding the border of the Shulchan if the border was on top of the Shulchan or if the border was underneath the Shulchan.
4. The Gemara cites another source as proof that a Sukkah must be at least ten tefachim high. The Keruvim that were on top of the kapores were ten tefachim high and regarding the wings of the Keruvim it is said the Cherubim shall be with wings spread above, sheltering the Cover with their wings. The word for spread is sochechim, which has the same root word as s’chach. Thus we have proof that a valid Sukkah must have an interior space ten tefachim high, exclusive of the s’chach.
5. There is an opinion that maintains that the ruling that a Sukkah must be ten tefachim high is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai, an oral law given to Moshe at Sinai that has no Scriptural basis.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - Kapores ...Thick a Tefach or High?

Harav Dovid Meyers, in his sefer "מלאכת המשכן וכליו" wonders if the kapores was actually a solid tefach thick, or was it simply a hollow box. He points out the Gemara in Yoma (55a) which uses the term "עוביה של כפורת"- “The thickness of the kapores”, which seems to indicate that the kapores was not just a tefach high, but a tefach thick. However, there is a different version of that Gemara- that of Rabbeinu Chananel, which actually reads
"טפחא של כפורת"- “The tefach of the kapores”, instead of the thickness of the kapores. For further discussion on this, see page 74 of the aforementioned sefer.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Sitting or Standing?

If the sukkah is higher than ten tefachim and some of the leaves from the schach hang down within ten tefachim and those leaves by itself would not have more shade than sun, there is an argument if the sukkah is kosher or not. Rava maintains that it is not valid for this is considered a dirah seruchah.

The Reshash asks how can a sukkah which is precisely ten tefachim high be valid, the height of a regular person is eighteen tefachim? A person will not be able to stand straight in this sukkah and it will be extremely uncomfortable?

Sheorim Mitzuyanim Bhalacha answers that this is not a question for the obligation is to sit in a sukkah, not to stand. He sites a proof to this from the Rambam who rules that one should recite the brocha standing and then sit in order for the brocha to be recited before the performance of the mitzva. Even according to the Rishonim who disagree and hold that one can fulfill the mitzva by standing as well, they admit that the primary obligation is to sit as the Torah explicitly states basukkos teishvu.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Bent Walls

If a sukkah is higher than twenty amos and a platform is built next to three walls of the sukkah, this will reduce the size of the sukkah and it will be valid. If the platform is built less than four amos away from the walls, it will still be kosher due to the principle of dofan akumah.
...More on Dofan Akumah

There are two explanations in the Rishonim as to the mechanics of dofan akumah. Rashi understands that the schach which is higher than twenty amos and not on top of the platform is deemed to be an extension of the wall. According to this, one cannot sit under this portion of the sukkah and fulfill his mitzva, for he is sitting under a wall, not under schach.

Other Rishonim explain that since the wall is less than four amos away from the kosher schach and it is normal for a wall to be slanted less than four amos, dofan akumah teaches us that we consider it as if the wall would be touching the platform. According to this, one can sit under the schach that is higher than twenty amos, for since there is a kosher sukkah, there is another principle that any schach protruding out from a valid sukkah is deemed part of the sukkah.

A difference between the two explanations would be if the walls of the sukkah do not touch the schach. We would not be able to apply the principle of dofan akumah according to Rashi's explanation, for since there is a break in the wall, we cannot say that the schach is an extension of the wall. However, we can apply dofan akumah according to the other explanation, for we are connecting the wall to the platform and it doesn't bother us that the wall does not reach the schach.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Less than Ten

Sfas Emes quotes from the sefer Beis Yisroel that asks on the fact that the Gemora cites sources from the Torah that a sukkah is invalid if it's less than ten tefachim. Shouldn't it be passul because one cannot dwell comfortably in such a sukkah? The Sfas Emes answers that the possuk is needed for a case where the schach is higher than ten, but the walls are not. If not for the passuk, this would be valid for the schach is higher than ten.

