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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Sitting or Standing?

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

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Bent Walls

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

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

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Less than Ten

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Highlights

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


...Highlights of the Daf

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Mitzva of Maakeh

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

...Read more

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

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Highlights

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


...Read more

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Tableless Sukkah

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

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Sukkah Corners

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

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

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

Read more!

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Highlights

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

...Read more

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 passul is passul

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Chinuch with all the Pitchevkes

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

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

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

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Chanukah Derived from the Torah

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - A Little Bit Shady

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Spelling of Sukkah

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Shade at Twenty Amos

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

Read more!

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

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

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

Read more!

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

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 88 - Mikvah on Yom Kippur

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

Read more!