Daf Yomi - Sukkah 22 - Keep the rain out

The Rishonim debate what the halacha would be if one constructed his Sukkah and placed the s’chach in a manner that rain would not be able to enter the Sukkah. Rashi is quoted as maintaining that the Sukkah is still valid and Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and maintains that this would be similar to a house and the Sukkah would be invalid. There is a question that is asked on the opinion of Rashi. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 640:4 rules that one should not use branches from a thornbush for s’chach because if the leaves fall into the Sukkah, one will be distressed and this will cause him to exit the Sukkah. Similarly, one cannot construct his Sukkah in a place that has a fetid smell because this will cause him to be uncomfortable and he will be exempt from his obligation. Following this logic, according to Rashi who maintains that a Sukkah is still valid if the rain cannot enter, it would seem to be preferable that one should place the s’chach in a manner that the rain cannot enter into the Sukkah. Thus, even if it does rain, he will be protected and he will be able to remain in the Sukkah. The answer to this question can be that there is a distinction between the cases. Using s’chach from a thornbush or positioning a Sukkah in a location where there is no smell is not prohibited, so logic would dictate that one build his Sukkah in a way that will not cause him distress and anguish. It is not preferable to place thick s’chach on a Sukkah, however, because then the Sukkah is similar to a house. Although Rashi validates the Sukkah ex post facto, it is still preferable not to build it in such a manner.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 22 - "Take a chill" out of the Sukkah

The Mishna states that if the s’chach that one placed on his Sukkah is thick like a house and the stars cannot be seen from inside, the Sukkah is still valid. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 631 rules that it is preferable that one should place the s’chach in a manner that the stars should be seen. Mishna Berura states that if the stars can be seen in one section of the Sukkah, that is sufficient. Rabbi Braun in his sefer Shearim Hametzuyanim B’Halacha writes that many Gedolim did not construct their Sukkahs in a manner that the stars would be seen from inside. The reason for this was that these Gedolim resided in extremely harsh climates and they preferred to be able to sleep in the Sukkah without having to leave the Sukkah because of the harsh elements. For this reason they covered their Sukkahs with thick s’chach to keep out the cold and precipitation, even though this did not allow them to sleep under the stars.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21- Lekavod Shabbos and Rosh HaShanah

The Gemara states that even the casual conversation of Torah scholars requires study. The Zohar states that a Torah scholar is in the category of Shabbos. One should be careful to minimize his speech on Shabbos. This idea is alluded to in this Gemara, because a Torah scholar, who is in the category of Shabbos, is careful with his speech.

To read more inspirational thoughts regarding Shabbos, please visit www.torahthoughts.com

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21 - Highlights

1. Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim debate whether an ohel not made by man is deemed to be an ohel regarding tumah or not. Rabbi Yehudah derives from a gezeirah shavah regarding the Mishkan that only an ohel that is made by man is susceptible to tumah, whereas the Chachamim maintain that the word ohel that is repeated regarding the mishkan comes to include even an ohel that was not man-made. (21a1)
2. There is a dispute regarding the children who were brought to the Shiloach spring to fill up water for the purpose of sprinkling on the sequestered Kohen who would perform the service of the Parah Adumah. The Tanana Kamma maintains that the children would descend into the water to fill up the cups whereas Rabbi Yose maintains that the children would remain sitting on the doors that had been placed on top of oxen and they would lower the cup by using a rope. (21a1-21a2)
3. Rabbi Yehudah agrees that an ohel that is not made by man but is as large as a fist is deemed to be an ohel regarding tumah. (21a2)
4. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that that they did not place doors on the oxen because a child would then be over-confident and he would stick his head or one of his limbs beyond the door and then he would become tamei from the kever hatehom, the grave in the deep. Rather, the child would ride directly on top of the ox and he would be afraid to lean over and thus he would not stick his head or limb out. (21a3-21b1)
5. The thesis that Rabbi Yehudah agrees that an ohel that is non man-made will be deemed to be an ohel if it is the size of a fist is challenged from our Mishna regarding sleeping under the bed in the Sukkah. The Mishnah implies that Rabbi Yehudah did not deem the bed to be an ohel because one who sleeps under the bed has fulfilled his obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah. Yet, if Rabbi Yehudah maintains that an ohel that is the size of a fist or more is an ohel, the one who sleeps under the bed should not be able to fulfill his obligation. The Gemara offers several answers to solve this difficulty. (21b1-21b2)
6. Rabbi Shimon maintains that a temporary ohel can negate a permanent ohel, whereas Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a temporary ohel cannot negate a permanent ohel. (21b2)Rabbi Shimon said that from the sichah of Rabban Gamliel we learn two things. The Gemara infers from the fact that Rabbi Shimon used the word sichah, casual conversation, and not the word dibbur, which means his words, that one must study even the casual conversation of Torah scholars. Proof to this is from the verse that states valeihu lo yibol, whose leaves do not wither, which can be interpreted to mean that even the leaves, i.e. the speech of a Torah scholar, do not wither, but his words contain teachings. (21b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21 - A bed without shade