The Brisker Rav states (similar to the Sfas Emes) that there are two aspects of this halacha. There is a requirement that the walls must be at least ten tefachim and that the sukkah must be one where a person can dwell comfortably. A difference would be in a case where one would rest his sukkah on bedposts. The sukkah has walls that are ten tefachim, however it would be passul for the bed inside the sukkah creates that one cannot live comfortably there.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Highlights

1. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and one attempts to reduce its height by placing pillows on the ground, it is not a valid reduction, and the Sukkah is still viewed to be higher than twenty amos. The reason for this ruling is because one will not leave the pillows on the floor of the Sukkah for all seven days of the festival, as they will become ruined. If, however, he spreads straw on the floor of the Sukkah and verbally abandoned it there for seven days, or if he spread dirt on the Sukkah and verbally abandoned it there, this is considered a valid reduction in the height of the Sukkah. (3b3-4a1)


...Highlights of the Daf

2. If one spread straw on the floor of the Sukkah and he does not intend to remove it in the future, or if he spread dirt on the Sukkah floor without any specific intention, there is a Tanaaic debate. When the straw and dirt are verbally abandoned, the Tanna of the Mishnah and Rabbi Yose agree that they are nullified vis-à-vis their location. When there is no verbal indication, yet, the owner has no need for them, and regarding dirt where we are not aware of the owner’s needs, according to Rabbi Yose the straw and dirt are nullified, whereas the Tanna of the Mishnah maintains that they are not nullified. Regarding straw where there is no verbal indication and we are unaware of the owner’s needs and regarding dirt or straw where we know that the owner has an immediate need for them, everyone agrees that the straw and the dirt are not nullified. (4a1)
3. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and some of the leaves from the schach hang down into the airspace of the Sukkah within twenty amos of the floor, if the shade from the leaves’ tips is greater than their sunlight, the Sukkah is valid, but if their shade is not greater than their sunlight, the Sukkah remains invalid. (4a2)
4. If the sukkah is exactly ten tefachim and some of the leaves from the s’chach were dangling within the ten-tefachim airspace and their sunlight is greater than their shade, there is a dispute if the Sukkah is valid or not. (4a2)
5. If a sukkah is higher than twenty amos and a platform is built in the Sukkah that abuts all three walls of the sukkah, since the airspace between the platform and the s’chach does not exceed twenty amos, the Sukkah will be valid. If the platform is built on the side of the Sukkah, if from the edge of the platform until the opposite wall is a distance of less than four amos, the Sukkah is valid. The reason for this ruling is because we apply the principle of dofen akumah, i.e. we say that an invalid covering can be viewed as part of a bent wall. The novelty of this ruling is that even though the third wall cannot be used as a wall of the Sukkah because it is higher than twenty amos and does not abut the platform, we still apply the principle of dofen akumah and even the third wall qualifies as a valid Sukkah wall. The principle of dofen akumah applies even when the platform does not abut any walls but the distance from the edge of the platform until the wall is less than four amos. (4a2-4a3)
6. If a Sukkah is less than ten tefachim high and one dug a pit in the middle of the floor so that the Sukkah is completed to a depth of ten tefachim, the Sukkah will be valid if there is less than three tefachim between the edge of the pit and the Sukkah wall. (4a4-4b1)
7. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and one builds in the middle of the Sukkah a pillar that is ten tefachim tall and wider than seven squared tefachim, Abaye maintains that the Sukkah is valid because we apply the principle of gud asik, i.e. we extend and raise the partition on each of the pillar’s sides to the s’chach above, creating a valid Sukkah on the top of the pillar. Rava disagrees because he maintains that we need the walls of the Sukkah to be recognizable, and here there are no recognizable walls. (4b1)
8. If one built a Sukkah by driving four poles into the roof of a house and he placed s’chach across the poles, there is a debate if the Sukkah is valid or not. (4b1-4b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Mitzva of Maakeh

The Gemora states that if one has a house that is less than four amos squared, he is exempt from building a fence around the roof, for this is not considered a house. The commentators ask that it is still a stumbling block and if one doesn't build a fence there, it will endanger people's lifes? The Gemora in Bava Kamma 15b learns from the passuk of lo sasim damim beveisecha that one should not raise a wild dog in his house or a rickety ladder. Shouldn't he be required to build a fence here because of the possibility of someone falling?

