Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Simon (or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) agree with Rav - i.e. that the third Tefach-wall should be placed at ninety degrees to one of the other two walls.

(b) A regular Tefach comprises four Etzba'os which touch whilst measuring; *this* Tefach-wall is measured - with fingers not touching, to create a slightly larger Tefach than usual.

(c) The Tefach-wall is placed within three Tefachim of one of the existing walls, giving us (by means of 'Levud') the majority of a full wall.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, the same Din of a third Tefach-wall will apply if one has two existing *parallel* walls, and one places it in exactly the same way as in the previous case - i.e. within three Tefachim of any of the four corners.

(b) According to Rebbi Simon (or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) - a third wall of one Tefach will not suffice in this case; a board of *four* Tefachim is required, which one then places within three Tefachim of any of the corners (making a complete third wall - by means of 'Levud', and not just the majority of it).

(c) According to Rebbi Simon, the Din by parallel walls is more stringent than by adjacent ones - because, unlike by adjacent walls, one does not have two Kosher walls that already form part of a constructed Sukah, only two individual ones.

(a) Rava requires a Tzuras ha'Pesach - two side-posts with a cross-bar on top.

(b) According to the first interpretation, the Tzuras ha'Pesach replaces the Tefach post of which we spoke earlier - stretching across the entire length of the third wall. This entails placing one half-Tefach post adjacent to the corner, and another similar post at the far end of that side (with nothing in the middle), with a cane running across the top from one post to the other.

(c) The second interpretation of Rava's opinion - is that the Tzuras ha'Pesach does not replace the Tefach-post, but is an alternative method of building the third wall; and the third interpretation is that both are needed, the Tefach post, and a Tzuras ha'Pesach - from it to a post that is placed at the far end.

(d) Rav Ashi holds like Rava's *second* explanation - Rav Kahana holds like the *third*, and that is the Halachah.

(a) Rabah says that the validity of the third Tefach-wall applies to Shabbos, too - with regard to a Sukah that adjoins one's house. because, 'Migu' (since) the wall is Kasher with regard to Sukah, it is also Kasher with regard to Shabbos, and is therefore considered a Reshus ha'Yachid, permitting carrying from the Sukah to the house.

(b) The 'Migu' only applies to the Shabbos during Sukos, but not to rest of the year.

(a) The Beraisa says that the wall of ...

1. ... a Sukah has the same leniencies as that of Shabbos - with regard to a wall that is made of vertical or horizontal posts (which do not have a space of three Tefachim between one post and the next - and which is Kasher despite the fact that the spaces exceed the actual wall).
2. ... a Sukah has leniencies that a wall of Shabbos does not - inasmuch as a Sukah is permitted even if it has large spaces (e.g. doorways - not to speak of our case, where the best part of two whole walls are missing) that are larger than the built-up wall, whereas on Shabbos, such a wall is invalid.

(b) If, as we initially contend, the above refers even to Shabbos during Sukos - this will prove that we do not hold of 'Migu' in this regard, a Kashya on what Rabah just taught.

(c) If, as we explain, the Beraisa is talking about Shabbos throughout the year (but not on Sukos) - then the Beraisa should have added that Sukah, too, has a Chumra over Shabbos, inasmuch as the third wall of a Sukah (that has two parallel walls) must be at least one Tefach wide, as we learned above (according to Rav Yehudah); whereas on Shabbos, this is not necessary, because, since a Lechi (a post of any width) is sufficient to turn a Mavoy into a Reshus ha'Yachid (mi'd'Oraysa), it will also be Machshir a Sukah.

(d) It would not be necessary to tell us this, answers the Gemara - because having already informed us that we apply 'Migu' from Sukah to Shabbos (which is more stringent), then is it not obvious that we will also 'Migu' from Shabbos to Sukah (which is more lenient)?

6)

(a) Rava finds it necessary to permit a Sukah whose walls consist of ...

1. ... Pasei Bira'os - which we could not have learnt from a Mavoy and the Lechi at the entrance, since they have two *proper* walls, which Pasei Bira'os do *not*.
2. ... a Mavoy and the Lechi at the entrance - which we could not have learnt from Pasei Bira'os - which at least has *four* walls (even if they *are* incomplete), which a Mavoy and the Lechi at the entrance do *not*.

(b) He also needs to permit a Sukah of two walls and a Tefach even on Shabbos because of Migu, which we would not know from the reverse case (i.e. of walls that are valid on Sukos because they are valid on Shabbos [as in 5a 1]) - because although we say 'Migu' from Shabbos to Sukah (from the more strict to the more lenient) it does not follow that we also say it from Sukah which is more lenient) to Shabbos (which is more strict).

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, it is only the sunlight that shines through the *S'chach* that can invalidate the Sukah, but not that shines through the *walls* - whereas according to Rebbi Yoshi'ah, even sunlight that shines through the walls will invalidate the Sukah, if, combined with the sunlight that shines in from the S'chach, it lets in more than the combined shade.

(b) He learns this from the Pasuk "ve'Sakosa al ha'Aron es ha'Paroches"- which uses the word "ve'Sakosa" (from the Lashon 'S'chach') even though it is dealing with the Paroches, which is a Mechitzah (a wall). From which we see that the principles of S'chach apply to the walls, too.

(c) The Rabbanan, who do not consider a wall as S'chach, learn from this Pasuk - that the top of the Paroches should be folded over slightly to form a short roof, so that it resembles S'chach.

(d) We have already learned that Rebbi requires a Sukah to be at least four by four Amos, and that Rebbi Yehudah validates a Sukah that is higher than twenty Amos. They (as well as Rebbi Shimon, who requires at least three full walls, and a third wall of one Tefach), agree with Rebbi Yoshi'ah - that a Sukah must be a permanent dwelling (though each one applies this concept differently).

(a) Raban Gamliel, Beis Shamai, Rebbi Eliezer and Acheirim also subscribe to the same opinion. Beis Shamai invalidate a Sukah, if one's table is in the house. According to Raban Gamliel, a Sukah on top of a wagon or a ship is Pasul (the former - because the height at which it is built renders it incapable of withstanding a strong wind, the latter because it sways to and fro, conveying the impression that it is only temporary.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer says in a Beraisa that a Sukah in the shape of a wigwam is Pasul.

(c) He also invalidates a Sukah that consists of canes leaning against a wall - both are Pasul because the roof is indistinguishable from the walls.

(d) The Chachamim validate it.

(a) Acheirim invalidate a round Sukah - because it does not have corners.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan does not rule like Acheirim. According to him, a round Sukah is Kasher, provided twenty-four people can sit round it - because he requires a minimum size of four by four Amos, like the opinion of Rebbi.