Daf Yomi - Sukkah 17 - Highlights

The Mishna rules that if the s'chach is distanced from the walls three tefachim or more, the sukkah is disqualified. If there is ineligible s'chach , the sukkah is valid, providing that it not more than four amos away from the walls.

If there is an area of open space on top of the sukkah more than three tefachim, the sukkah is disqualified. There is a debate regarding the amount of ineligible s'chach that would invalidate a sukkah when it is situated in the middle of the sukkah. The students of Rav maintain that the sukkah is disqualified if it has more than four tefachim of ineligible s'chach. They hold that the amount is only four amos when the invalid s'chach is on the side of the sukkah because then we can apply the principle of dofan akumah, bending the wall, however when the s'chach is situated in the middle of the sukkah, it will be disqualified if it is more than four tefachim. Rava maintains that the amount is always four amos.

If there is less than three tefachim of open space and adjacent to that is less that four amos of ineligible s'chach, the sukkah is valid according to Rava because the open space and the invalid s'chach cannot combine with each other . The reasoning for this is because anything that has two different measurements do not combine with one another.

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Keilim that lists different measurements for various materials as to when they will become susceptible to become tamei. The Mishna concludes that they can combine with each other to create the amount needed to become tamei. The Gemora explains that this is only because they would have the same measurement regarding becoming tamei through a zav sitting on them.

Rabbi Meir (who maintains that beams are ineligible for s'chach) admits in a case where you place valid s'chach in the space between each beam that the sukkah is valid, providing that the space is equal to that of the beam. The Gemora asks on the students of Rav who hold that the sukkah is disqualified with a beam of four tefachim, how can this sukkah be valid? The Gemora answers that the sukkah is precisely eight amos and by alternating between the beams and the valid s'chach, there will be eight tefachim in the center of the sukkah with valid s'chach.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 17 - Lavud

Rav Chisda rules that if one suspends a mat which is a bit larger than four tefachim, it can be utilyzed as one of the walls of a sukkah. This is based on the principle of lavud, which connects a wall to the ground or to the roof above it, providing that the wall is within three tefachim of the ground or roof. In this instance, this concept will required twice - once to connect the four tefach wall to the floor below and once to connect it with the s'chach above it thereby creating a wall of ten tefachim high.

The Ritva explains that it is evident from our Gemora that lavud accomplishes that the gap which is less than three tefachim is deemed to be closed and filled up, not only serving as a connection between the two portions. The proof is because if this four - plus tefach wall is just connected to the s'chach and to the ground, it would not constitute a ten tefach wall and would disqualify the sukkah.

The Shulchan Aruch 632, citing Tosofs on our daf, is in doubt as to what the ruling should be in the following case: One placed two tefachim of ineligible s'chach and another two tefachim of ineligible s'chach separated by less than three tefachim of airspace. Does the principle of lavud apply in this case to combine the two sections of invalid s'chach creating in total four tefachim of ineligible s'chach, thereby disqualifying this sukkah or perhaps we do not apply the concept of lavud to be stringent?

Tosofs writes that the above shaila is only when the two sections of ineligible s'chach add up to four tefachim, however if it would be less than four tefachim it would certainly be a valid sukkah. We do not say that the principle of lavud should close the gap between the two s'chach's thereby creating an area of more than four tefachim of ineligible s'chach because we don't apply the concept of lavud when it would cause a stringency in halacha.

What is the distinction between the two cases? Why in the former case is there a question if we apply lavud even to cause a stringency and in the latter case, there is no doubt at all?

The Magen Avrohom and the Pri Megadim explain that lavud can function in two ways. Lavud can accomplish that the gap between the two areas is viewed as being closed and filled up with the same material as is surrounding it. This method is not applied when it would cause a stringency. This is the reasoning to explain why the gap between the two areas of ineligible s'chach which in total are less than four tefachim is not deemed to be filled up with the ineligible s'chach. There is another manner in which lavud can function and that is to connect the two section together when there is less than three tefachim in between them. The rishonim question if this method can apply when it would cause a stringency. This is why there is a doubt as to what is the ruling when there are two tefachim of ineligible s'chach on both sides of the gap. Can we apply the principle of connecting the two sides to create four tefachim of ineligible s'chach, thus invalidating the sukkah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 17 - Asheira

The Minchas Chinuch wonders what would be the halacha if one covered portions of his sukkah with s'chach from an asheira tree. He states that it certainly ineligible to be used for s'chach for it is scheduled to be burned and that minimizes it's measurement to nothing. However, he is in doubt as to what is its status. Is it like invalid s'chach and therefore it would disqualify the sukkah with four tefachim or is it like open space and then it would invalidate the sukkah with merely three tefachim. He leans toward the logic that it is not deemed as open space, rather as dirt or ashes. However, he claims that we might not be able to apply the principle of dofan akumah here. According to the Rishonim who maintain that dofan akumah accomplishes that the invalid s'chach becomes part of the wall, we cannot apply dofan akumah by avoda zora because the asheira branches will be disqualified from being a wall as well.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 17 - Together for purity

The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Keilim as proof that materials with disparate minimum measurements can combine with each other. The Gemara states that the reason that they can combine with each other is because each material can contract tumah when a zav sits on the material. Perhaps this idea is analogous to the nations hatred for the Jewish People. The Medrash states that Midyan and Moav were always enemies, but they united to cause harm to the Jewish People. The converse should also be true. Even if Jews do not see eye to eye on all issues, we should at least unite for matters of purity and sanctity, and when HaShem sees that we can demonstrate signs of friendship, He will likewise nullify the plans of the gentiles and redeem us from the exile.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 16 - Highlights

Rav Ami rules that one cannot use worn out clothes for s'chach. Even though it is less than the minimum amount required to become tamei (less than 3 x 3), nevertheless it cannot be used for s'chach since it originated from something that would be able to become tamei.

The Mishna ruled that if one burrowed an opening inside a haystack, it is not a valid sukkah because the s'chach was not placed there for the intention to be used for shade . Rav Huna qualifies this ruling and maintains that if there would have been previously a space of a tefach high and seven tefachim squared and then he would place the haystack on top of this space and then he hallows out a space, the sukkah would be valid because this would be regarded as extending the existing walls.

If one suspends the walls of his sukkah in a way that they are more than three tefachim above the ground, the sukkah is invalid. Rabbi Yosi maintains that even ten tefachim higher will be valid. The Gemora states that the argument is based on the premise if a suspended wall is deemed a wall or not. Rabbi yosi applies the principle of gud achis and views the wall as extending downward towards the ground.

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Eruvin regarding a well of water that is situated between two courtyards and one cannot draw water from there because there is a concern that the water is coming from the other courtyard. there is a debate there as to how to rectify it. Some opinions maintain that a barrier must be set up in the well and others hold that it is sufficient if it's on top of the well. This argument is also based on the concept of a suspended wall being deemed a proper wall or not.

The Gemora states that the arguments are not parallel. A wall for a sukkah is required min haTorah and perhaps that is why a suspended wall is not sufficient, however in regards to the courtyards, where it is only a prohibition from the Sages, a suspended wall would be enough. One can say in reverse that Shabbos which has the stringency of stoning would be more strict than sukkah which is merely a positive commandment.

The Gemora cites an incident in Tzipori where they had forgotten to bring the Sefer Torah to the shul from before Shabbos and they carried it on Shabbos relying on suspended sheets which were spread on posts from before Shabbos.