The Mishna states that one who sleeps under a bed inside a Sukkah does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara explains that this is referring to a bed which is higher than ten tefachim, which creates a barrier between the person and the Sukkah. The Rishonim question this, as we find elsewhere that something which is even a tefach high is considered an ohel. Why, then, is there a concern only regarding a bed that is ten tefachim high? The Rif writes that the reason one does not fulfill his obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah is because the bed is ten tefachim, and this would constitute a Sukkah within a Sukkah and for this reason one does not fulfill his obligation. There are various challenges to the explanation of the Rif. The Baal HaMaor disagrees with the Rif. The Ramban in Milchamos offers a novel approach that explains why one who sleeps under a bed inside the Sukkah does not fulfill his obligation. The Ramban writes that the s’chach on top of the Sukkah is deemed to be invalid with regard to the space under the bed. The reason for this is because the s’chach cannot provide shade under the bed as the bed is providing shade. One would assume that the Sukkah should be valid, but one cannot fulfill his obligation. Thus, according to the Ramban, the Sukkah is invalid with regard to the one sleeping under the bed, because the Sukkah is not providing the person with shade.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21 - Halachic Article

I linked to this halachic article in the post regarding supports for the s'chach, however after looking at it again, I saw how comprehensive this article is regarding many halachos and specifically pertaining to a canvas sukkah. He deals with the s'chach, walls, maris ayin and many other halachic issues. It is well worth it to look there and my suggestion is to print it out as well.
I am not stating that this should be the psak halacha for you, however it is well written, extensive and cites many sources that will give you an extremely informative background and more on many sukkah related halachos. Enjoy.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 21 - Supports for the S'chach

The Gemara states that one should not support the s’chach with something that is susceptible to tumah. Since many people are currently engaged in constructing their Sukkah, it would be appropriate to mention some of the halachos pertaining to the support for the s’chach. These halachos are quoted with sources in the Sefer Nitei Gavriel from Rav Gavriel Zinner. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 629 rules that it is preferable not to place the s’chach on something which is susceptible to tumah. It is also preferable that one should not place something which is susceptible to tumah on top of the s’chach in order that the s’chach should not scatter or fall. This issue was discussed previously on Daf 13 regarding kernels of grain here. This Halacha is true even if it is only rabbinically susceptible to tumah.There are authorities who maintain that the supporting beams for the s’chach should not be more than four tefachim wide whereas other opinions maintain that this is not a necessary requirement. One is allowed to place the s’chach directly on a stone wall but some opinions rule stringently and maintain that one should place reeds on top of the wall under the s’chach. Most halachic authorities rule that one does not have to be particular regarding the supports for the supporting beams of the s’chach. The Pri Megadim, however, rules that one should not attach his supports to the Sukkah with nails and pegs in a manner that without those supports the boards would fall. The Chazon Ish rules similarly. If one would use screws in order that the beams should not move from their positions, this would not be a concern.Even if one supports the s’chach with something that is susceptible to tumah, and certainly if he has no other option, it does not invalidate the Sukkah.

I noticed this halachic article pertaining to a canvas sukkah and regarding supporting the s'chach and I think it is worth looking at.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 20 - Food Under a Bed

The Mishna rules that if one sleeps underneath a bed, he will not fulfill his obligation of sukkah. Rashi states that the primary things one does in a sukkah is eat, drink and sleep. Sheorim Mitzuyanim B'halacha points out that it is obvious to him as to why the Mishna didn't state eating under a sukkah because it is forbidden to eat under a bed as is learned in Gemora Pesachim 112a 'food or drink which is under a bed will have an evil spirit hovering over it'.