...Read more

The Chazon Ish Yo"D 214 answers that in truth a roof is not a dangerous area and it is not considered a stumbling block. People who ascend a roof understand beforehand that they must be careful and this is a worldly custom. The Torah, nevertheless mandated that one who builds a house is required to build a fence on the roof and this halacha has its guidelines. A house that is less than four amos squared is not regarded as a house for nthis halacha.

The Emek Brocha adds that this explains why one is not allowed to build a professional maakeh on chol hamoed even though he would be permitted to build and fix other things for the fear of bandits. The lack of a maakeh is not an inherent danger and therefore is not considered a dovor heovud and will not be allowed to build on chol hamoed.

Reb Akiva Eiger asks on the obligation to recite a brocha when building a maakeh. Tosfos in Chulin 105a rules that one does not recite a brocha on mayim acaharonim for it was instituted for the benefit of man that he shouldn't harm himself due to the melach sdomis. It would stand t reason that maakeh should not have a brocha either, for it is only to prevent damage? Rabbi dovod Goldberg answers according to the chazon ish, a maakeh is not to prevent damage. In truth, it would not be necessary, the torah taught us that it is required even if it is merely a distant possibility for a damage occuring, hence there is still a brocha.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Highlights

1. The Gemara concludes that the Sukkah that Queen Helena sat in was comprised of different compartments. The Queen sat in a small room for reasons of modesty and since women are exempt from the mitzvah of dwelling in a Sukkah, the Queen was not concerned that the Sukkah was higher than twenty amos, thus rendering the Sukkah invalid. The debate between the Chachamim and Rabbi Yehudah was regarding where her children were dwelling. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the children were together with the Queen and therefore it is a proof that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid. The Chachamim, however, maintained that the Queen’s children were dwelling inside a room in the Sukkah where the s’chach was lower than twenty amos and therefore there is no proof that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid. (3a1)


...Read more

2. The Gemara concludes that Bais Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree in two instances regarding the minimum dimensions that are required for the Sukkah to be valid. Bais Shammai maintains that the Sukkah must be large enough to accommodate ones head, most of his body and his table. Bais Hillel maintains that it is sufficient even if the Sukkah cannot accommodate the table. Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai also disagree regarding a large Sukkah that is adjacent to a house and the table is inside the house. Bais Shammai maintains that one does not fulfill his mitzvah in this manner as we are concerned that he will be drawn after his table which is in the house and Bais Hillel disagrees. (3a2-3a3)
3. Rebbe maintains that a Sukkah must be at least four squared amos in order to be valid. A Baraisa lists many rulings that would not apply to a house that is less than four squared amos. Such a house will be exempt from the obligation of placing a mezuzah on its doorpost. Furthermore, one will not have to build a fence on the roof to prevent others from falling. The rationale for these rulings is that regarding these cases the Torah states the word bayis, a house, and a house that is this small is not deemed to be a house. (3a3-3b1)
4. A house that is less than four squared amos is not required to contribute to an eruv along with all the other houses in the courtyard. Furthermore, the eruv for the courtyard cannot be placed in this house. The reason for this ruling is because a house that is less that four amos squared is not fit for dwelling. (3b1)
5. Although the eruv for the courtyard cannot be placed in a house that is less than four squared amos, the shituf (a device that allows carrying between a courtyard and a mavoi, which is accomplished by the courtyards preparing through the mutual contribution of food) for a mavoi can be placed in this house. The reason for the distinction between an eruv and a shituf is because the purpose of an eruv is to allow all the residents of a courtyard to be legally viewed as dwelling in one house and the house where the eruv is deposited must be fit for dwelling, i.e. one that measures at least fore amos squared. A shituf for a mavoi, however, functions as a merger of all the courtyards of the mavoi for their use but not for dwelling. As long as the shituf is placed in a protected area of the courtyard, the shituf is valid, so a structure that is less than four amos squared also qualifies for the placement of the shituf. (3b1-3b2)
6. Two brothers inherited a courtyard that contained one large house and three small ones, and the brothers divided the houses, with one brother taking the large house and the other taking the three small ones. Rav Huna maintains that the brother who received the three houses is entitled to three-quarters of the courtyard while the owner of the large house receives the remaining quarter. His reasoning is that the courtyard functions primarily as a passageway between one’s house and the street and as a place where packages can be delivered and unloaded, so any claim to courtyard area is directly related to the amount of houses one owns in the courtyard. Rav Chisda, however, maintains that each brother receives four amos for each and every entrance and the partners divide the remaining section of the courtyard equally. A house that is less than four amos squared is not awarded part of the courtyard because only a house that will endure is awarded part of the courtyard, whereas this house that is not four amos squared is destined to be destroyed. This renders the house unusable and we do not award it part of the courtyard for its needs. (3b2-3b3)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Tableless Sukkah