Rav Chisda rules that if one suspends a mat which is a bit larger than four tefachim, it can be utilyzed as one of the walls of a sukkah. This is based on the principle of lavud, which connects a wall to the ground or to the roof above it, providing that the wall is within three tefachim of the ground or roof. In this instance, this concept will required twice - once to connect the four tefach wall to the floor below and once to connect it with the s'chach above it thereby creating a wall of ten tefachim high.

Read more!

Notice

Daf Notes is currently being dedicated to the neshamah of Asher Ben Moshe o”h. May the studying of the Daf Notes be a zechus for his neshamah and may his soul find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of Life.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 16 - Women Touching a Sefer Torah

The Gemara explains the dispute cited in the Mishna regarding a wall of a Sukkah that starts more than three tefachim above the ground. This dispute is parallel to the laws of Shabbos where there is a dispute if a suspended wall is deemed to be a wall and would thus create a private domain with regard to carrying on Shabbos. The Gemara cites an incident that occurred in Tzippori where the people forgot to bring the Sefer Torah to the shul prior to Shabbos and they carried it on Shabbos, relying on sheets that were spread on posts prior to Shabbos. The Aruch LaNer wonders why they did not have a gentile carry the Sefer Torah. The Aruch LaNer answers that they did not employ a gentile because it is degrading to have a Sefer Torah carried by a gentile. The question of the Aruch LaNer, however, is difficult to understand, as Rashi writes that the reason the Sefer Torah was in the house was because the people sought to protect the Sefer Torah from the gentiles. This would imply that the Jews did not wish to make it known to the gentiles that they were in possession of a Sefer Torah (See Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha who mentions this.)The Rambam in Hilchos Sefer Torah (10:8) rules that any person who is tamei, such as a niddah (a woman who has menstruated) or a gentile is permitted to touch a Sefer Torah as we have a principle that Torah cannot contract tumah. Sefer Otzar HaYedios cites a responsa from the Divrei Hillel who rules based on the words of the Rambam that if a gentile was in shul on Simchas Torah, he should be allowed to hold the Sefer Torah because it may otherwise cause the gentiles to hate the Jews. The Rema in Orach Chaim 88 quotes sources who maintain that a woman should not enter a shul while she is a niddah. Furthermore, a woman who is a niddah should not pray, mention the Name of Hashem or even touch a sefer. The Rema also quotes sources who disagree with this ruling. The Rema concludes that the custom is in accordance with the first opinion. However, the Rema limits this restriction to a woman who is still menstruating whereas a woman who has ceased to see a flow but is in the stage of becoming pure is not restricted from entering a shul, praying, reciting the Name of HaShem or from touching a sefer.

(A woman soferet discusses the custom here and some permit it and some state that the custom is still prevalant today as can be seen here and here and it would seem that the issue has become a bit political as this article would indicate here. We are not endorsing the halachic view of any of the sites that we linked to.)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 16 - Jail and the Sefer Torah

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank asks on our Gemora that permitted them to bring the Sefer Torah from the house to the shul when the halacha is explicit (135:14) that we do not bring a Sefer torah for people in jail? Some answer that bringing it from a house to a shul is an honor and therefore it is allowed. Others answer based on the Biur Halacha that it is only prohibited if there are only individuals in the jail and they do not have an obligation of krias haTorah, however if there is a congregation that requires it, it is permitted.

There is a question regarding people in jail that we posted before, but is always interesting. There is an argument between the Radvaz (187) and the Chacham Tzvi (106) regarding a person who was in jail and he did not have the ability to perform any mitzvos and his captors gave him one day that he can choose to be released and perform the mitzvos of that day, which day should he choose. The Radvaz says he should choose the first opportunity that he has and the Chacham Tzvi disagrees and holds that one should wait until there is a mitzva of great prominence.

The Biur Halacha (109) has a shaila if one davens normally a long shemone esrei and he will certainly miss kedusha, should he daven with the tzibur and fulfill the mitzva of tefila b'tzibur or should he wait and fulfill the mitzva of reciting kedusha.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 14/15 - Highlights

There is a debate in the Mishna regarding the usage of beams for s'chach. Rav maintains that the argument is by beams that are more than four tefachim, however beams that are less than four tefachim are valid according to everyone. Shmuel holds that beams larger than four tefachim are invalid according to everyone and the argument is only when the beams are between three and four tefachim.

Rabbi Yehuda attempts to bring a proof to his opinion that beams are valid for s'chach from an episode that transpired in a time when the observance of certain mitzvos were banned and they brought beams that were four tefachim and covered a porch with them disguising the sukkah. The proof is refuted for it is different when it is a time of danger.

Rabbi Meir (who maintains that beams are ineligible for s'chach) admits in a case where you place valid s'chach in the space between each beam that the sukkah is valid, providing that the space is equal to that of the beam.

There is a debate in the Gemora regarding boards that are more than four tefachim wide and their sides are narrower than three and the boards were turned onto their sides and placed on the sukkah. Rav Huna maintains that these boards are ineligible to be used for s'chach for they are considered to be spits of metal (which is invalid for s'chach).

If one has a roof consisting of beams that have not been covered with plaster yet and he wants to convert it into s'chach, there are several opinions in the Mishna as to how he might do this. Bais Shamai maintains that one must slacken the beams and removes one board from between each two and Bais Hillel holds that it is sufficient to do one of those options. The Gemora explains Bais Shamai to mean that even though he loosened the beams that is not sufficient and he is required to remove every other one for it cannot resemble a roof.

The Mishna rules regarding one who covers his sukkah with spits or bedposts (which are ineligible for s'chach), if there are spaces between them identical in size to the invalid s'chach and he fills these spaces with qualified s'chach, the sukkah is valid.

The Gemora cites an argument between Rav Huna and Rav Papa regarding a wall with a breach in it equivalent to the walled portion. Rav Huna holds that this is not considered a wall for a majority of solid wall is required. According to Rav Huna, we are compeled to explain our Mishna (which rules that fifty percent s'chach is valid) to be referring to a case where there is slightly more empty space (which is now filled with eligible s'chach) than the invalid s'chach or the s'chach is placed perpendicular to the spits thereby creating a majority of eligible s'chach which would nullify the invalid s'chach.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 14/15 - Masters in Physics Required

The Rambam in Hilchos Sukkah (5:16) rules that if one's sukkah consists of precisely the same amount of S'chach which is valid and s'chach that is invalid, the sukkah is disqualified even if there is not any place that has three tefachim of invalid s'chach. The Rambam offers a reason for this by stating that we view the invalid s'chach as if it would be completely opened.

The Magid Mishna asks that the Rambam is seemingly in contradiction with his ruling in Hilchos Shabbos (16:16) regarding a wall that exactly half of the wall is solid and the other half is opened, it is regarded as a wall. This is because the Rambam rules in accordance with Rabbi Papa who maintains that a fifty percent wall is sufficient. This principle is known as 'porutz keomed' - if the porutz, the opening is precisely the same measurement as the omed, the standing (wall), it is considered a wall. Why does the Rambam rule by the s'chach that it is invalid?

The Magid Mishna answers based on a Gemora 22b which rules that if a sukkah consists of precisely fifty percent s'chach which is valid and the other half is left empty, the sukkah is disqualified. The reason given is because there will be more sunlight on the ground than shade. The Gemora explains that sunlight that shines through a hole on top which is the size of a small coin will spread to the size of a larger coin on the ground. Therefore, explains the Magid Mishna, the Rambam is viewing the invalid s'chach as if it would be completely opened and the valid s'chach is not producing even half the shade, therefore the sukkah is disqualified.

