Daf Yomi - Sukkah 26 - Highlights

1. A bridegroom and all the members of his party are exempt from the mitzvah of Tefillah and Tefillin, but they are obligated in reciting Shema. It is said in the name of Rabbi Shila that the bridegroom is exempt from reciting Shema but the members of the bridegroom’s party are obligated in reciting Shema. (25b4-26a1)
2. Scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin and mezuzos, along with the merchants and merchants’ merchants, including those who sell tzitzis, are exempt from reciting Shema, from Tefillah and from Tefillin and all other mitzvos. This ruling is based on the principle that one who is engaged in one mitzvah is exempt from performing other mitzvos. (26a1)
3. One who is traveling on the road is exempt from the mitzvah of Sukkah at the time that he is traveling. One is who traveling for the purpose of a mitzvah is exempt even when he is not traveling because he is constantly preoccupied with the fulfillment of the mitzvah. (26a1)
4. The Gemara rules that a sick person is exempt from the mitzvah of Sukkah even if his life is not endangered. The reason for this ruling is because one who is under duress is exempt from dwelling in a Sukkah as the mitzvah of Sukkah is to dwell in a Sukkah in the same manner as one would dwell in his house. (26a3)
5. One is allowed to eat a snack outside of the Sukkah but he is not allowed to nap outside of the Sukkah. The reason why he cannot even nap outside of the Sukkah is because we are concerned that he will fall into a deep sleep. (26a3-26a4)
6. The Gemara discusses the time frame of napping and this is relevant to halachos regarding Tefillin where there are opinions that one can nap even while wearing his Tefillin.(26a4-26a5-26b1)The Mishna states that if one eats food that is less than the size of an egg, he is not obligated to sit in the Sukkah. The Mishna relates an incident where they brought in front of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai and Rabban Gamliel food to taste and they would not taste the food until it was brought into the Sukkah. The Gemara explains that this story indicates that if one wants to be stringent on himself and eat even a snack inside the Sukkah, he is permitted to do so. (26b2-26b3)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 26 - Quoted from the Mishna

The Mishna states that if one eats food that measures less than the size of an egg, he is not obligated to sit in the Sukkah. The Mishna relates an incident where they brought in front of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai and Rabban Gamliel food to taste and they would not taste the food until it was brought into the Sukkah. The Gemara explains that this story indicates that if one wants to be stringent on himself and eat even a snack inside the Sukkah, he is permitted to do so. The Gemara in Yoma 79 cites this Mishna and concludes the citation by stating that the reason that the rabbis ate in the Sukkah was not because the Halacha is like that. Rather, it was because the rabbis wanted to be strict on themselves. The Oneg Yom Tov writes that from the text of the Gemara it would seem that the conclusion is part of the Mishna when in fact, it is an addition of the Gemara. The Oneg Yom Tov writes that this is a rule throughout the Talmud that when a Gemara qualifies a statement of the Mishna, the Mishna can be quoted with the addition of the Gemara as if the addition of the Gemara is part of the Mishna. It is noteworthy that Tosfos in Yoma expresses the same idea as mentioned by the Oneg Yom Tov. Reb Yeshaya Pik in his glosses to the Gemara in Yoma notes that it would seem from the words of Tosfos that Tosfos did not have the same version of the Gemara that we have. Our text explicitly states the words vetoni aloh, and a Baraisa taught concerning this Mishnah. According to our version of the Gemara, there would be no proof to the concept expressed by Tosfos and the Oneg Yom Tov.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 26 - Frummies