The Gemora concludes that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue in two cases. They argue as to what is the minimum size a sukkah can be to still be valid. Beis Shamai holds that the sukkah must be large enough to contain the person's head, a majority of his body and the table. Beis hillel maintains that it is sufficient even if it cannot contain the table. They also argue on a large sukkah that is next to a house and the table is in the house. Beis Shamai states that one does not fulfill his mitzva in this manner for there is a concern that he will be drawn after his table, which is in the house and Beis Hillel disagrees.

Tosfos concludes that the halacha is in accordance with Beis shamai regarding a small sukkah - it must be able to contain the table as well, however in a large sukkah the halacha is in accordance with Beis Hillel that the table is not required to be in the sukkah. The Rif and the Rambam disagree and maintain that the halacha in both cases is in accordance with Beis Shamai and the table must be in the sukkah.

The Pri Megadim 634:2 writes that if one ate in a sukkah where the table was in the house, he does not fulfill his mitzva at all, even min haTorah, for once the sages decreed that the table must be in the sukkah, this will prevent him from fulfilling his mitzva - period. He concludes that the person will have to recite another birchas shehechiyonu after he brings the table into the sukkah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Sukkah Corners

The Magen Avrohom 634 rules that if one has a corner in a large sukkah that does not have seven square tefachim, one cannot sit in that portion of the sukkah for the space is too cramped to sit comfortably. He sites our Gemora as proof to this, for the compartment where Hilni was sitting was not deemed as part of the large sukkah.

Biur Halacha quotes the Bikurei Yaakov as asking on the proof. Perhaps the compartments of our Gemora is regarded as a separate entity for there is a wall separating between it and the sukkah, however a corner protruding from the sukkah with no separations could be considered part of the sukkah?

Raabi Dovid Goldberg wonders what the proof is that there is a dividing wall in the compartments mentioned in our Gemora?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - 49 Total or 7 by 7?

Tosfos, according to our version, rules that a sukkah that its length is longer than seven handbreaths, yet its width is less than seven would still be valid. It would seem that a sukkah that has over fortynine square tefachim would be valid. There is a version in Tosfos, brought down on the side of our Gemoros that disagrees with this and holds that a sukkah must have seven tefachim by the length and the width.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Highlights

1. There is a debate in the Mishnah regarding a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos (cubits) high. The Chachamim maintain that it is invalid and Rabbi Yehudah maintains that it is valid. A Sukkah that is smaller than ten tefachim (handbreadths) or that does not have at least three walls or if there is more sun than shade, it is invalid.