The mefarshim ask on the analogy of the Magid Mishna. The Ran explicitly states that the two cases are not comparable. When the entire sukkah is covered with s'chach, there is shade on the ground and consequently the sukkah should be valid for the kosher s'chach is producing fifty percent of the shade?

The Steipler explains the Magid Mishna with a mathematical demonstration. If a sukkah would have two hundred tefachim and there would be only one hundred tefachim of valid s'chach, it would produce ninety-nine tefachim of shade. The same would be obviously true if the sukkah was covered with one hundred tefachim of invalid s'chach. In our situation that the entire sukkah is covered with s'chach, however half of it is s'chach which is invalid, the remaining two tefachim that now has shade must be coming from a combination of the valid s'chach and the invalid s'chach. This would be considered as if there would be a mixture of valid s'chach with invalid s'chach, which the Rambam rules is invalid. Therefore, the Rambam is forced to disqualify this sukkah even though he maintains that a fifty percent covering is sufficient, here there is not enough shade being produced by the fifty percent valid s'chach.

It would seem to me that one can ask on the Steipler's logic. He assumes that one hundred tefachim s'chach produces ninety-nine tefachim of shade even in a case when there is no open areas and therefore he explains the remaining two tefachim (ninety-nine from the valid s'chach and ninety-nine from the invalid s'chach) as being produced from a mixture of the two s'chachs. Can't we say that one hundred tefachim of s'chach produces one hundred tefachim of shade except when there is one hundred tefachim of open area and there the sunlight overrides the shade and therefore in our case there is fifty percent shade coming from the valid s'chach and hence the sukkah should be valid?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 14/15 - Beams and Potters

The Gemora on daf 8 stated that it was common for a potter to have a hut inside another one. Rashi explains that the inside hut cannot be used as a Sukkah because since the potter lives there all year, it is not discernable that he is dwelling in the hut for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvah. It is evident from Rashi that is not invalid from the Torah, rathe it is an injuction from the Sages.

The Gemora on our daf (14) rules that one cannot fulfill his obligation of sitting in a sukkah where the s'chach consists of beams larger than four tefachim. This is based on a decree that this sukkah would be similar to sitting inside his house. Rashi explains that one cannot fulfill his obligation by sitting in a house for the Torah states 'sukkah' and not his house where he resides all year.

It would seem that there is a contradiction in Rashi regarding the disqualification of sitting in a house, if this is invalid only from the Sages or is it unfit from the Torah?

Rabbi Y. B. Solovetchik explains the difference between the two cases. Regarding the potter's hut, the s'chach appears to look like s'chach of a sukkah, not of a house and therefore it is valid min haTorah. The Sages disqualified this hut because the person resides there all year. However by the beams, the roof appears precisely the way a house would look and therefore it retains the status of a house and therefore the Torah disqualifies such a sukkah outright.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 14/15 - Small Sukkah Big Sukkah

The Gemara had previously stated that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel disagree 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. The minimum measurement that can accomodate this is seven by seven tefachim.

The Rif rules in accordance with Bais Shamai and adds that the reason for this halacha is because of the concern that the sukkah is so small, he will be drawn out of the sukkah. This is also the reasoning to explain why in a large sukkah that has the table outside the sukkah, Bais Shamai maintains that one cannot fulfill his obligation there.

There is an interesting argument in the Acharonim based on this Rif. If one is dwelling in a sukkah which is smaller than seven by seven tefachim and his table is situated in a large sukkah which is adjacent to the small one. Reb Akiva Eiger (Mishnayos Sukkah 2:7) rules that one can fulfill his obligation as the injunction of leaving his sukkah does not apply in this instance, for even if he leaves he will leave to the large sukkah. Bais Halevi (3:53:1) disagrees and maintains that he does not fulfill his obligation for once Bais Shamai ruled that a sukkah which is smaller than the required amount is invalid, this rule applies in all circumstances.

What would be the halacha in the reverse case? If one is dwelling in a large sukkah that does not have a table in it (which Bais Shamai rules that the sukkah is invalid), and the table is situated in a small sukkah directly adjacent to it, what would be the halacha?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 13 - Highlights

1. There is a dispute if one can use branches from a thornbush for s’chach. Abaye maintains that one cannot use such branches because if the leaves fall into the Sukkah, one will be distressed and this will cause him to exit the Sukkah. (13a1)
2. One is allowed to use branches from a young palm tree for s’chach even though they appear like a bundle. The reason for this ruling is because these branches are not deemed to be a man-made bundle. Rather, these bundles are heaven-made. It is permitted as well to tie a branch together in order to attach different parts of the branch. This is allowed because a bundle of one does not constitute a bundle. (13a1)
3. Rav Chisda rules that one will fulfill his obligation of eating maror on Pesach by eating maror of the marsh. The Gemara challenges this ruling because we have learned regarding the laws of burning the Parah Adumah that one can only use eizov, hyssop that bears an ordinary name. One cannot use, however, eizov that has a modifying name. Maror of the marsh should thus not be permitted as the Torah instructs us to eat only ordinary maror. Abaye answers that once can eat maror of the marsh because when the Torah was given, this maror was referred to as ordinary maror. Rava answers that one can eat maror of the marsh because marsh is not deemed to be a modifying name. Rather, the marsh is merely the location where one can find such maror. (13a1-13a2)
4. There is a dispute in the Gemara regarding how many eizov, hyssop stalks are required for the burning of the Parah Adumah. The Gemara discusses further how many stalks would be required from the outset and how many would be required ex post facto. (13a2-13a3-13b1)
5. One cannot use for s’chach the vegetables that can be used for maror on Pesach, as these vegetables are generally very delicate. Although invalid s’chach ordinarily invalidates the Sukkah with four adjoining tefachim, these vegetables will invalidate the Sukkah as if they were an open area, which renders the Sukkah invalid with a space of three tefachim. The reason for this ruling is because these vegetables are very delicate and in all likelihood they will dry up and disintegrate, so they are deemed to be non-existent from the outset. (13b1-13b2)
6. We ordinarily say that the stem of a fruit can transmit tumah to the fruit as long as the stems function as handles. If one harvests grapes for a wine press, the stems do not transmit tumah as they are undesirable. Similarly, if one cuts grain with the intention to use it for s’chach, the grain does not have handles with regard to tumah. The reason for this is because one does not want the kernels and straws to be connected, as the kernels which are susceptible to tumah are not valid to be used as s’chach. (13b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 14- Lekavod Shabbos

The Gemara states that the prayers of the righteous are likened to a pitchfork, as just like a pitchfork turns over the grain on the threshing floor from one place to another, so too the prayers of the righteous transform the manner in which HaShem conducts Himself from the Attribute of Cruel Judgment to the Attribute of Mercy. It is noteworthy that in the prayer of כגוונא that is recited by those who pray Nusach Sefard on Friday evening, we recite the words, when the Shabbos arrives, she unifies Herself in Oneness and divests herself of the Other Side (any trace of impurity); all harsh judgments are removed from her, and she remains alone with the Oneness of the holy light… All wrathful dominions and bearers of grievance flee together-and there is no power but she in all the worlds. Shabbos is a time when HaShem shows compassion to His Chosen nation. Let us be worthy recipients of that compassion by
observing the Shabbos correctly.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 13 - See your world in your lifetime