The Mishna states that if one eats food that measures less than the size of an egg, he is not obligated to sit in the Sukkah. The Mishna relates an incident where they brought in front of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai and Rabban Gamliel food to taste and they would not taste the food until it was brought into the Sukkah. The Gemara explains that this story indicates that if one wants to be stringent on himself and eat even a snack inside the Sukkah, he is permitted to do so. Mahretz Chayus raises a difficulty with this Gemara from the ruling of the Rema in Orach Chaim 639 who rules that one who is exempt from Sukkah and nevertheless sits in the Sukkah is referred to as a hedyot, a commoner. It seems from the words of the Rema that acting in a stricter manner is not viewed favorably. The Mahretz Chayus answers that the reason one should not be overly strict with regard to himself is so he should not appear haughty. Thus, every situation must be judged individually. Regarding the case of the Gemara where one eats a snack inside the Sukkah, people will say that he is eating a little now but he intends to eat more at a later time and for that reason he is sitting in the Sukkah. Regarding one who sits in the Sukkah while it is raining, however, there is no room to justify his actions and therefore doing so is frowned upon.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 26 - Heoros by David

26a – the Gemara says “the guarantor himself needs a guarantor”. This phrase is repeated in Gittin 28b, and there Rav Reuven Margolios notes that the Rambam attributes this phrase to be an Arabic expression, and did note that the Gemara itself says the same thing.

26a – “he placed his head between his knees”. This was a common position which the early kabbalists used for meditation. See the many books by R’ Aryeh Kaplan z’l on the subject. My own speculation is that it is reminiscent of the fetal position, the same position a baby is in when he learns the entire Torah through an angel, as recorded in Niddah.

26a – Rashi q.v. “holchei derachim”. etc. I think this Rashi implies that there is no problem with working on Cholo shel moed. However, Reb Tzvi Berkowitz shlita does not believe one can draw this inference from this Rashi, and directed my attention to Rashi in Chagigah 18a, which holds explicitly to the contrary.

26a – Rashi q.v. “portzah” – its worthwhile to note that the common word “hedyot” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word “idiot”. It’s original connation simply meant “commoner”, and it’s meaning has since changed. ( Similar to the way word “vulgar” and the Yiddish word “prost” now mean much worse than simply “common”, which was their original meaning).

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Eating Neveila while Performing a Mitzva

Tosfos maintains that one who is busy with the mitzva of returning someone's lost object is exempt from giving tzedaka to a poor person. Busy is defined as being involved and preoccupied with the lost object, such as feeding an animal.

Maharatz Chayus is bothered with a strong question on tosfos. He states that besides for there being a positive commandment of sustaining the poor, there is a lo saaseh of closing one's hand by not giving the poor person. This is why beis din can compel someone to give tzedaka for there is a lav as well. if so, he asks, there cannot be an exemption of giving tzedaka to an oni when he is involved with a lost object for the principle of osek b'mitzva only applies by a positive commandment and not by a neative one?

Would someone who is busy performing a mitzva be permitted to eat neveila?

He leaves this question unresolved.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Travelling to Learn by David

Rashi gives as an example of “osek bemitzvah”, one who is going to study Torah. Now why can’t he study where he is? How is traveling to learn considered involvement with a mitzvah? Is it not, at best, hechser mitzvah, preperatropy to the mitzvah, but not actually the mitzvah itself?

The answer is, “no”. Shulcah aruch in Yoreh Deah 240:25 says that a son has no obligation to respect his fathers wishes to remain behind, if the son feels he will be able to learn better in a particular place, or with a particular teacher. This is true even if the student is not 100% sure. (Pischei teshivah, loc cit). “One cannot always learn from simply anyone” – Eruvin 47b.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Wedding Thoughts by David

What is the factor that weighs on a man’s mind on his wedding night? It cannot simply be his inexperience with conjugal relations, b/c then why would there be no concerns before a man marrying a widow? (Unless we assume that the gemara itself assumes that only a widower or divorcee, ie, an experienced person, would marry a widow). Rather, the factor that weighs on the mind, according to the gemara, is the removal of the hymen. See Berachos 16 a, and the Bertinora.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Osek B'mitzva by Reb Jay