The Toras Chaim writes that it is well known that sleep is 1/60th of death because the soul of a person leaves him at night and that is the reason there is an obligation to wash one's hands in the morning to remove the tumah which was on him during the night. It is for this reason that one shouldn't leave food under a bed because when the person is sleeping on the bed, it constitutes a 'hel hames', as if the food is situated in the same room with a corpse. It is evident from here that the concern is food under a bed only at night and only when the person is sleeping there.

The Poskim do permit the food expo-facto.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 20 - Not my Post Dear by David

Rashi q.v. “or sheratzim” gives, as an example, an “ishus”. Now it is very interesting to observe that in Hebrew the same word “ishus” can refer to a woman or to a shrew, for in English we find the same thing (and a pity to all the men who understand this all too clearly). Also interesting, the biblical source for this word can be found in Psalms 58:9, where the commentators debate if the word “aishes” therein refers to a woman or to a shrew.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 20 - Different Version by David

“we used to sleep under the bed in front of the elders”. The version found in the Rif is “beds”, in the plural, which makes a little more sense.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 20 - Yeshivos in Bavel by David

When Torah was forgotten, Ezra arose . . . Hillel of Bavel arose . . . Rav Chiah arose . . .. Rashi comments that Hillel came from Bavel, “and yeshivos had been established in Bavel since the days that the “cherish umasgar” had been exiled from Israel” just before the destruction of the first temple. However, Rashi in Gittin 6a states that there were no yeshivos in Bavel until Rav established the first on in Sura, some 7-800 years or so after the exile. Indeed, it is very difficult to definitely establish when Bavel emerged as the Torah powerhouse it became, and perhaps this difficulty prompted Tosfos to explain different from Rashi, that Hillel came from Bavel “where they had learned from Shamaya and Avtalyon”.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 19 - Highlights

The Mishna on daf 17 ruled 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. Abaye, who maintains that a wall can be created by applying the principle of "the tip of the roof extends down and we close" is forced to explain this Mishna that it is referring to a case where he made the s'chach level with the roof of the porch. This prevents the edge of the roof to be seen and therefore it cannot be extended downward.

In Pumpadisa they learned the argument between Abaye and Rava differently. They argued in a case where there were pillars in the front of the porch and they were spaced within three tefachim of each other. The debate is based on the question if lavud can be applied in a case where these pillars were intended for the porch and not for the sukkah.

In this version it was agreed upon that without pillars, the sukkah is disqualified, yet Rav Ashi chanced upon Rav Kahana sitting in such a sukkah. Rav Kahana explained to him that his sukkah had a wall because there was a pillar that was flush on one side yet visible on the other side and that is deemed as a wall.

A Braisa is cited that states that s'chach which protrudes from a sukkah is also regarded as a sukkah. There are several different explanations as to what the case is referring to. Ula learns that the s'chach and the walls extend outward from the back of the sukkah forming another sukkah and that is valid even though the center wall was intended for the other side. Rabbah and Rav Yosef learn that it is referring to where one of the outside walls extends further than the other one and the entire sukkah is deemed valid. Rav Yochanan understands it to mean that a minor part of the sukkah has more sunlight than shade, yet we are not concerned and even that part is valid. Rabbi Yoshia learns that it is referring to a case where there is less than three tefachim of ineligible s'chach.

The Gemora makes a distinction between ineligible s'chach less than three tefachim and open space less than three tefachim. The Gemora states that they both combine to complete the minimum measurement of a sukkah, however one you can sleep under and fulfill your obligation and one you cannot. Rashi learns that one can sleep under the ineligible s'chach but he can't sleep under the open space.

The Mishna cites an argument if one leans a wall against another one if the sukkah is valid. One Tanna maintains that it is disqualified because there is no roof. The Gemora cites cases where he would agree that it is valid.

There is a debate in the Mishna if one can use mats for s'chach. Some mats are susceptible to becoming tamei and thereby unfit to be used as s'chach. There is a discussion at length as to the distinctions between a large one which is usually intended for covering a sukkah and a small one which is intended for sleeping purposes. The Gemora discusses what the halacha would be if there was no specific intention.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 18 - Highlights

A sukkah that is eight amos precisely and one alternates between beams four tefachim wide and valid s'chach four tefachim wide, the sukkah is valid even according to the opinion that holds beams four tefachim wide disqualify a sukkah. The reasoning is because the sukkah will have eight contiguous tefachim of valid s'chach and with the principle of dofan akumah, the sukkah will be valid.