The Gemara discusses a situation where one is disturbed by leaves falling into the Sukkah and this will cause one to exit the Sukkah. For this reason one should not use thornbushes for s’chach. It is noteworthy that the Torah commands us to dwell in the Sukkah for seven days. Yet, it is not sufficient that one build a Sukkah that will remain standing for seven days. One must also ensure that all the materials that are used in the construction of the Sukkah are acceptable so he will not have a reason to exit the Sukkah prematurely. In a similar vein, the Gemara in a number of instances uses the expression that a person was yotzei min olamo, meaning that he left his world. One is granted a finite amount of time to accomplish his purpose in this world, and one should ensure that his ‘accommodations’ are established correctly so he will not be required to ‘exit’ before his allotted time. This idea is reflected in the Gemara in Brachos 17a that states that when students would depart from their teacher, they would say to each other, “may you see your world in your lifetime.” This statement can be interpreted to mean that one should see his accomplishments in this world, i.e. he should lead a full and productive life.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 13 - Colonel Stalks

The Gemara cites one opinion that maintains that if one cuts grain with the intention that it should be used for s’chach, there is a Halacha of yados, i.e. that the grain does have handles, and the stalks can transmit tumah to the kernels. The rationale for this is that there is some benefit from the kernels being attached to the straw, as in this way the kernels will not be scattered and go to waste. Rashi maintains that since the stalks are attached to the kernels, the kernels will not go to waste. Tosfos maintains that the kernels will weigh down the stalks and this will keep the stalks from scattering. The Gemara states further that if one used this grain for s’chach and there is more stalks than kernels, it is valid. Marcheshes raises a difficulty with the opinion of Tosfos, because if the reasoning that the s’chach is valid is because the kernels weigh down the stalks, the s’chach should be invalid as the kernels are susceptible to tumah and the Gemara further on Daf 21b invalidates s’chach that is placed in such a manner. Marcheshes answers that since the stalks are covering the Sukkah without the assistance of the kernels, the s’chach is deemed to be valid. The kernels are merely placed there to ensure that the stalks do not scatter. Thus, we do not deem the s’chach to be held up by the kernels. It is possible that for this reason people are not concerned with inserting screws or nails into the boards that are subsequently attached to the walls of the Sukkah, although in this manner the s’chach is supported by the screws. The reason this would be permitted is because it is the boards that are supporting the s’chach and the screws merely function as a safeguard so the boards do not move from their position.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 13 - Modifying Names

Abaye states that marsh marror is allowed to be used to fulfill one's obligation for eating the bitter herbs on Pesach for at the time the Torah was given, it was called plain marror and hence is not regarded as a modifying name.

How was it known that that at the time the Torah was given, it was not called marsh marror?

The Tiferes Yisroel (Parah 11:7) asks a similar question on our Gemora that states regarding the hyssup grass that is called 'azov Romi', this was its name at the time the torah was given and therefore it is not allowed to be used for the parah adumah for it is deemed to be a modifying name. The Gemora in Shabbos 56b relates that when King Solomon married the daughter of Pharoh, Gavriel one of the heavenly angels created the city of Rome. How is it possible that the hyssup grass was called the Roman hyssup grass when Rome was not even in existence at the time?

He answers that by the mere fact that this hyssup has a descriptive name, this proves that it is different than a regular hyssup and at the time the Torah was given, it obviously had some other modifying name. Afterwards, when Rome was built near this particular hyssup, it was given the name Roman hyssup.

This strengthens the original question. If this marror is called marsh marror, it probably had some type of descriptive name at the time the Torah was given?

Rabbi Dovid Goldberg offers a response to this question.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 13 - Pathetic Chrein

One cannot use for s’chach the vegetables that can be used for maror on Pesach, as these vegetables are generally very delicate. The reason for this ruling is because these vegetables are very delicate and in all likelihood they will dry up and disintegrate, so they are deemed to be non-existent from the outset. The Mishna in Pesachim lists tamcha as one of the vegetables that one can use to fulfill his obligation of eating maror on Pesach. Tamcha is commonly defined as chrain. The Pischa Zuta wonders how it can be said that chrain will dry up and disintegrate, as chrain is not known to be delicate.

I have not yet found an answer to this question.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 12 - Highlights

1. Rabbi Yochanan cites a source regarding the two halachos of s’chach. The verse states that the s’chach should come from the refuse of the threshing floor and from the wine vat. The refuse is not susceptible to tumah and does not grow from the ground. (12a1)
2. The Mishna states that one cannot use bundles of straw or twigs as s’chach, but if he unties them, they are valid as s’chach. All these bundles are valid for the walls of the Sukkah. (12a2)
3. Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the reason that one cannot use bundles of straw as s’chach is because we are concerned that he will place bundles on top of his sukkah to dry them. Although he does not intend that the bundles be used as shade, he will later change his mind to use the bundles for s’chach. Doing so would invalidate the s’chach because it would be a problem of taaseh v’lo min hasauy, you shall make, and not use that which was already made. For this reason it is always prohibited to use bundles for s’chach, even when he places the bundles for the purpose of providing shade. (12a2-12a3)
4. If one burrows a sukkah out of a haystack, it is invalid because it would be a problem of taaseh v’lo min hasauy, you shall make, and not use that which was already made. (12a2-12a3)
5. A Sukkah that is invalid because of taaseh v’lo min hasauy is biblically invalid. Nonetheless, if it cannot be used as a Sukkah on account of a rabbinical decree of taaseh v’lo min hasauy, then it will only be rabbinically forbidden. (12a4-12b1)
6. Male arrow-shafts, i.e. the solid tip of a shaft is placed into a cavity in the arrowhead are valid for s’chach because they do not have a receptacle and thus they are not susceptible to tumah, however female ones are invalid for they contain a receptacle and therefore are susceptible to tumah. This is a novel Halacha for we might have thought that since it is permanently filled, it is not deemed a receptacle and therefore not susceptible to tumah.
7. S'chach made of (processed) combed flax is invalid, however if it is made from flax before the flax was soaked, it is valid. Rabbi Yochanan is uncertain as to what the Halacha is in this case. There is a question regarding what phase of the flax process we are referring to.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 12 - Sukkah-A Life Saver

The Gemara earlier on Daf 2 states that according to Rabbah, the Chachamim maintain that a Sukkah whose s’chach is higher than twenty Amos is invalid, because it is said: so that your generations shall know that I made the Jewish People dwell in Sukkos. Since the purpose of the Sukkah is to remind us that Hashem protected the Jewish People in the Wilderness, we say that if the s’chach is within twenty amos of the ground, then one is aware that he his sitting in a Sukkah. If the s’chach is higher than twenty Amos, however, a person is not aware that he is sitting in a Sukkah, because one cannot see the s’chach.

The Bach writes that whenever one performs a mitzvah that is biblically ordained, he is required to have kavanah, focusing on the intention of the mitzvah. The mitzvah of Sukkah is unique in that one must also be mindful of the fact that Hashem made the Jewish People dwell in Sukkos, i.e. the Clouds of Glory, in the Wilderness. One must wonder why Sukkah is unique in this regard in contrast to all other mitzvos.