Shluchei mitzva are patur from sitting in the sukka, because of
oseik b'mitzva patur min hamitzva. Rashi writes that this refers
to going to learn Torah, or to see his Rebbi, or pidyon shevuyim.
Tosfos notes that he is patur from the sukka only in a case
where if he would sit in the sukka, he would be dealyed or
unable to perform these other mitzvos, otherwise, there is no
patur of oseik b'mitzva patur min hamitzva. The Ran writes that
while a person is being Oisek bmitzva, he is patur from other
mitzvos, even if it is possible to fulfill both of them. This is the
reason, writes the Ran, that a groom is patur from krias Shema,
as although he could find the time to say it, since he is tarud in a
mitzva, the Torah does not obligate him to do another mitzva. A
nafka mina between Tosfos and the Ran would be
...Read more

a person on
the way to do pidyon shevuyim who finds a lost object, and the
owner of the object will be at the destination of the person going
to do pidyon shevuyim. Tosfos would say that since doing the
mitzva of hashavas aveida doess not delay the mitzva of pidyon
shevuyim, he is obligated in the mitzva, while the Ran would
say that since he is involved in the mitzva of pidyon shevuyim,
the Torah is not mechayev him whatsoever in the mitzva of
pidyon shevuyim (today, in any case, we have lost the ability to
be so focused on one mitzva, and even the Ran would agree that
he is obligated in the mitzva). Rav Akiva Eiger asks how can the
Gemara learn the limud of oseik b'mitzva patur min hamitzva
from a groom and from Korban Pesach (that those who were
oisek with the coffin of Yoseph were patur from the Korban
Pesach), both those cases involve a shev v'al tasay, while the
case of sukka involves a lo sa'asay of eating outside the sukka?
Rav Akiva Eiger answers that there is no lo sa'asay of eating
outside the sukka, only an asay to eat in the sukka, and if a
person eats outside the sukka, he is mevatel an asay which is a
shev v'al tasay, so there is no problem. Another answer could
be, that while Korban Pesach is a mitzvos asay, it is an asay
sheyeish bo kares (the only other asay that has a chiyuv of kares
for not performing the mitzva is Bris Milah), which gives it a
similarity to a lo sa'asay, and is thus a good rayah.
Rav Moshe Shternbuch asks why is a person required to stop
davening to answer, or in some cases merely stop davening and
listen to (depending on where he is up to)kedusha, he is Oisek
bmitzva and is therefore patur from other mitzvos? He answers
that a person is patur from a mitzva only when he is being oisek
in a different mitzva, but if it is part of the same mitzva--in this
case tefila--he is chayov.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - A Sukkah in Mourning

Rav Acha rules that a mourner is obligated in the mitzva of sukkah. The Gemora explains why this is a novel ruling for we might thought he would be exempt from the mitzva based on the ruling that one who is suffering is exempt from the mitzva of sukkah and a mourner is in anguish, the Gemora teaches us that he's nevertheless obligated.

The Rosh explains this Gemora by stating that a mourner wants to be in solitude and he would rather be in his house enabling him to think about the recent loss and this is causing him grief, the Gemora teaches that the exemption of sitting in a sukkah due to suffering is only when it comes by itself, however here he is bringing this anguish upon himself and it is incumbent on him to appease his mind, thereby obligating himself in the mitzva of sukkah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Pe'er-Tefillin shel Rosh only?

Rav Dovid Goldberg quotes Rabbeinu Avraham min HaHar who writes that pe’er of Tefillin is because it is said vrau kol amei haaretz ki sheim HaShem nikra olecho veyaru mimeka, and the Gemara in Brachos states these are Tefillin shel Rosh. Rav Goldberg wonders then why an aveil is exempt from Tefillin shel yad which does not seem to be included in pe'er. Rav Goldberg suggests that the passuk that states veyaru mimeka refers to Tefillin shel Rosh because they are visible, whereas the Tefillin shel yad are not visible. Rav Goldberg concludes that in reality, even Tefillin shel yad are referred to as pe’er. The Meshech Chochmah at the end of Parashas Bo writes that we say in Vehu Rachum on Monday and Thursday ad masai uzcho bashvi vsiferatecho beyad tzar. Oz is Tefillin shel yad, and tiferes is Tefillin shel Rosh. The Meshech Chochmah seems to imply that tiferes-pe’er only refers to the Tefillin shel Rosh. Yet, the Meshech Chochmah himself in parshas Beshalach writes that both oz and pe’er refer to Tefillin. Perhaps when oz and tiferes are written together, one can distinguish between the Tefillin shel yad and the Tefillin shel Rosh. Rashi in Ta’anis 16a and other Rishonim in Mode Katan, Kesubos and Bava Basra seem to imply that pe’er refers only to Tefillin shel Rosh. I also wonder if there is a distinction between tiferes and pe’er, which seem to be the same shoresh, yet imply different connotations. The Mishna Berurah in Hilchos Tisha B’Av quotes the Medrash that states that the passuk that states hishlich mishamayim tiferes Yisroel refers to Tefillin, and that is why we do not wear Tefillin on Tisha B’Av morning.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Yedias HaTorah and Yegias HaTorah

