Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE SOURCE FOR THE LIMITATIONS ON S'CHACH (cont'd)

(a) Answer (Ravin citing R. Yochanan): The Pasuk indicates that the Sukah must be made of the waste products from the granary and from the wine-press (not subject to Tumah and grow from the ground).

1. Question: Perhaps the Pasuk refers to the actual contents of the granary and the wine-press themselves?
2. Answer (R. Zeira): The Pasuk speaks of Yekev and surely it does not mean to make S'chach out of wine.

i. Question (R. Yirmiyah): Perhaps the Pasuk refers to congealed wine which could be used as S'chach.
ii. Answer (R. Zeira): R. Yirmiyah has cut down our answer.

3. Answer (R. Ashi): The prefix 'mi' implies the (waste) *from* the granary and the wine-press, but not the wheat and the wine themselves.

(b) Answer (R. Chisda): The source for the specifications of S'chach is the instructions given by Nechemyah to the People (enumerating only that which is not Mekabel Tumah and grows from the ground).

1. Question: The Eitz Avos and Hadas in his list are the same!?
2. Answer: Nechemyah meant Kosher Hadasim for their Lulavim, and Pasul ones (known as Hadas Shoteh) for their Sukos.

(a) Bundles of straw, wood or canes are Pasul.
(b) If one unties them (even after they are on the Sukah) they are Kosher.
(c) One may however, use them (or any other material) as walls of the Sukah.

(a) R. Yakov reported having heard two Halachos from R. Yochanan as well as two rationales, but he was unsure which rationale applied to which Halachah.

1. He heard the Pesul of our Mishnah as well as the Pesul of scratching out a Sukah in a haystack.
2. One reason was Gezeiras Otzar (d'Rabanan) and one was Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asui (mi'd'Oreisa).

(b) R. Yirmiyah was able to resolve the matter by reviewing that which R. Chiya b. Aba reported in the name of R. Yochanan.

1. R. Yochanan had explained the Pesul of our Mishnah (entirely disallowing the use of bundles) for fear that someone might come to use bundles which had *not* been originally placed there for shade (Gezeiras Otzar) and would *then* have a Sukah Pesulah owing to Ta'aseh.
2. The reason for invalidating a Sukah that is burrowed out of a hay-stack must be because of Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asui itself (R. Yochanan's second reason).

(c) Question: With such an explicit explanation from R. Yochanan, how could R. Yakov have had a question about it?
(d) Answer: R. Yakov had not heard the Din which R. Chiya b. Aba reported.
(e) Question (R. Ashi): How could R. Yochanan allegedly have said that one reason applies to each Din, given that both reasons (Gezeiras Otzar and Ta'aseh) apply to both cases!?
(f) Answer: R. Yochanan infers from the unique wording of the Pesul in each case, in one that such S'chach cannot be used (the language of an Isur d'Rabanan) and in one that it is not a Sukah (implying that it is not valid d'Oreisa).

4) WOODEN ARROW HANDLES AS S'CHACH

(a) (R. Yehudah citing Rav): Male arrow handles (with a protrusion which screws into the metal arrow shaft, thus without any Beis Kibul) and Kosher, but female ones are Pasul (since they have a Beis Kibul into which the metal is screwed).
(b) Question: The Kashrus of the male handles is obvious (there is no Beis Kibul, and not sufficient size for a Gezeirah)!?
(c) Answer: We might have prohibited them lest people come to use the female ones, which do have a Beis Kibul.
(d) Question: The Pesul of the female ones (given their Beis Kibul) is also obvious!?
(e) Answer: We might have been lenient and said that a Beis Kibul which is made to be permanently filled is not viewed as a Beis Kibul at all, even when it is not filled.

(a) (Rabah b.b. Chanah citing R. Yochanan) S'chach made of Anitzei Pishtan (combed flax, at the end of its processing) is Pasul, S'chach made of Hutznei Pishtan (in its raw form, before being soaked) is Kosher, but R. Yochanan himself is uncertain regarding Hushnei Pishtan.
(b) Rabah b.b. Chanah is uncertain as to what stage of its process R. Yochanan was calling Hushnei.

1. It could be the flax between the pounding and the combing (whereas between the soaking and the pounding, they are still called Hutznei and are Kosher for S'chach).
2. It could also be that once they have been soaked, they are already called Hushnei and are included in R. Yochanan's doubt.

(a) (R. Yehudah) Shushi and Shivtzeri may be used as S'chach (not considered food and hence not Mekabel Tumah).
(b) (Abaye) We forbid the use of Shivtzeri because of its bad smell which may cause a person to leave the Sukah.