The explanation for this ruling is that the Vilna Gaon writes that we commemorate Sukkos on the fifteenth of Tishrei as a reminder that after the sin of the Golden Calf, Hashem removed the Clouds of Glory, and they only returned after Yom Kippur and the Jewish People were granted atonement for their grievous sin. The Clouds of Glory protected the Jewish People from their enemies, as is evident from the battle with Amalek. If not for the Clouds of Glory, the Jewish People would have been vulnerable to attacks from their enemies, and they may have been annihilated.

The mitzvah of remembering that Hashem surrounded the Jewish People with the Clouds of Glory is not just symbolic, but a demonstration of our gratitude to Hashem for saving our lives. This is why the mitzvah of Sukkah is unique in that we need to have kavanah that Hashem surrounded us with the Clouds of Glory in the desert.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 12 - Sukkah = S'chach

Rabbi Yochanan cites a source regarding the two halachos of s'chach. The possuk states that the s'chach should come from the excess of the granary and from winepress. These are things that grow from the ground and are not susceptible to tumah.

Rashi in the Mishna states that this halacha is only relevant to the s'chch and not to the walls. The Torah states that the sukkah should be made from these materials and the sukkah is referring to the s'chach. The requirements of three walls, which is also learned from this possuk is only from the extra words, however the word sukkah is defined by the s'chach. This is why bundles of straw cannot be used for s'chach but may be used for the walls.

A question can be asked on the Rambam as to why regarding the halacha of deriving pleasure from the sukkah are the walls included as well? This prohibition is also learned from the possuk chak hasukkos and that is why the Rosh rules that only the s'chach is forbidden and not the walls. What is the explanation in the Rambam?

There are acharonim that address this issue.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 12 - S'chach Defines a Sukkah

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?

We offered several answers previously. The Marcheshes based on a Rashi on our daf answers that this halacha is only relevant to the s'chach of the sukkah and not to the walls. The s'chach by itself is fitting for all seven days, it's the walls that are only valid on Shabbos. The Gemora on daf 23 is discussing a case where the sukkah is on an animal and therefore the sukkah will be disqualified for it's not fitting for all seven days for the walls and the s'chach cannot be used on Shabbos.

This is also the explanation for the opinion of the Rosh who rules that one is forbidden to derive any benefit from the s'chach of the sukkah, however he is permitted to have pleasure from the walls. Rashi states that all which is learned from the words chak hasukkos is referring exclusively to the s'chach for the s'chach defines a sukkah, not the walls.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 12 - Spiritual or Physical Clouds?

The Gemora cites an argument between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elozar in the explanation of the possuk ki basukkos hoshavti es bnei yisroel. What are these sukkos that the Torah is Referring to? Rabbi Akiva learns that the possuk is referring to the booths that Hashem made for Klal Yisroel when they were traveling in the desert. Rabbi Elozar understands the possuk to mean the ananei hakovod, the spiritual clouds which surrounded Bnei Yisroel on their way out of Egypt.

It is evident from the Gemora and Rashi that these 'clouds' were regular clouds that are regarded as being produced from the ground and not susceptible to tumah. It would seem from Rabbeinu Bachye and the Targum Yonason on the possuk in Breishis that the ananei hakovod had the same physical characteristics as regular clouds, but there was an added spiritual effect from these clouds.

The Vilna Gaon in Parshas Bahaloscha learns like this as well. The possuk states that the cloud left from the tent and behold Miriam became afflicted with tzaraas. Aharon turned towards her and behold she had tzaraas. The Gaon explained that it was only after the cloud left that it was ruled that Miriam had tzaraas as the halacha is that a kohen cannot rule on tzaraas during a cloudy day.

The Ksav V'kabala in Parshas Shelach disagrees and states that these clouds were purely spiritual. The clouds could level mountains, raise valleys and kill snakes and scorpions but they did not function as regular clouds.

I saw in a sefer Imrei Chein that he bridges the gap between the two explanations, however I am not certain as to his precise explanation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 11 - Clouds of Glory for atonement

The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar regarding the explanation of the verse that states so that your generations will know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in Sukkos when I took them from the land of Egypt. Which Sukkos is the Torah referring to? Rabbi Akiva maintains that the verse refers to the booths that Hashem made for the Jewish People when they were sojourning in the Wilderness. Rabbi Elazar, however, maintains that the verse refers to the Clouds of Glory that encompassed the Jewish People in the Wilderness. It is noteworthy that Rashi in his commentary on Chumash and in his commentary earlier on Daf 2 only quotes the opinion of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that the festival of Sukkos is to commemorate the Clouds of Glory. The Gemara in Ta’anis 9a states that HaShem performed three miracles for the Jewish People in the Wilderness. Hashem provided the Jewish People with a traveling well of water that was in the merit of Miriam. The Jewish People were further provided with manna that fell from heaven and sustained them and the manna was in the merit of Moshe. The Clouds of Glory that protected the Jewish People were in the merit of Aharon. The commentators wonder why there is only a festival commemorating the miracle of the Clouds of Glory while there is no festival that commemorates the miracles of the traveling well and the falling of the manna from heaven. The Vilna Gaon and Reb Tzadok HaKohen from Lublin in Pri Tzaddik posit that in truth, we are not commemorating any of the above-mentioned miracles. Rather, the explanation is that following the sin of the Golden Calf, Hashem removed the Clouds of Glory that were protecting the Jewish People and only after Moshe gained atonement for the Jewish People on Yom Kippur did the Clouds of Glory return. Nonetheless, the Clouds of Glory did not actually return until the fifteenth of Tishrei when the Jewish People commenced the construction of the Mishkan, the edifice that reflected their atonement. Thus, the festival of Sukkos is not necessarily a commemoration of the Clouds of Glory. Rather, the festival of Sukkos commemorates the return of the Clouds of Glory and the atonement that the Jewish People received on Yom Kippur.

[This post will be continued iy"H.]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 11 - How Much is that Esrog in the Window?

There is an obligation to tie the lulav together with the two other species as this will enhance and beautify the mitzva. This is learned from the possuk zeh keli v'anvehu. This is where the principle of hidur mitzva - glorifying the mitzva is learned out from. There is a debate amongst the poskim if this is a mitzva min haTorah or is it only from the Sages.

The Mabit writes that if people will pursue relentlessly for this goal of beautifying a mitzva and due to this, the price to purchase that particular mitzva will rise, it is preferable not to be particular on the hidur mitzva. The Tzemech Tzedek MiNikolsburg cites a Mishna in Krisus proving that if the sellers raise the prices of fish before Shabbos, it is preferable that the Sages should institute that people should not buy fish for Shabbos.

[Tis almost the season to engage ourselves in the search for a nice esrog.]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 11 - Planter Without a Hole

S'chach is invalid if it is connected to the ground. The Yerushalmi in Kelaim discusses the halacha regarding branches that are growing in a planter that did not have a hole in it. If it has a hole, it is considered something which is growing from the ground. The Yerushalmi does not resolve this matter.

Rabbeinu Menoach (Rambam Sukkah 4:2) posits that it would be permitted. He cites as proof to this the Rambam (Shabbos 8:3) who rules that if one detaches something that was growing in a planter on Shabbos, he is not liable. This indicates that it is not considered as if it is growing from the ground.

The Iglei Tal proves from this Yerushalmi that something which grows in a planter without a hole is considered gidulei karkah - something that receives nourishment from the ground for otherwise the Yerushalmi could not entertain the possibility of using it for s'chach. One of the two rules of s'chach being valid is that it must be something that grows from the ground. The Yerushalmi's question is granted it grows from the ground, but is it connected to the ground. This was left unresolved.