Rav Soloveitchek writes that when the Mishna mentions shluchei mitzvah, Rashi explains that these are people who are going to study Torah, and this refers to the aspect of yegias HaTorah, toiling in Torah. There is another aspect of Torah which is yedias HaTorah, knowing Torah. Rav Soloveitchek writes that the Rambam divides the two aspects of Torah in Hilchos Talmud Torah. I wonder how it is possible for one to fulfill the mitzvah of yedias HaTorah without yegias HaTorah. It seem that Rav Soloveitchek is saying that one can fulfill the mitzvah of yedias HaTorah by studying Torah and one can also fulfill the mitzvah of yegias HaTorah by being yageia in Torah. It is also not clear why according to Rav Soloveitchek one who is going to be yageia in Torah is called a shliach mitzvah as opposed to one who is going to be yodeia Torah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Oseik bemitzvah derabanan exempting mitvah medoraisa

Rav Elchonen in Kovetiz Shiurim 2:32 and the Sdei Chemed (maareches oseik page 436) discuss whether the principle of one being exempt from one mitzvah when engaged in another mitzvah applies when the mitzvah one is engaged in is derabannan and the other mitzvah awaiting him is deoraisa. The Sdei Chemed quotes the Rashba who writes that from our Gemara it is evident that one who is engaged in a mitzvah derabannan is exempt from a mitzvah deoraisa. The Mitzpei Aisan on Daf 10b wonders why one who is going to receive his teacher, which is only a mitzvah derabannan, should be exempt from dwelling in a Sukkah, which is a mitzvah deoraisa. The Mitzpei Aisan quotes a Ran in Shabbos who writes that a mitzvah derabannan does not override a mitzvah deoraisa even by saying sheiv vaal taaseh. Rather, a mitzvah deoraisa will override a mitzvah derabannan with sheiv vaal taaseh. Reb Dovid Goldberg here quotes the Bikkurei Yaakov who writes that receiving one’s teacher on Yom Tov is a mitzvah deoraisa of es HaShem Elokecha tira, which comes to include talmidei Chachamim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 25 - Hosting guests overrides receiving the Shechinah

The Gemara discusses the halacha of oseik bimitzvah patur min hamitzvah, one who is engaged in the performance of one mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah. The question is raised with regard to Avraham Avinu who was receiving the Shechinah after he had been circumcised. When the angels came to visit him, Avraham left the Shechinah and went to attend to the guests. Why did Avraham not employ the principle of one who is engaged in one mitzvah, i.e. receiving the Shechinah, is exempt from performing another mitzvah, i.e. hosting the guests? I heard from Rav Chaim Uri Freund Shlita that Rav Noach Weinberg asked this questions and Rav Noach suggested that when Avraham was engaged in receiving the Shechinah, he then became aware of the necessity of performing the mitzvah of greeting guests. It is noteworthy that the Gemara in Shabbos states that from Avraham Avinu we derive the principle that receiving guests is greater than receiving the Shechinah. The Gemara should have challenged this principle based on the idea that one who is engaged in one mitzvah is exempt from other mitzvos. The mitzvah of receiving the Shechinah appears to be the mitzvah of uledavka bo, one is obligated to cleave to HaShem. According to the Netziv in Heemek Davar, Avraham was engaged in loving HaShem and receiving the Shechinah, and he was performing the mitzvah of loving HaShem. The Netziv writes that when one is engaged in the mitzvah of loving HaShem, he is obligated to interrupt his thoughts and perform another mitzvah, because the mitzvah of loving HaShem has no time frame. This, the Netziv writes, is the meaning of the Gemara in Shabbos that states that hosting guests is greater than receiving the Shechinah. This means that the action of hosting guests overrides the mitzvah of loving HaShem which has no time frame. (See there further). Receiving guests can be a number of mitzvos, such as gemilus chasadim (Netziv) or even vehalachta bedrachav, one should emulate HaShem. Just as HaShem is compassionate, also you must be compassionate.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 24 - Missile Attack

Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein in his sefer on Sukkah relates a question that came to him during the recent war in Israel with Hezbollah. A man purchased some items on credit from a store before Shabbos. Shabbbos morning, a barrage of missiles rained down on the city and this particular store was demolished, there was nothing salvagable left. The man wanted to know if he was still obligated to pay his debt. He claimed that if he would not have bought those items, they would have been destroyed anyways. The Rav ruled that he is obligated to pay for the debt was incurred before the missile attack.

Rav Zilberstain wondered as to what the halacha would be if the missiles were already launched when the fellow made his purchase.

[The connection to the daf is the Gemora states that there is a concern for the barrel bursting before Shabbos is over thereby preventing the person from separating terumah and maaser after Shabbos.]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 24 - Huff n' Puff and Blow those Walls Down

The Gemara states that the walls of a Sukkah have to be able to withstand a usual wind. The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnayos writes that the walls of the Sukkah must be strong enough that the wind will not blow them down. It would seem from the words of the Rambam that it is sufficient if the walls do not fall down, even if they sway in the wind. From Rabbi Yosef Kapach’s edition of the Rambam, however, it appears that the Rambam maintains that the walls cannot sway at all. The Ritva writes explicitly that the walls cannot sway. Sefer Emek Bracha understands the Rambam in Mishneh Torah to be in accordance with the opinion of the Ritva. There is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai that states that the walls must be sturdy enough that they do not sway in the wind. This would also be the explanation of the Magen Avraham’s ruling that if the Sukkah was enclosed and the walls were such that if the Sukkah was located outside, the walls would fall, the Sukkah is invalid. The reason for this is because there is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai that states that the walls must be strong and if the walls are not sturdy enough, the Sukkah is deemed to be lacking walls and the Sukkah is thus invalid. Based on this reasoning, we can resolve a question that is posed by some of the Acharonim. The Acharonim wonder what the Halacha would be if a Sukkah has sturdy walls but it cannot withstand an unusual wind. When an unusual wind blows and the walls sway in the wind, is the Sukkah still deemed to be valid while the walls are blowing? We can suggest that the Sukkah would be valid because the requirement of a Sukkah wall is that the wall can withstand a usual wind and a Sukkah with sturdy walls can certainly withstand a usual wind. Although the Sukkah sways in the wind, we are not concerned and the Sukkah is deemed to be valid.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 24 - Canvas

When one uses a canvas Sukkah, there is a concern that the walls will flap in the wind and this will invalidate the walls. The Poskim suggest that one can tie ropes or reeds from one side of the Sukkah to the other. The ropes or reeds must be within three tefachim of each other, thus applying the principle of lavud, and this would obviate the need for the canvas walls. The Chazon Ish rules that the walls cannot sway more than three tefachim. One must wonder if this means that the walls cannot sway three tefachim in each direction or does it mean that the walls cannot sway three tefachim entirely.
I did notice an interesting discussion here and it continues here and concludes here.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 24 - Highlights