Abaye maintains that if one has an open area of more than three tefachim in a large sukkah, the sukkah will be valid if he reduces the open area by placing valid or even invalid s'chach in that area. If it is a small sukkah, it must be reduced through eligible s'chach.

The Gemora cites a debate regarding a sukkah that has less than three tefachim of open area in the middle of the sukkah. One opinion holds that the principle of lavud can only be applied on the side of the sukkah but not in the middle. Proofs to both opinions from halachos regarding eruvin and tumah are cited and refuted.

A tzachanta fish originating from the Bav river was ruled to be kosher because the mud there doesn't support the growth of the unkosher fish. However, they subsequently ruled that these fish are prohibited because there are other rivers that now flow into the Bav River.

If a person placed s'chach on a porch that has pillars in front of it, the sukkah is valid. This is referring to a porch where the roof is more than four amos away from the house wall and thus the principle of dofan akumah would not apply. The pillars are deemed to be walls because they are spaced less than three tefachim away from each other and with the principle of lavud, the gaps are regarded as closed.

If however, there are no pillars in front of it, there is a debate between Abaye and Rava. Abaye maintains that the sukkah is valid because we apply the principle of "the tip of the roof extends down and we close." Rava disagrees with this and holds that the sukkah is not valid.

The Gemora cites an argument between Rav and Shmuel regarding a pavilion in a valley and deliberates if it is analagous to the debate between Abaye and Rava. Rav maintains that one is allowed to carry on Shabbos inside the pavilion because we apply the principle of "the tip of the roof extends down and we close." Shmuel disagrees and rules that one is only permitted to carry within his four amos. The Gemora concludes that they are not parallel because Rav would hold of this principle only by the pavilion where the walls were made for it, however by the porch, the walls descending from the roof were intended for the porch and not for the sukkah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 19 - Careful where you Sleep

The Gemora makes a distinction between ineligible s'chach less than three tefachim and open space less than three tefachim. The Gemora states that they both combine to complete the minimum measurement of a sukkah, however one you can sleep under and fulfill your obligation and one you cannot. Rashi learns that one can sleep under the ineligible s'chach but he can't sleep under the open space.

The Taz in O"C 632:4 explains the distinction by saying that open space is much more noticeable than ineligible s'chach and therefore one cannot sleep underneath the open area.

Tosfos asks on Rashi that if one cannot sleep under an open space area even if it less than three tefachim, where can one sleep? It is almost impossible not to have a s'chach with some opening?

The Rosh answers that this is not a concern because air space is only a problem if it is running across the entire length or width of the sukkah and that a person could be careful to avoid.

The Reshash is baffled as to why tosfos didn't answer this himself when Tosfos on the previous daf stated this in regards to the opinion who holds that the principle of lavud does not apply in the middle of the sukkah, we are still not concerned about pockets of air space because it is not running across the entire sukkah. Why did Tosfos choose to ignore this here?

There are Acharonim who attempt to answer this question.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 19 - Nothing into Something and Vice Versa

The Chacham Tzvi (59) rules that we cannot apply the principle of lavud when there is something in between. The source for this seems to be a Tosfos on our daf that states regarding ineligible s'chach less than three tefachim, that we cannot utilize lavud to consider the ineligible s'chach as if it would be valid s'chach (this would be beneficial to sleep under this area) because there presently is ineligible s'chach there.

A question is asked on this concept from a Gemora on daf 4. It is learned that if a sukkah is less than ten tefachim high and one dug a pit seven tefachim squared in the middle of the floor so that the sukkah is completed to a depth of ten tefachim, the sukkah will be valid if there is less than three tefachim between the edge of the pit and the sukkah wall. The reason why this sukkah is valid is because there is less than three tefachim from the pit to where the walls of this sukkah are situated. According to Tosfos and the Chacham Tzvi, how can we apply lavud there, when there is the ground (ledge) between the pit and the wall?

The Avnei Neizer O"C 309b resolves this question by explaining the concept of lavud. Lavud can function by creating something from nothing or it can make nothing from something. When there is open space less than three tefachim, the gap gets filled up and closed by its surroundings. This is evident from Rashi in Eruvin 9a that translates lavud as an extender. Likewise, when there is something separating a pit from the wall, lavud can extend the pit and transpose the ground to be considered open space.