The Iglei Tal refutes his own proof by stating that the Yerushalmi can be referring to a case where it originally grew directly from the ground and it was detached and placed in a planter.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 10 - Sukkah is like the Bais HaMikdash

The Gemara discusses beautifying a Sukkah with decorations. One must wonder why the Sukkah would require decorations. The Gemara in Shabbos states that from the verse that states this is my G-d and I will glorify Him, we derive the law that one should glorify before HaShem with mitzvos. This means that one should make a nice Tallis, a nice Sukkah and other mitzvos should be beautified. It is noteworthy that the simple definition of the above-mentioned verse is and I will build Him a Sanctuary. The Shem Mishmuel writes that Sukkos is corresponding to the Bais HaMikdash. When one builds a Sukkah and glorifies it, he should have in mind that the Sukkah is akin to the Bais HaMikdash, which itself was a beautiful edifice, enhanced for the honor of HaShem.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 10 - Highlights

1. We learned previously that a Sukkah that is built on top of another Sukkah, the lower Sukkah is invalid. The Gemara cites three differing opinions regarding the amount of space that is necessary between the layers of s’chach to deem the Sukkahs as two separate Sukkahs. Rav Huna maintains that if there is at least a tefach between the two Sukkahs, the lower Sukkah will be deemed invalid. This would be parallel to the laws regarding an object acting as a barrier against corpse tumah. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna maintain that if there is a space of four tefachim between the layers of s’chach, the lower Sukkah will be deemed invalid. The reason for this is that we do not find a significant place that is less than four tefachim. Shmuel maintains that if it there is ten tefachim between the layers of s’chach, then the lower Sukkah will be deemed invalid. Shmuel reasons that just like the validity of a Sukkah is determined by its being ten tefachim high, so too the lower Sukkah will be invalidated if the upper Sukkah is ten tefachim high. (10a1-10a2)
...Read more

2. The Mishna stated previously that if one builds one Sukkah on top of another Sukkah, the upper one is valid and there is a debate regarding the lower Sukkah in a case where the upper Sukkah is not inhabitable. Rav Dimi explains that this debate refers to a case where the lower Sukkah can only support the pillows and cushions in the upper Sukkah with difficulty. The Chachamim would maintain that in such a situation the lower Sukkah is invalid as it is not fit to be used and Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the lower Sukkah is valid because the upper Sukkah is not deemed to be inhabitable. (10a2)
3. The Mishna rules that if one spread a sheet on top of the s’chach to protect him from the sun or if he placed a sheet under the s’chach in order to prevent the leaves from falling on his table, the Sukkah is invalid. The reason for this ruling is that the sheet is a material which is unfit for s’chach. If one placed a sheet on top of four bedposts, the Sukkah is invalid because he is not sitting under the s’chach. Rather, he is deemed to be sitting under a tent. If one spreads a sheet over a bed that has two posts, the Sukkah is valid as long as the roof of the tent is not a tefach wide. (10a3)
4. Rav Chisda qualifies the ruling of the Mishna that a sheet that is spread under the s’chach invalidates the Sukkah. If one placed the sheet under the s’chach for decorative purposes, the Sukkah would be deemed valid because the sheet is not deemed to be s’chach at all. (10a3)
5. There is a debate in the Gemara regarding a sheet that was hung for decorative purposes at a distance of more than four tefachim away from the s’chach. Rav Nachman rules that the Sukkah is valid because the sheet is subordinate to the s’chach. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna maintain that the Sukkah is invalid because the decorations are considered independent of the s’chach above it. (10b1)
6. The Gemara rules that one is permitted to sleep in a Sukkah under a kilah, which is similar to the roof of the four-posted bed mentioned in the Mishnah. This is allowed provided that the sheet is less than ten tefachim high from the surface of the bed. A kilah is a bed where the bedposts are not strongly secured to the bed, whereas kinofos are securely attached to the bed, and one who spread a sheet over kinofos, the area below the sheet is invalid even if the posts are not ten tefachim tall. (10b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 10 - "Holiday" Decorations

The Gemara discusses hanging ornaments to beautify the Sukkah. The Shelah writes that hanging ornaments in the Sukkah reflects our endearment for the mitzvah of Sukkah. Thus, the more one enhances the beauty of the Sukkah with ornaments, the more praiseworthy he is. Amongst the various items that the Gemara lists for the purpose of decorating the Sukkah are fruits and foods such as grapes, wine, oil and flour. It is noteworthy that these same items are listed in the Gemara Avodah Zara 51 as items that are used for idol worship. Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha (ad loc) rules that one does not have to be concerned with using items for Sukkah decorations even if these same items are used by the gentiles for their winter holidays season. The Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim 42) rules in a similar vein that one can use for lighting in the synagogue candles that were designated for idolatry but were not actually used in the pagan service. Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha to our Gemara explains why one who uses items that are designated for idolatry is not in violation of the prohibition not to walk in the ways of the gentiles who worship idols. The reason for this is because the Gemara (Sanhedrin 52) states that one can perform any action that is recorded in the Torah, even if such an action subsequently was performed for idolatry. A Jew is not performing the act on account of the idolaters. Rather, he is performing the act because this is what he has been instructed to do by the Torah. The same idea can be said regarding the Sukkah decorations mentioned in the Gemara. One would be allowed to hang Sukkah decorations that are used by the gentiles for their holiday season, as a Jew would be hanging the decorations because the decorations are mentioned in the Gemara and not on account of the gentile’s custom.

Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 10 - Decorations for benefit

The Gemara states that one cannot derive benefit from the Sukkah decorations during Sukkos. Nitei Gavriel cites a dispute regarding deriving benefit from decorations that are hanging in a section of the Sukkah that is invalid, i.e. under a dofen akumah. Pnei Yehoshua rules that one can derive benefit from these decorations as they are not deemed to be Sukkah decorations. The Gerrer Rebbe offers a proof to this ruling from our Gemara, as the Gemara states that if one covered his Sukkah in accordance with the Halacha and he decorated it, he is forbidden to derive benefit from the decorations. It is implicit from the Gemara that the prohibition to derive benefit from the decorations was only said regarding the decorations that are placed in the valid section of the Sukkah. If this was not so, why would the Gemara have stated that one covered his Sukkah in accordance with the Halacha?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 10 - Eating and sleeping in the Sukkah

The Mishna stated previously that if one builds one Sukkah on top of another Sukkah, the upper one is valid and there is a debate regarding the lower Sukkah in a case where the upper Sukkah is not inhabitable. Rav Dimi explains that this debate refers to a case where the lower Sukkah can only support the pillows and cushions in the upper Sukkah with difficulty. Rashi adds that according to the Tanna Kamma of the Mishna, the lower Sukkah will still be valid even if the lower Sukkah cannot support the cushions and pillows of the upper Sukkah and that the lower Sukkah cannot support one who sleeps in the upper Sukkah. Rav Yosef Engel proves from the words of Rashi that for a Sukkah to be deemed valid, it must also be fit for sleeping. This is in accordance with the opinion of the Mordechai who rules that if one can eat comfortably in a Sukkah but it will be uncomfortable to sleep in the Sukkah, he will not discharge his obligation. The reason for this is because a Sukkah must be fit for eating and for sleeping. The Chacham Tzvi disagrees with this ruling and the Chacham Tzvi maintains that a Sukkah is valid as long as there is room for one to eat comfortably. The fact that there is not enough room to sleep does not invalidate the Sukkah. See Avnei Neizer Orach Chaim 479 for further discussion on this matter.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 9 - Highlights