1. The Gemara concludes that Rabbi Meir maintains that we are concerned for the possibility of death and for this reason one cannot use an animal as the wall of a Sukkah. Rabbi Meir is not concerned, however, that a barrel will burst, and for this reason one can drink the wine in a barrel on Shabbos. He can then rely on the fact that he will separate terumah and Maaser from the wine after Shabbos. If there was a concern that the barrel might break, we would not permit such a leniency because he may never be able to separate the terumah and Maaser. (24a1)
2. Rabbi Yehudah does not allow one to drink from the wine and rely on the fact that he will separate terumah and Maaser after Shabbos because Rabbi Yehudah does not hold of the principle of breira, retroactive clarification. In this case the principle of breira would dictate that the wine that he will separate in the future for terumah and Maaser is already deemed to have been separated now. (24a1)
3. The Gemara cites two other reasons why an animal cannot be used as the wall of a Sukkah. One reason is because Rabbi Meir maintains that a wall that stands only because of breath is not deemed to be a wall. Alternatively, it is only deemed to be a wall if it is made by man. (24a3)
4. There are several halachos that the Gemara mentions regarding a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yose HaGlili maintains that a bill of divorce cannot be written on an animal. There is a halacha that states that a man can only divorce his wife with a bill of divorce but he cannot divorce her with money. A man cannot divorce his wife by stipulating a condition that will be in effect for her entire life because a conditional divorce of this nature is not deemed to be a separation between a man and his wife. (24b1-24b2)
5. The Mishna rules that if one constructs his Sukkah between trees and the trees are serving as the walls of the Sukkah, the Sukkah is valid. The Gemara states that the walls of the Sukkah must be able to withstand a usual wind. One must ensure that the trees do not sway to and fro because walls that sway are invalid. (24b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 23 - Highlights

1. The Mishna rules that if one constructs a Sukkah on top of a wagon or a boat, it is valid and one is permitted to enter the wagon or boat on Yom Tov. If one constructs a Sukkah on top of a tree or a camel, it is valid and one is prohibited to enter it on Yom Tov. (22b2)
2. The Gemara cites a dispute regarding a Sukkah on a boat. Rabban Gamliel invalidates such a Sukkah and Rabbi Akiva validates it. The Gemara relates an incident where Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva were on a boat and Rabbi Akiva constructed a Sukkah. The next day, a gust of wind blew the Sukkah off the boat. Rabbi Gamliel then said to Rabbi Akiva, “Akiva, where is your Sukkah now?” (23a1)
3. Abaye explains that if the Sukkah would not be able to withstand a usual wind on dry land, the Sukkah is invalid according to all opinions. If the Sukkah could withstand an unusual wind, it is certainly valid. The dispute is regarding a case where the Sukkah can withstand a usual wind blowing on dry land but the Sukkah would not be able to withstand a usual wind on the sea. (23a1)
4. The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah whether a Sukkah constructed on top of an animal is valid or not. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukkah must be fit to be used for all seven days and since this Sukkah cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Tov because of the Rabbinic injunction against riding on an animal, this Sukkah is invalid. Rabbi Meir, however, maintains that the Sukkah is valid because the Sukkah is Biblically fit for all seven days and the fact that it is not rabbinically fit does not invalidate the Sukkah. (23a1-23a2)
5. There is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah if one is allowed to use an animal as a wall for a Sukkah. Rabbi Meir maintains that such a Sukkah is invalid, whereas Rabbi Yehudah maintains that such a Sukkah is valid. Rabbi Meir enumerates many instances where the use of anything that is alive is invalid for use. (23a2)
6. There is a dispute regarding the reason Rabbi Meir invalidates a Sukkah where the animal is used as a wall. Abaye maintains that we are concerned that the animal will die and the Sukkah will be without one of its required walls. Rabbi Zeira maintains that we are concerned that the animal may run away, thus leaving the Sukkah without one of its required walls. (23a2-23a3)
7. Abaye understands that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the possibility of death. The Gemara questions this thesis from a Mishna in Gittin that states that if a daughter of a non-Kohen was married to a Kohen, we do not have to be concerned that her husband might die when he has traveled abroad and the woman is permitted to eat terumah. Abaye maintains that the Mishna in Gittin is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, and this would seem to contradict Abaye’s position in our Gemara. The Gemara answers that we reverse the statement of Abaye regarding the Mishna in Gittin and Abaye really answered that the Mishna in Gittin is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah who maintains that we are not concerned with the possibility of death. (23b1-23b2-24a1)

Read more!

