Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SPEAKING DIVREI KEDUSHAH UNCLOTHED (cont'd)

(a) A house which is less than 10 Tefachim is still distinct from a Kilah (which is viewed as his garment) because a house is fixed in place, it is like a Kinuf (and his head is viewed as being with the rest of his body).

(a) (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel) It is permitted to sleep under a Kilah made for Chasanim (two posts, unattached to the bed) in the Sukah, even if it is more than 10 Tefachim tall.
(b) Question: The Beraisa teaches that one who sleeps in a Kilah has not fulfilled his obligation!?
(c) Answer: That Kilah has a roof (at least a Tefach wide).
(d) Question: But the Beraisa which discusses the Naklitin (two posts) permits it only if it is less than 10 Tefachim tall!?
(e) Answer: Naklitin is more stringent than a Kilah since the posts are fixed on the bed.
(f) Question: If the Naklitin are fixed then they should be viewed as an Ohel even with less than 10 Tefachim (like a Kinuf)!?
(g) Answer: Naklitin may well be *more* fixed than a *Kilah* but it is *less* fixed than a four-poster bed, which explains why one may sleep under it if it is less than ten Tefachim high, even though a four-poster bed is not permitted.
(h) (Rabah b.R. Huna) A Kilah is permitted even if it is more than ten Tefachim high, and has a roof (i.e. it is parallel with the ground, and not like a tent).
(i) Question: Like whom is this position!?
(j) Answer: Like R. Yehudah who holds that a temporary Ohel does not have the power to negate a permanent one.

1. R. Yehudah permits sleeping under a bed in the Sukah (even if it is higher than ten Tefachim from the ground).
2. Question: Then Rabah b.R. Huna should have reported that the Halachah is like R. Yehudah (not taught it in his own name)!?
3. Answer: We would then have thought that R. Yehudah's reason is because a bed is (not an Ohel since it is) made to sleep on top of and not underneath.

(a) A Sukah which has a growing vine, a pumpkin or a creeper on the roof, arranged on a trellis, to form part of the S'chach may not be used.
(b) This can be rectified either by adding more S'chach (to form a majority) or by detaching them from the ground.
(c) Anything which can receive Tumah or which does not grow from the ground may not be used as S'chach.

(a) (R. Yosef citing Rav) Cutting the branch is insufficient, one must also shake each branch that one cuts.
(b) R. Huna reported that this was said by Shmuel.
(c) This correction bothered R. Yosef who angrily said that he had never claimed that *only* Rav had said it, and that it could well be that *both* Rav and Shmuel said it.
(d) R. Huna explained that what he indeed had meant was that it was Shmuel who said it and *not* Rav (who disagrees).

1. R. Chiya b. Ashi quoted Rav as maintaining that cutting something or cutting it off, is sufficient - to remove the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asui'
2. An incident demonstrated Rav's position when R. Amram Chasida put Tzitzis on his wife's four cornered garments (see Rashi) and he only cut the eight strings apart after affixing them to the garment.
3. R. Chiya b. Ashi cited Rav as permitting this case.

(e) Question: It should then follow that, according to Shmuel (who requires lifting the S'chach after it is cut), then cutting the Tzitzis should *not* be enough (yet Shmuel taught the opposite in the name of R. Chiya)!?

1. (Shmuel citing R. Chiya) If one threaded the Tzitzis into two corners before cutting them, they are Kosher.
2. We assume that this speaks when one made the Tzitzis and then cut them, from which we see that cutting the Tzitzis *is* sufficient to remove Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asui!

(f) Answer: The Beraisa speaks when he cut them first and then made the Tzitzis (thereby removing the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asui').
(g) Question: What, then, is the need for Shmuel to teach us this obvious Din?

(h) Answer: That the Tzitzis does not become Pasul by the fact that they were threaded in the holes of *two* corners (in spite of the Pasuk 'al Tzitzis *ha'Kanaf*').
(i) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that if one affixed the string and then cut it into segments that it is Pasul (unlike Rav who permitted this case)!?
(j) Answer: The Beraisa means that they are Pasuk only until they are cut, but not permanently.

1. Levi supports this explanation.
2. Shmuel maintains that the Beraisa means that these Tzitzis are permanently Pasul.

(k) Alternate Rendition of the above:

1. R. Masnah reported that he asked just such a question of Shmuel who invalidated the Tzitzis which were affixed and then cut.
2. First Question (on Rav who validates such a case): The Beraisa says that this case is Pasul!?
3. Second Question (on Rav): The Beraisa provides the rationale of Ta'aseh to forbid a Sukah which has a growing vine, a pumpkin or a creeper on the roof arranged on a trellis to form part of the S'chach.

i. The Beraisa must be speaking when they were cut, because if they were still attached, the Tana would not need the reason of Ta'aseh (since the attached S'chach would anyway be Pasul).
ii. We see that cutting does not validate the Sukah!

4. Answer (to the second Question): This Beraisa speaks when the branch was torn from the tree at its source, and left in that position (even Rav would agree that cutting it would not be a sufficient Asiyah, since this cutting is not noticeable).
5. The first Beraisa, however, remains a question on Rav.

(a) Question: Shall we understand their Machlokes (whether Ketzitzah is an Asiyah) to be a Machlokes Tanaim?

1. R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak invalidates the Hadas if one transgressed and removed the berries on YomTov while the Chachamim hold that the Hadas is Kosher.
2. It is assumed that an Asiyah is needed here (to bind the Minim together) and that the Minim, like a Sukah, must have Ta'aseh V'Lo Min He'Asui.
3. The Chachamim hold (like Rav) that Ketzitzah is an Asiyah (by Sukah hence the plucking of the berries is the same) and R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak holds (like Shmuel) that Ketzitzah it is not an acceptable Asiyah by Sukah (nor is plucking the berries by the Hadas).

(b) Answer: No, they both hold, like Shmuel, that Ketzitzah is not an Asiyah, but they are arguing over whether we learn Lulav from Sukah (and prohibit- R. Shimon) or not (and permit- Chachamim).
(c) Alternate Answer: They are arguing over whether Lulav requires an Asiyah [Eged] (R. Shimon) or not (Chachamim), while agreeing that any Asiyah which we *would* find by Lulav *would* be learned from Sukah.

1. The source for such a Machlokes is found in the Beraisa where R. Yehudah learns from the Gezeirah Shavah of Lekichah that the three species need to be tied.
2. The Rabanan did not receive a tradition to learn this Gezeirah Shavah.

(d) Question: The Beraisa which teaches that it is a *Mitzvah* to tie the species together seems not to be in concert with *either* opinion!?

1. According to R. Yehudah it should not be Kosher without being tied.
2. According to Rabanan, whence the Mitzvah?

(e) Answer: The Beraisa is the Rabanan and the Mitzvah derives from the command to beautify the Mitzvos.

(a) Question: Whence that S'chach is not Kosher if it is Mekabel Tumah or does not grow from the ground?
(b) Answer (Resh Lakish): The Pasuk refers to the primordial clouds as emerging from the earth, hence the S'chach must emerge from the earth and not be susceptible to Tumah.

1. Question: What of the opinion that the Sukos of the desert were actual tents (and not clouds), since;
2. We have learned that R. Eliezer and R. Akiva disagree?

(c) Answer (R. Dimi citing R. Yochanan): The Pasuk links Sukah to the Korban Chagigah (that which is not Mekabel Tumah and grows from the ground [R. Yochanan's view of animals]).
(d) Question: Following that logic, we should *only* be able to use *animals* (hides) for S'chach!!