...Read more

2. The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Eruvin that records a debate regarding a mavoi (alleyway) whose korah, crossbeam, is higher than twenty amos. The Chachamim maintain that it is not valid and one must lower the korah to a height of less than twenty amos and Rabbi Yehudah maintains that one is not required to lower the korah. The Gemara offers two reasons why our Mishnah states that the Sukkah is invalid whereas the Mishnah in Eruvin states a remedy for the korah that is higher than twenty amos.
3. The Gemara offers various reasons as to why a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid. One reason offered is that when one sits in a Sukkah whose s’chach, covering, is higher than twenty amos, he is not aware that he is dwelling in a Sukkah, as he does not notice the s’chach. A second reason why a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid is because when the s’chach is higher than twenty amos, one is not sitting in the shade of a Sukkah but in the shade of the walls. A third reason why a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid is because it is meant to be a temporary dwelling and a Sukkah whose s’chach is higher than twenty amos is a fixed dwelling and is thus invalid.
4. Rabbi Yoshiyah said in the name of Rav that if the walls of the Sukkah reach the s’chach, even the Chachamim agree that the Sukkah is valid. The reason it is valid is because we apply the reasoning that ones eyes will travel up the wall and will notice the s’chach.
5. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that if the Sukkah is wider than four square amos, even the Chachamim would agree that the Sukkah is valid. The reason it is valid is because we apply the reasoning that the Sukkah is spacious so the shade is coming from the s’chach.
6. Rav Chanan said in the name of Rav that if the Sukkah is large enough that it will accommodate more than a person’s head, most of his body and his table, even the Chachamim agree that the Sukkah will be valid.
7. Rabbi Yehudah offers a proof to his opinion that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid from an incident concerning Queen Helena. The Queen was sitting in a Sukkah that was higher than twenty amos and the elders came to visit her and they did not inform her that her Sukkah was invalid. The Chachamim countered that this incident is not a proof because Helena was a woman and a woman is exempt from the mitzvah of Sukkah. Rabbi Yehudah responded that Helena had seven sons and certainly one of them had reached the age where he would be required to dwell in a Sukkah, and furthermore, Queen Helena was scrupulous in that she performed all her deeds according to the words of the Chachamim. From this it is evident that her Sukkah was valid.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 passul is passul

The Gemara asks why here it states פסולה and in Eruvin it states ימעט. Why didn’t the Gemara answer that by Sukkah it cannot say anything else, because once the schach is higher than twenty amos, it is passul, because of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. In order to make it kosher, one would have to shake the schach or in this case actually lower it.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Chinuch with all the Pitchevkes

There is an argument regarding a sukkah that is more than twenty amos high. The sages hold that it is invalid and Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is kosher. The Gemora proceeds to bring a proof by relating a story where the sages went to visit Hilni the Queen. Her sukkah was more than twenty cubits high. The Gemora could not bring a proof from her for a woman is exempt from the obligation of sitting in a sukkah. However, there is a proof nonetheless, for Hilni had seven sons and certainly one of them was of the age of chinuch and hence Hilni had an obligation to ensure that her son was sitting in a kosher sukkah. The Gemora states that Hilni was extremely conscientious to heed all the words of the sages and hence it must be a proof that a sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid.

The Ritva proves from this, that regarding the obligation of training one's child in mitzvos, he must perfprm the mitzva now in a kosher manner, for this will properly train him. However, if a father would allow the child to perform a mitzva as a child in a manner that would not be fulfilling the mitzva, that is not chinuch. The proof is, for our Gemora proves from Hilni that a sukkah higher than twenty is valid for she was concerned about her son's mitzva. If chinuch can be accomplished without all the technicalities of the mitzva, perhaps she was training him in the mitzva of sukkah even though it was not a valid sukkah.

The Raavan disagrees and maintains that there is an obligation for a father to train his child in a mitzva even if it will not be completely valid. He proves this from the fact that we would allow the child to take the lulav on the first day after the adults have finished using it. The first day of Sukkos, the lulav must be yours as is learned from the passuk 'lachem.' We are loaning it to the child and not giving it to him.

There are those who distinguish between where the specific of the mitzva is an integral portion and a defining part of the mitzva or is it just a technicality. One can argue that a sukkah higher than twenty cubits is not a sukkah with a psul but rather it is not a sukkah at all. One cannot train his son in the mitzva of sukkah in that manner. However, a lulav that is not yours is a kosher lulav - it is lacking a specific in the mitzva. Obviously an adult will not fulfill his mitzva with a borrowed lulav, but one can fulfill his mitzva of chinuch by giving his son a lulav which will not be his.