Litveshe Kasha / Chasidishe Vort

Ben Azai maintains that "mehalech K'omed" one who carries an object four amos in a public domain does not violate the Biblical prohibition of carrying for every step he takes. The moment he places his foot down it is considered as stopping and therefore, he is not walking four amos continuously. The only way for him to transgress this prohibition is to jump four amos at one time.

Reb Akiva Eiger asks that according to Ben Azai, there should not be any injunction against blowing the shofer on Shabbos because the sages were concerned of one carrying the shofer four amos in a public domain and according to Ben Azai this would not be a violation of Shabbos. It is not logical to assume that one might take the shofer and jump four amos?

Reb Leibel Eiger answered that in the person's excitement to for the mitzva of shofar, how can he not jump!

Read more!

Practically Speaking

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Mikroei Kodesh (32) writes that Reb Akiva Schlesinger maintained that even nowadays there is an obligation to blow shofar in Yerushalayim when Rosh Hashana occurs on Shabbos. There are those who maintain that Rabbi Schlesinger actually practiced in accordance with his opinion and when Rosh Hashanah occurred on Shabbos, Rabbi Schlesinger blew shofar. Rav Frank wonders if there is any reason for one to hear shofar blasts nowadays if he knows of someone who was blowing shofar when Rosh Hashanah occurs on Shabbos. The first question that needs to be addressed is if Rabbi Schlesinger’s opinion is halachically valid. Even if the halacha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Schlesinger, perhaps one fulfills a biblical obligation of hearing the shofar blasts even if the one blowing shofar is violating a rabbinical prohibition. Rav Frank initially compares this issue with our Gemara. If one does not fulfill his obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah when sitting in a Sukkah that is on top of an animal, this would be proof that one cannot fulfill his biblical obligation if there is a rabbinical prohibition involved.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 23 - Shofar on Shabbos

The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah whether a Sukkah constructed on top of an animal is valid or not. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukkah must be fit to be used for all seven days and since this Sukkah cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Tov because of the Rabbinic injunction against riding on an animal, this Sukkah is invalid. Rabbi Meir, however, maintains that the Sukkah is valid because the Sukkah is Biblically fit for all seven days and the fact that it is not rabbinically fit does not invalidate the Sukkah. This issue of something that is biblically fit but is rabbinically unfit has halachic ramifications in other areas as well, such as regarding one who performs a mitzvah in a manner that was rabbinically prohibited if we can still say that he fulfilled his biblical obligation. This issue was previously discussed on Daf 3 here regarding sitting in a sukkah that has the table situated outside of the sukkah regarding sitting in a Sukkah where the table is placed outside the Sukkah. The question will arise regarding Rosh Hashanah that occurs on Shabbos where there is a Rabbinic injunction against blowing the shofar as one may come to carry the shofar four amos in a public domain to learn from an expert. What would be the halacha if one were to violate the rabbinical prohibition and blow shofar on Shabbos? Would one be rewarded for performing a mitzvah because he has fulfilled the biblical obligation or perhaps one does not even fulfill a biblical obligation when he is rabbinically prohibited form blowing shofar on Shabbos? This question would not present a problem according to the opinion of the Yerushalmi that maintains that one is biblically prohibited from blowing shofar on Shabbos. Rabbi Akiva Eiger rules that in such a situation one has fulfilled his biblical obligation of blowing shofar. Tosfos in Rosh Hashanah writes that blowing the shofar on Shabbos is rabbinically prohibited because it is considered a chachmah, an art, and not an act of labor. Rabbi Ezriel Cziment writes in a pamphlet called Zmanei Sasson that it is evident that even according to Tosfos, the Chachamim did not invalidate the shofar blasts, because then Rabbi Akiva Eiger would not have ruled that one fulfills his biblical obligation of blowing shofar. It is clear that if the only rabbinical injunction against blowing shofar on Shabbos was because of the concern that one may come to carry four amos in a public domain, the shofar blasts would not be invalidated. The novelty here is that even if the rabbinical injunction would invalidate the shofar blasts, this would be different than a Sukkah that the Chachamim invalidate when the table is outside.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 22 - Highlights

