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!