A proof to this distinction can be brought from the Mishna Berura. In one siman he brings the argument if one can fulfill his mitzva of chinuch by giving his child a lulav which has a psul in it that will invalidate the lulav. However in the siman prior to this, he states that one can give a borrowed lulav to his son and he doesn't bring a dissenting opinion.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Chanukah Derived from the Torah

The Gemora brings a Mishna in Eruvin which contains an argument regarding a mavuy which is higher than twenty cubits. The sages hold that it not valid and one should lower it and Rabbi Yehuda maintains that lowering it is not necessary. The Gemora explains why our Mishna states that the sukkah is unfit and the Mishna in Eruvin states how to fix the mavuy. One of the distinctions offered is that sukkah is a halacho from the Torah and therefore it says psula, however mavuy which is only from the sages, we do not utilize the word 'pasul,' rather the Mishna states what the options are.

Tosfos asks from a Gemora in Shabbos that states if one placed the menorah for Chanukah higher than twenty cubits from the street, it is passul. Lighting the menorah on Chanukah is only from the sages, so how can we state pesula? The Chasam Sofer offers a novel approach to answer this question. The Gemora in Megillah 14 states that if Klal Yisroel sang praise when leaving Egypt, from slavery to freedom, certainly there would be an obligation to sing praise to Hashem for saving us from death, which is what transpired by Chanukah. A kal vochomer is one of the thirteen principles that the Torah can be expounded by and these are regarded as being from the Torah. The Chasam Sofer concludes that lighting the menorah on Chanukah can be considered a Torah derived law and hence the Gemora can use the word pesula.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - A Little Bit Shady

A Sukkah is designed to provide shade. The Mishnah states that if the sunny area of a Sukkah is greater than its shaded area, the Sukkah is invalid. Rashi explains that the minority of shaded area on the Sukkah floor is negated by the majority of sunny area. The commentators wonder why it was necessary for Rashi to offer this reason. Is it not obvious that a Sukkah that does not have the necessary amount of shade is invalid? Why does Rashi have to mention that the minority of shaded area is negated? The Eimek Bracha cites Tosfos here to answer this question. The Gemara states that there are those that maintain that if a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos, but is wider that four square amos, the Sukkah will be valid. Tosfos explains that the Chachamim have established that even if a Sukkah is more than a thousand amos high, if it is wider than four squared amos, there still will be some shade coming from the s’chach into the Sukkah. It is evident from the words of Tosfos that for a Sukkah to be valid, it is required that the Sukkah should provide at least minimal shade. A Sukkah that has a minority of shaded area would be valid if not for the fact that it is negated by the majority of sunny area. Regarding a Sukkah that has a minority of valid shade and there is a majority of shade which is invalid, i.e. when the shaded area is due to the height of the walls, then the Sukkah is valid. The reason for this is because there is a principle that shade cannot negate shade.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Spelling of Sukkah

The Cheishek Shlomo notes that the word Sukkah is always spelled in the Talmud with the letter vav, yet in Scripture the word Sukkah is always spelled without a vav. The word Sukkos in the plural form, however, is spelled with a vav. Rabbi Chaim Vital in Pri Eitz Chaim and other kabalistic works write that the numerical value of the word Sukkah is ninety-one, which is the same numerical value as the two Names of HaShem, adon-oy and the Shem Havayah. This is true when the word Sukkah is spelled with the letter vav. The Cheishek Shlomo cites a verse in Tehillim 76:3 where the word Sukkah is spelled with a vav. It is said vayehi vesahleim sukko, which can be translated to mean then His Sukkah was complete, i.e. when the word Sukkah equals in numerical value ninety-one, then umnaso b’tziyon, the Name of HaShem and His throne will be complete in Zion. The Cheishek Shlomo suggests that this is the meaning of the words that we recite in the Friday evening prayers, haporeis sukkas shalom, Who spreads the shelter of peace. This shelter of peace alludes to the Gemara in Bava Basra 75 that states that in the future, HaShem will fashion a Sukkah for the righteous.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Shade at Twenty Amos