There is a debate regarding a Sukkah that was made more than thirty days prior to Sukkos and was constructed with a specific intention to be used for Sukkos. Bais Shammai maintains that the Sukkah is invalid because it was not made for the sake of the mitzvah whereas Bais Hillel maintains that the Sukkah is valid. (9a1)
There is a debate regarding what is derived from the verse that states the festival of Sukkos, for seven days, unto HaShem. Bais Shammai maintains that we derive from this verse that a Sukkah must be constructed for the sake of the mitzvah and Bais Hillel maintains that just like the Heavenly Name attaches itself upon a Chagigah offering, so too the Heavenly Name attaches itself upon a Sukkah. Bais Hillel derives this from the fact that it is said the festival of Sukkos, for seven days, unto HaShem. The juxtaposition of the word chag, which alludes to the Chagigah sacrifice, to the word haSukkos, which means the Sukkah, teaches us that just like the Chagigah is sanctified to HaShem and one cannot benefit from the Chagigah, so too the Sukkah is sanctified to HaShem and one cannot derive benefit from the Sukkah. (9a1)
Bais Hillel maintains that one can build a Sukkah on Chol HaMoed and Bais Shammai maintains that one cannot build a Sukkah on Chol HaMoed. (9a1-9a2)
Bais Hillel maintains that a Sukkah does not have to be made for the sake of the mitzvah because the Torah does not state such a requirement. Regarding the making of tzitzis, however, it is said you shall make for yourself twisted cords, and this teaches us that the tzitzis must be made for the sake of the mitzvah. The verse regarding making a Sukkah that states the festival of Sukkos you should make for yourself teaches us that one cannot fulfill his obligation of making a Sukkah with stolen materials. (9a2)
The Mishnah states that a Sukkah built under a tree is invalid. If one builds one Sukkah on top of another Sukkah, the Chachamim maintains that the upper Sukkah is valid and the lower Sukkah is invalid, whereas Rabbi Yehudah maintains that if there are no tenants in the upper Sukkah, the lower one is valid. (9b1)
Rava states that the ruling of the Mishnah that building a Sukkah under a tree is invalid is only when the shade of the tree is greater than its sunlight. When the sunlight of the tree is greater than its shade, the Sukkah will be valid when he lowers the tree branches and intermingles them with the valid s’chach. The invalid s’chach is thus nullified and we deem the Sukkah to be entirely covered with valid s’chach. (9b1)
Rabbi Yirmiyah maintains there is a situation regarding a Sukkah on top of another Sukkah when both are valid. There is a situation where both Sukkas are invalid. There is a situation where the lower Sukkah is valid and the upper Sukkah is invalid. There is also a situation where the lower Sukkah is invalid and the upper Sukkah is valid. (9b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 9 - An old Sukkah renewed

The Mishnah states that there is a debate whether an old Sukkah, i.e. a Sukkah that was built more than thirty days before the festival, is valid or not. Regarding mitzvos we find in many instances that the Torah exhorts us to treat the mitzvos as new and fresh ideas. One should not view mitzvos as antiquated, and one should certainly not perform the mitzvos by rote. The Gemara in Nedarim teaches us that the Bais HaMikdash was destroyed and the Jewish People were exiled from Eretz Yisroel because of their lack of enthusiasm with regard to mitzvah performance. When one builds a Sukkah, he should have in mind that by building the Sukkah, he will have the opportunity to dwell in the Sukkah for seven days as HaShem commanded. With this thought in mind he will have built a “new” Sukkah and his mitzvah performance will be enhanced.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 9 - Sticking out the Rain

The Gemara states that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from the s’chach and from the Sukkah walls. This ruling is derived from the verse that states the festival of Sukkos, for seven days, unto HaShem. The Oneg Yom Tov poses a query based on this ruling. The Rema rules that one who remains in a Sukkah when it is raining is referred to as a hedyot, literally, a commoner. The Oneg Yom Tov wonders why the Rema does not rule that in such a situation it is forbidden to remain in the Sukkah, as one who sits in a Sukkah while it is raining is certainly not fulfilling the mitzvah of dwelling in a Sukkah. Thus, he is unlawfully benefiting from the Sukkah, which is forbidden. (When one covers the Sukkah with a plastic to protect the Sukkah from rain and then he sits underneath the covering, he is not violating a prohibition, because the covering renders the Sukkah invalid.)Click here for further discussion The Ran rules that the prohibition to derive pleasure from a Sukkah was only said regarding the walls which are required for the Sukkah to be valid. The rest of the Sukkah, however, is deemed to be extra and one would therefore be permitted to sit in the portion of the Sukkah that is deemed to be extra. The Ran concludes, however, that if one were to build the Sukkah without interruption, one would be forbidden to derive pleasure from the entire Sukkah. The Gemara in Yoma 69 states that the Kohanim were permitted to derive benefit from their clothing in the Bais Mikdash even at a time that they were not performing the avodah of the Bais HaMikdash. The Gemara in Kiddushin states that the reason this was allowed was because the Torah was not given to the ministering angels and we cannot expect that the Kohanim will remove their clothing as soon as they completed the avodah. The Oneg Yom Tov thus concludes, based on the aforementioned Gemara in Kiddushin, that one can derive benefit from the Sukkah when it is raining, because the Torah was not given to the ministering angels. We therefore do not expect that one should exit the Sukkah the moment it begins to rain, and for this reason one can remain in the Sukkah even while it is raining.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 9 - Intentionally nullifying a prohibition

The Gemara states that if one placed s’chach that is invalid for use on a Sukkah, such as branches that are still connected to the ground, the Sukkah can still be valid. This can be effected if he places valid s’chach on the Sukkah and there is more valid s’chach than invalid s’chach. The valid s’chach will thus nullify the invalid s’chach. The Taz to Orach Chaim 626 wonders how one can nullify the invalid s’chach by placing more valid s’chach, as there is a principle of ain mevatlin issur l’chatchila, one cannot nullify a prohibited matter outright. For example, one cannot place kosher food items into a pot that contains forbidden food items, thus attempting to nullify the prohibited food. The first answer that the Taz offers is that prior to the onset of the festival there is no prohibition in effect, as one is not obligated to dwell in a Sukkah until the festival commences. For this reason one would be able to validate the s’chach and he is not deemed to have nullified a prohibition outright. The Taz follows his reasoning with regard to nullifying chametz prior to Pesach. Alternatively, the Taz suggests that the principle of ain mevatlin issur l’chatchila, that one cannot nullify a prohibited matter outright, is only a rabbinical restriction that was instituted so that one would not derive benefit from his nullification of the prohibited matter. Regarding the mitzvah of Sukkah, however, one does not actually derive benefit from dwelling in a Sukkah, as there is a principle that mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu, the commandments were not given to derive benefit from. Thus, one is not deriving benefit from the validated s’chach.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 9 - Which Walls are Forbidden?

The Ran rules that the prohibition to derive pleasure is only on the walls which are needed for the sukkah to be valid, but anything more than that is deemed extra and therefore, one would be permitted to sit in the portion of the sukkah that was not needed. However, the Ran concludes that if the entire sukkah was built at the same time, one would be forbidden to derive pleasure from the entire sukkah. Tosfos holds that whatever is more than what is neceesary for the sukkah will only be prohibited midrobanan.