1. The Mishna states that a Sukkah that is meduvleless is valid. There is a dispute regarding the meaning of the word meduvleless. One opinion maintains that it means a Sukkah that is covered with only a small amount of s’chach, whereas the other opinion maintains that it means that the s’chach is placed with one reed up and one reed down. (22a1)
2. Even if there is three tefachim open space between the upper reed and the lower reed, the Sukkah will only be invalid if the top of the reeds is not a tefach wide. If the top level of the reeds is a tefach wide, however, then the Sukkah will be valid. The reason for this ruling is because we say chavot remi, lower and place the top reeds on the space below. (22a2)
3. The Mishnah in Oholos states that if the beams of a two-story house do not have plaster on them, and the beams are placed corresponding to each other, if there is corpse tumah beneath one of the lower beams, any vessel that is underneath that beam will be tamei. If the tumah is between the lower and upper beam, however, a vessel that is between the beams will be tamei. If the tumah is above the upper beam, a vessel that is opposite the tumah above the beam until the heaven is tamei. (22a2)
4. Regarding a mavoi that requires an adjustment of a korah or a lechi, if a korah extends from one wall of a mavoi and does not extend to the other wall of the mavoi, or two korahs extend from two opposite walls and the korahs are not long enough to reach each other, there is a dispute. The Tanna Kamma maintains that if the space between the beams is less than three tefachim wide, we apply the principle of lavud and the space is deemed to be closed and one can carry within the entranceway. If the space between the beams is more than three tefachim, however, one must fill in the space with another korah. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that if the space between the two korahs or between the korah and the wall is less than four tefachim wide, one is not required to bring another korah. If the space is more than four tefachim, however, one must bring another korah to close off the space. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that we apply the principle of lavud to a space that is les than four tefachim. (22a3-22b1)
5. We learned previously on Daf 2a that a Sukkah that has more sunlight than shade is invalid, implying that if the sunlight and shade were equal, then the Sukkah would be valid. Yet, the Mishna here states that if the shade is more than the sunlight, the Sukkah is valid, which implies that if the shade and sunlight are equal, then the Sukkah is invalid. The Gemara answers that our Mishna refers to the shade and sunlight above, i.e. the thickness of the s’chach itself, which means that there is more solid s’chach than open space. This implies that if the solid part of the s’chach is equal to the open space, the Sukkah is invalid because there will be more sunlight than shade on the floor of the Sukkah. The Mishna on Daf 2a, however, refers to the shade and sunlight on the floor of the Sukkah. When there is more sunlight than shade, the Sukkah is invalid. Yet, if the shade and sunlight on the Sukkah floor are equal, the Sukkah is deemed to be valid because equal sunlight and shade on the Sukkah floor indicates that there is more solid s’chach above than opens space. (22b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 22 - A wedding under the stars

The Mishna and Gemara rule that a Sukkah that is covered as thick as a house, even if the stars cannot be seen from inside the Sukkah, the Sukkah is nonetheless valid. Why is it preferred that one see the stars while dwelling inside the Sukkah? There is a custom by Jewish weddings that the chupah take place under the stars, because this symbolizes that the couple should bear children who are as many as the stars of the heavens. The Vilna Gaon writes that the Clouds of Glory departed after the Jewish People sinned by fashioning the Golden Calf. Hashem forgave the Jewish People on Yom Kippur, and the Clouds of Glory retuned on Sukkos. The Giving of the Torah is referred to as the marriage between HaShem and the Jewish People. Perhaps this is the reason why it is preferred that one dwells in a Sukkah beneath the stars. Sukkos symbolizes that HaShem retains His love for the Jewish People, and by dwelling beneath the stars, we are likened to the bride who stands with the groom under the chupah.

Read more!

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!