The Chachamim maintain that a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid. One of the reasons offered by the Gemara is that one is obligated to sit in the shade of the Sukkah, which refers to the s’chach. When the Sukkah is higher than twenty amos, there will be no shade from the s’chach. Rather, the shade will be from the walls. Ritva wonders about this, because in the middle of the day, when the sun is directly above, the shade will be from the s’chach and not from the walls? Ritva offers two answers. One answer is that the sun is only directly above in the summer months when the sun travels in middle of the sky. In the month of Tishrei, however, when the sun is always to the side, there will be no shade from the s’chach even in the middle of the day. The second answer of the Ritva is that since in the middle of the day the walls do not provide shade, there will also not be any shade from the s’chach. The Aruch LaNer expresses his bewilderment to this answer, as the reality is that there is shade in the middle of the day. The Aruch LaNer offers a means of explaining the answer of the Ritva.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 88 - Being Seen in the Azarah on Yom Kippur

The Rosh brings from Rabbeinu Sadya Gaon that after immersing on Erev Yom Kippur, one should recite a blessing. The Rosh disagrees and maintains that there is no blessing because there is no obligation. The Rosh explains that it is at most a custom and on customs we do not recite blessings. He brings a proof from the mitzva of taking the arovos on Sukkos which the Gemora explicitly states that no blessing is recited for it is only a custom from the prophets. He continues that perhaps one might say that there should be a blessing based on the words of Rabbi Yitzchak (R"H 16) that a person is obligated to purify himself before a Yom tov. He responds that this means purified from tumas meis which entails the sprinkling from the ashes of the parah adumah and this we do not have anymore.

It is evident from the Rosh that the mitzva of purifying oneself before the regel applies to Yom Kippur as well. It would appear that the Rambam disagrees with this. The Rambam in Tumas Ochlin (16:10) states that the reason one is obligated to purify himself before the Yom Tov is to be prepared to eat kodoshim and to enter the Beis Hamikdosh. This would not apply by Yom Kippur, for one doesn't eat kodoshim and there is no obligation to enter the Beis Hamikdosh, like there is by the other Yomim Tovim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 88 - Blessing Before Immersing on Erev Yom Kippur

The Tur (606) rules that when one immerses in the mikvah on Erev Yom Kippur he should recite a bracha first. The mefarshim ask that 'tevilas ezra', the requirement of immersing in the mikvah after one saw keri has been nullified so why would there be a blessing first? Rav tzvi Pesach Frank posits that since the immersing on Erev Yom Kippur was always cusomary and there never was an interuption in this, it is considered like the original established decree is still intact and therefore there is a blessing beforehand.

The Rosh brings from Rabbeinu Sadya Gaon that after immersing one should recite a blessing. The Rosh disagrees and maintains that there is no blessing because there is no obligation. Rav Shach writes that even though there is no obligation, but when a person immerses himself he is fulfilling a mitzva and now would be able to enter machane leviya if there would be a Beis Hamikdosh. This would be analagous to reciting a blessing on shechita. One is not obligated to slaughter an animal, but if he does he is fulfilling the din of the Torah which is permitting an animal for consumption through shechita. He concludes that according to Rabbeinu Sadya, this blessing can be recited any day of the year that one immerses himself due to keri.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 88 - Mikvah on Yom Kippur

The Gemora lists the different people who can immerse in a mikvah on Yom Kippur. One of them is a baal keri. It is ruled in shulchan Aruch that nowadays that the tevila of Ezra which was established for one that saw keri has been nullified, one should not immerse himself in the mikvah on Yom Kippur. There are many sources however that permit this and they maintain that if a person is accustomed to immerse in a mikvah for keri and it will disrupt his tefillah if we do not allow him, then he is permitted. They add that it has been ruled previously if one is walking for a dvar mitzva and there is a body of water impeding his path, he may continue walking through because it is not for the sake of enjoyment. Immersing in a mikvah is also not for pleasure and therefore will be permitted. It is brought down that it should be done privately and a person should fully repent beforehand.

Read more!