The explanation in our Tosfos is that when there is ineligible s'chach less than three tefachim surrounded by valid s'chach, we cannot transpose the ineligible s'chach to nothing because there is valid s'chach surrounding it. We cannot consider this space as valid s'chach either because there is ineligible s'chach there presently.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 18 - Mimonofshoch

The Gemora cites a dispute between Rav Acha and Ravina if we apply the principle of lavud in the middle of a sukkah. If there is an area of open space less than three tefachim running across the entire length of the sukkah, we would need to attach the two sides together to close the gap in order for the sukkah to be valid. There is a debate amongst the Rishonim if this argument pertaints solely to a small sukkah or even to a large sukkah. Tosfos maintains that lavud would be required even in relevance to a large sukkah.

Tosfos on the previous daf speculates as to what the halacha would 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?

Reb Akiva Eiger asks that mimonofshoch, either way, the sukkah should be disqualified for we are compelled to utilize lavud in this case, for if not, the sukkah is invalidated not because of the ineligible s'chach, but rather due to the fact that there is an open space that needs to be closed. If we apply lavud to close the gap to avoid the concern of the open area, the sukkah will become disqualified because of the combination of the two sides of ineligible s'chach totaling four tefachim. If we do not utilize lavud, the sukkah should be disqualified due to the open space?

In summary, how can we use lavud to close the gap and discard lavud to combine the two sides?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 18 - Kasha from my 11 Year Old

We learned in Mishna Berura last week that open space is stricter than ineligible s'chach. If there are three tefachim of air space on a sukkah, the sukkah is disqualified, yet four tefachim (or four amos according to one opinion) of ineligible s'chach is necessary to invalidate a sukkah.

This week, we learned in halacha that a shofar with a hole in it (open space) is valid (there are some conditions to this), yet if one would close it up with material dissimilar to that of a shofar, it would disqualify the shofar. Here we see that ineligible material is stricter than open space (the hole)?

I'm impressed.

Read more!

Rosh Hashana

Please take the time to read some of our postings on Elul and Rosh Hashana at http://dafnotesdiscussion.blogspot.com/
Wishing you a K'siva V'chasima Tova

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 18 - Halacha L'Moshe Misinai x 2

The Gemora cites a dispute between Rav Acha and Ravina if we apply the principle of lavud in the middle of a sukkah. If there is an area of open space less than three tefachim running across the entire length of the sukkah, we would need to attach the two sides together to close the gap in order for the sukkah to be valid. They agree that lavud can apply at the side of the sukkah. If there is an open space wider than three tefachim, it must be filled up with s'chach to ensure that the gap is lesss than three tefachim.

The Ran rules that the s'chach must be placed adjacent to the s'chach and not on the side of the wall. If placed by the wall, the sukkah will still be disqualified because we would need to rely on two halacho l'moshe misinai principles, firstly - dofan akumah accomplishing that the s'chach which is next to the wall is deemed to be part of the wall and secondly - lavud will subsuquently close the open gap and attach the s'chach to the new wall. Two halachos cannot be applied at the same time, thus the sukkah will be disqualified.

This is parallel to another of the Ran's rulings regarding more than four tefachim of ineligible s'chach adjacent to the wall and the wall of the sukkah does not reach the s'chach. To validate the sukkah, we must apply two halacho l'moshe misinai principles and that cannot be done. We must extend the walls to reach the s'chach with the principle of gud asik and then apply the concept of dofan akumah for otherwise the ineligible s'chach will disqualify the sukkah.

Reb Akiva Eiger explains that the Ran does not simply mean that two halachos cannot be applied in one instance, rather if one halacho is dependent on another halacho l'moshe misinai, they cannot be applied. Each of the halachos is required to stand on its own merit. In the latter case of the Ran, we cannot apply the principle of dofan akumah until we rectify the wall to remove the air space. (Dofan Akumah cannot be applied when open space is present.) Gud asik must be applied first to extend the walls and then we can contemplate dofan akumah. The Ran maintains that this is not allowed.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 18 - Abbreviating Taharos by David

Tosfos q.v. “ain” asserts that the custom of the gemara is to abbreviate references to taharos. Now Rashi on 14a states quite to the contrary, that the Gemara seizes the opportunity to elaborate on mishnayos that deal with taharos. Granted one can distinguish between elaborating upon a mishna already cited ( the case Rashi deals with) from simply citing to Tahraos, but nevertheless, Rashi and Tosfos do appear to articulate two different viewpoints.

Read more!

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!