Previous daf

1)

(a) If a Sukah is higher than twenty Amos, it is possible to rectify it by raising the floor of the Sukah. Raising it with blankets and pillows will not help however - because the owner, not wanting to lose these items, will retrieve them.

(b) Nullifying them there for seven days will make no difference - because most people would not do that, and we have a principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Kol Adam' (Halachos are not generally decided by the habits or whims of the individual, but by those of the majority of people).

(c) Raising it with straw or with earth that he was Mevatel there for all seven days *will* render the Sukah Kasher.

(a) 'Bayis she'Mil'ehu Teven O Tzeroros, u'Bitlo, Batel' - means that if one filled up a room containing a corpse with straw or with pebbles or earth (that one was Mevatel there), leaving a space of less than a Tefach between them and the ceiling, the corpse renders Tamei even people or things that are on the roof, because 'Tum'ah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah' (when there is no Ohel Tefach, the Tum'ah rises beyond the roof and is Metamei whatever is above it, even as far as the sky).

(b) We infer from this Mishnah in Ohalos - that if the owner had *not* been Mevatel them there, the room would have had the Din of any other room, and the Tum'ah would have extended only as far as the ceiling.

(c) Rebbi Yossi maintains that ...

1. ... regarding straw: knowing that the owner does not intend to remove it will suffice - even if he did not actually pronounce it Batel, and will cause the room to be filled in;
2. ... the same will apply to pebbles and earth - even 'Stam' (if he does not specifically intend to take them away).

(a) A Sukah that is higher than twenty Amos is Kasher, if some of the S'chach is protruding into the Sukah (below twenty Amos) - only if it creates more *shade* than S'chach.

(b) Abaye contended that if, by the same token, bits of S'chach that allow in more *sun* than shade, protrude below ten Tefachim, by a Sukah that is exactly ten Tefachim high, it would be Kasher. Rava disagreed with him - on the grounds that a Sukah of exactly ten Tefachim high, which has bits of S'chach protruding into it from the ceiling, is considered 'a smelly residence' (even if they form only a minority), and is therefore Pasul.

(c) A Sukah that is higher than twenty Amos, becomes Kasher if one raises part of the floor - provided that it is raised along the entire middle wall (to a width of at least seven Tefachim).

(d) The rest of the Sukah (the section that does not have a raised floor) is Kasher too - like 'Pesel ha'Yotzei min ha'Sukah' (on Daf 19a), which is considered an extension of the Sukah, and is Kasher (as we shall see there).

(a) The Sukah will be Kasher even if the raised floor is built alongside one of the *side*-walls, and not alongside the *middle* one - provided the distance from the tip of the raised floor to the opposite wall is less than four Amos, because then we apply the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' (up to four Amos, we consider Pasul S'chach as if it was part of the wall that has now bent, and it does not therefore invalidate the Sukah, as long as there remain seven by seven Tefachim Kasher S'chach, and as long as one does not sit underneath the Pasul S'chach).

(b) We would not know this already from the Mishnah later, which validates a Sukah, part of whose roof is broken in (where they now place the S'chach), provided that the section that remains intact until the wall is less than four Amos - because there, the Pasul S'chach under discussion, is at least eligible to serve as part of the wall of the Sukah; whereas in our case, where the wall in question is more than twenty Amos high, it is *not*.

(c) The Beraisa also needs to add that, if in the case of a Sukah that was higher than twenty Amos, they raised the floor in the middle of the Sukah, the Sukah is Kasher, provided that there is less than four Amos between the raised platform and the walls on all four sides. We would not have known that from our case - where one only needs to apply the principle of Dofen Akumah to *one* wall, and it does not necessarily follow that we also apply it to *four* (because, in matters of Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, we cannot extend principles from one case to another).

5)

(a) If the Sukah is less than ten Tefachim high, and one digs in the middle to raise its height (by lowering the floor), the Sukah will be Kasher as long as the distance from the walls to the area of floor that is ten Tefachim is no more that three Tefachim (known as 'Levud').

(b) In the previous case (of 'Dofen Akumah') we permitted up to four Amos to remain more than twenty Amos high - because there, the walls per se are Kasher walls; whereas, in our case, where we now need to create walls of ten Tefachim, it must be less than three Tefachim, so as to join the two sections of wall by mens of 'Levud'.

(a) If the a Sukah was higher than twenty Amos and one built a column (of at least seven by seven Tefachim) in the middle of the Sukah to within twenty Amos of the ceiling, Abaye contends that the top of the column would then be a Kasher Sukah - due to the principle of 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah' (considering the outer walls of the column as if they reached the S'chach).

(b) Rava disagrees on the grounds that, by Sukah, the walls must be recognizable, before we can apply this principle (presumably because of the Pasuk in Emor "Lema'an Yeid'u Doroseichem ... ").

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov holds that S'chach which covers four posts on the roof, constitutes a Kasher Sukah - according to the Chachamim, it is Pasul.

(b) Rav Huna establishes their Machlokes when the four posts are placed at the four corners of the roof, where we say 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah' - but not when they are in the middle (For the reason that we apply 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah' here, even though the walls are not recognizable - see Tosfos DH 'Aval').

(c) According to Rav Nachman, they argue when the posts are placed in the *middle* of the roof - and Rebbi Ya'akov validates such a Sukah only if each of the posts is one Tefach by one Tefach.

(d) The Gemara asks whether, according to Rav Nachman, Rebbi Ya'akov and the Chachamim agree that, if the posts were placed in the corners, the Sukah would be Kasher (because of 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah), or whether they argue there too - and remains by a Teiku.

(a) The Beraisa cites the same Machlokes with regard to a Sukah consisting of four posts that is built on the ground - which, seeing as there are no walls (for the principle of 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah' to apply), resembles the Sukah in the middle of the roof, a disproof to Rav Huna, who said that in the middle of the roof, even Rebbi Ya'akov will agree that the Sukah is Pasul.

(b) This Beraisa implies that Rebbi Ya'akov and the Chachamim's dispute is confined to the ground (or the middle of the roof), but if the posts were placed on the four corners of the roof, they would both agree that the Sukah would be Kasher - a further disproof for Rav Huna, who maintains that *that* is the basic case of their dispute.

(c) Rav Huna however, refutes *that* Kashya - by explaining that, in reality, they argue in both cases, and the Tana mentions the case on the ground (or in the middle of the roof), to teach us that, even there, Rebbi Ya'akov, validates the Sukah.

(d) Rebbi Ya'akov validates a Sukah whose walls consist of four posts because, in his opinion, they have a Din of 'Deyumad' - a square post, which we consider as if part of it was cut away to form two adjacent one Tefach walls (like in the case of the one Amah Pasei Bira'os in Eruvin 17b). In fact, the word 'Deyumdin' means two posts 'Deyu Amudin'.

Next daf