The Aruch Lener states that he doesn't understand their logic for before the Yom Tov of Sukkos begins, there is no prohibition and it only become forbidden when Sukkos begins and it is used for the mitzva. At that time, the entire sukkah is built, so what would be the difference between the walls which were built first or later?

I didn't see an explanation of this yet.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 9 - Stolen Walls

The Gemora learns form a possuk that one cannot fulfill his obligation of sitting in a sukkah with a sukkah that is stolen. Tosfos asks on the necessity of a possuk to teach us this, let's apply the principle of mitzva habaah b'aveira? When one performs a mitzva and simultaneously commits a transgression, he will not fulfill the mitzva, so why do we need a possuk? He answers that this principle is only midrabanan and the possuk is teaching us that he does not fulfill his mitzva even min haTorah.

It is well known that the Minchas Chinuch 25 offers other answers to this question.
Click here for more please

One answer he proposes is that a possuk would be necessary for the other days of Sukkos. Only on the first night is one obligated to sit and eat in the sukkah. The other days, there is only a prohibition to eat outside the sukkah, but one is not mandated to eat in the sukkah. If one would eat in a stolen sukkah the other days of sukkos and there would be no possuk invalditaing such a sukkah, he would not be transgressing the prohibition of eating outside a sukkah for the principle of mitzva habbah b'aveira does not make the sukkah invalid and it would not be considered eating outside a sukkah. Mitzva habbah b'aveira accomplishes that one does not fulfill his mitzva and that is only relevant on the first night. The possuk is needed to teach us that the sukkah is invalid and hence he would be regarded as eating outside a sukkah.

Rav Shach asks that the possuk does not invalidate the sukkah, for if so, it should apply only by the s'chach and not by the walls for the walls cannot be invalidated. Since the possuk is teaching that the walls cannot be stolen either it is a proof that the possuk is only an exclusion that one cannot fulfill his mitzva with a stolen sukkah and that would apply by the walls as well.

Reb Akiva Eiger and Bikurei Yaakov rule that the possuk is only referring to the s'chach and not the walls. They state that the only issue with stolen walls for a sukkah is the principle of mitzva habbah b'aveira.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 8 - Who Places the S'chach?

The reason that a goy, woman or animal can make a sukkah is because a sukkah does not have to be built with the intention for the mitzva, it is valid as long as the intention was to be used for shade.

The Bikurei Yaakov rules that this is only bdieved, however it is preferable that the s'chach should not be placed on the sukkah by a goy, woman or minor.

He bases this on a Magen Avrohom 649:8 that rules that it's preferable that a goy should not be the one to tie the lulav together, even though a lulav is not necessary to be tied, but since it is glorifying the mitzva, it should not be done by someone who is not obligated in the mitzva.

Sheorim Mitzuyanim Bhalacha differs and states that there is a distinction between lulav and s'chach. Preparing the lulav which is glorifying the mitzva is a segment of the mitzva and therefore should not be performed by a goy, however the placing of the s'chach that doesn't even have to be done for the sake of the mitzva, rather just for providing shade, perhaps it can be done by a goy even l'chatchila.

The Ksav Sofer O"C 9 discusses the permissibility of a minor placing the s'chach on the sukkah. Firstly, he states, it is not an obligation to place the s'chach with an intention of providing shade, which would prevent a minor from performing this for perhaps he won't have this intention, rather it is integral that the s'chach is not placed there for other motives like storage or dwelling and therefore a minor can do it. Secondly, it is possible that the intention of the baal habayis that the s'chach should provide shade is sufficient.

There might possibly be an inyon for the baal habayis to place the s'chach himself due to the principle of mitzva bo yoser mibeshlucho.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 8 - Four Amos = 5 3/5 Amos All Over

The Pnei Yehoshua quotes Rabbeinu Tam in Eruvin who holds that whenever the Gemora states the measurement of four amos, it means the diagonal of four squared amos, which is five and three fifth's (5 3/5) amos. According to this, the P"Y asks on the question of our Gemora on Rabbi Yochanan's statement.

Rabbi Yochanan rules that a round sukkah is valid providing that it has a circumference that can fit twentyfour people. The Gemora assumes that this is in accordance with Rebbe who maintains that a sukkah must be four squared amos. The Gemora questins this for a person can sit in a one amah space and hence Rabbi Yochanan's required circumference is twentyfour amos. It is known that there is a 3 to 1 ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter, which indicates to us that rabbi Yochanan requires the sukkah to be a diameter of eight amos which is substantially larger that Rebbe's opinion of four amos? According to Rebbe, it should suffice with merely twelve amos?

The Pnei Yehoshua therefore asks, Rebbe, who maintains that a sukkah must be four amos squared, according to Rabbeinu Tam would hold that it must be five and three fifth's amos squared. Accordingly, it would be required to have a circumference of twentyfour amos in a circle to contain a square of five and three fifth's amos inside of it and this would be the explanation for Rabbi Yochanan?

The Aruch Lener answers that Rabbeinu Tam was only referring to Shabbos and by sukkah where it states the requirement is four amos, it means four amos literally and not five and three fifth's amos. The Pnei Yehoshua himself hypothesized like that but rejected it with certain proofs.

One of the proofs he cites is from a Taz that riles regarding a house that is three amos by eight amos, it is exempt from a mezuzah. We have learned previously that a house must be four amos squared to be obligated in a mezuzah. The same is true regarding sukkah. One may question as to the logic of that. This house has twentyfour squared amos, which is more that four amos squared? The Pnei Yehoshua states that it must be because it is learned from the possuk al yetzei ish mimkomo, which the sages say that the place of a person is four amos and certainly a house can't be less than that. Just like the place of a person is four amos squared, so too his house or sukkah must be four amos squared. The P"Y extends that analogy and states that just like regarding Shabbos, Rabbeinu Tam maintains that four amos means five and three fifth's amos, so too regarding sukkah as well.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 8 - Rain or Shade

Kintzker Rov in Chelkas Yoav 28 rules that a sukkah does not have to be made with the intention to provide shade - it has to have the correct amount of s'chach that it can provide shade. He cites different Gemoros and Poskim to prove this. (He cites proof to this from Rashi in the beginning of the Mesechta, however I'm not sure which Rashi he is referring to).

Our Gemora states that the reason that a goy, woman or animal can make a sukkah is because a sukkah does not have to be built with the intention for the mitzva, it is valid as long as the intention was to be used for shade. This is evidently not like the Chelkas Yoav?

The Chelkas Yoav explains that it is only required to be made with the intention of providing shade if the sukkah was not being made for the sake of the mitzva, however a sukkah which is being made for the sake of mitzvas sukkah does not need to made with the intention of providing shade.

This can be used to answer another question that is asked. The Gemora on daf 2 cited an example of a sukkah that was made in a valley and is valid. One can ask how can this be, there is no shade coming from the s'chach? (There is a proof from Gemora 22 that theoratic shade is sufficient.) According to the Chelkas Yoav, we can answer that it was made for the sake of the mitzva and that is sufficient.

Rabbi Dovid Goldberg answers this question based on a Rosh that seems to say that providing shade is not the only intention one could have to validate a sukkah. If one places s'chach on a sukkah to protect him from the elements, such as rain, that also is valid.

Read more!

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!