Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Chanan bar Rava permitted the use of both Hizmi and Higi (types of bush) as S'chach - Rava forbade Higi because the leaves tend to fall off, and the constant dropping of leaves may well cause a person to leave his Sukah.

(b) We learned in our Mishnah that tied bundles may not be used as S'chach. It is nevertheless permitted to use palm branches that grow low on the tree, and that in fact, comprise a number of branches tied together - because they are tied naturally, not manually, and are therefore not included in the Rabbanan's decree.

(c) Higher up on the branch, the branches tend to spread out, making them useless as S'chach unless they are tied together manually. Even that is not included in the decree - because the decree is confined to many items that are tied together, and not to one item that one ties in order to connect its various parts.

(d) When the Beraisa says 'Kanin ve'Dokranin Mesachechin Behu' - it means 'Kanin shel Dukranim', which in turn, means a bunch of canes that grow out of one root, but which give the appearance of being separate canes (if they were, they would be Asur because of the decree of 'bundles of straw').

(a) One may use 'Marerisa de'Agma' as Moror.

(b) The problem with this is the Beraisa, which disqualifies hyssop from being used for the Parah Adumah, if it has a descriptive title (such as 'a Greek hyssop' or 'a blue hyssop'), since the Torah prescribes a *plain* hyssop, and not one with a descriptive title. In that case, the Torah also prescribes plain Maror for the Seder, so how can Maror with a descriptive title be Kasher?

(c) Abaye concedes that its name is 'Marerisa de'Agma'. Nevertheless, unlike the various types of hyssop mentioned (which existed before the Torah was given, yet when the Torah was given, it prescribed plain hyssop, disqualifying all other kinds) - at the time when the Torah was given, it was called just plain 'Maror', and was therefore Kasher. The title 'Marerisa de'Agma' was given to it only later.

(d) Rava does not seem to agree with Abaye's principle - according to him, its real name, even then, was 'Maror', and it was only known as 'Marerisa de'Agma' because it grew in the marshes.

(a) One stalk does *not* constitute an Eged (a bundle), three *does* - two is a Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan.

(b) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Parah requires three roots, each comprising one stalk, for the Mitzvah of Ezov. Rebbi Yossi says ...

1. ... 'Sheyarav Shenayim'?
2. ... 'Girdumav (which means the remains, once the end wears off from use) Kol She'hu'.

(c) We initially contend that Rebbi Yossi permits *two* stalks even Lechatchilah. The *three* that he mentions - is for a Mitzvah.

(d) If that is so, then the Rabbanan will hold that - there one is not Yotze with three stalks - even Bedieved.

(a) We reject the previous contention however, on the basis of another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi says that Ezov is not Kasher (even Bedieved) unless it has at least three stalks Lechatchilah and its remains, two.

(b) We therefore conclude that, for the Mitzvah of Ezov - Rebbi Yossi requires three stalks even Bedieved, and the Rabbanan, Lechatchilah three, Bedieved, two.

(c) The author of the Beraisa which says 'Ezov she'Techilaso Shenayim ve'Shayarav Echad, Kasher' - is the Rabbanan.

(d) In order not to clash with what we learned in the Reisha, we must amend the Seifa ('ve'Eino Pasul ad she'Yehei Techilaso *ve*'Shayarav Echad') to read - 've'Eino Pasul ad she'Yehei Techilaso *ke*'Shayarav Echad' i.e. that the Ezov is only Pasul if, it begins, like its Shyarav, with only *one* stalk (but two is Kasher Bedieved).

5)

(a) Mereimar permitted the use of bundles of canes that were sold in Sura as S'chach - on the grounds that they were tied into bundles for the purpose of selling them (since a bundle would include a standard number of canes). However, this was only for a short period of time - whereas Gezeiras Otzar only applied to canes etc., that were made into bundles for long periods of time.

(b) Rebbi Aba permitted a 'Tzerifa de'Urvena' - a round, pointed hunter's hut made out of willow branches - to be used as S'chach.

(c) It was Kasher, provided one cut the top knot (even without actually undoing the weaving - since this would occur automatically).

(d) Rav Papa ruled that it was also necessary to untie the knot that held it together at the bottom; Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua maintained that this was unnecessary - because a knot that is tied only at one end will not hold when it is carried.

(a) According to Rebbi Aba quoting Shmuel, any species of vegetables that one may use as Maror on Pesach is considered an Ohel to transmit Tum'ah, nevertheless, it does not protect things that are on top of it from Tum'ah - because it soon dries up, in which case it becomes less than a Tefach, and will not therefore protect anything from Tum'ah. Chazal therefore issued a decree when it is wider than a Tefach, because of when it is *not*.

(b) When Rebbi Aba says 'u'Poslin be'Sukah Mishum Avir' - he means that they invalidate the Sukah as Pasul S'chach with a Shiur of *three* Tefachim (like air does), and not *four* Tefachim (like Pasul S'chach does), for the same reason i.e. because they stands to dry up (so the Chachamim already considered it as if they had already done so - Lechumra).

(a) And when Rebbi Aba (quoting Rav Huna) said that grapes that are picked for the wine-press have no 'Yados' - he was pointing out that although the stalks of food are subject to Tum'ah together with the food (and even receive Tum'ah to transmit it to the food, too), that is only when the owner intends to eat the food directly (because then, he uses the stalks to transport the food), but not when he wants the grapes for example, to make wine (in which case, he has no use for the stalks), which will not therefore be subject to Tum'ah.

(b) Rav Menashya bar Gada quotes Rav Huna as saying that if someone cuts the corn to use as S'chach, the stalks are not considered a 'Yad' to the wheat kernels for a similar reason - because he is not interested in the wheat kernels remaining attached to the stalks.

(c) The fruit (i.e. the wheat kernels) do not invalidate the Sukah - because we are speaking when there is more waste than fruit, in which case the fruit becomes Batel to the waste.

(d) Rebbi Aba does not agree with Rav Menashya bar Gada - according to him, a person will certainly not want the stalks attached to the grapes, because they will draw some of the grape-juice; whereas he *does* want the fruit to remain attached to the stalks, to add weight to the stalks, so that they should not blow away.

(a) If one has branches with figs, grapes and dates on them, and stalks with kernels, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa requires more waste than fruit (irrespective of the stalks - which he considers of no importance) for the branches to be valid as S'chach.
Acheirim says - that the waste must exceed both the fruit and the stalks in order to be Mevatel them.

(b) Rebbi Aba (who maintains that the stalks on Sukos *do* have a Din of Yad - as we saw in 7d), cannot possibly hold like the Tana Kama, who holds that they do *not*.

(c) If Rebbi Menashya bar Gada were to agree that the Tana'im in the Beraisa argue over whether the stalks constitute Yados or not - he will hold like the Tana Kama.

(d) On the other hand, Rebbi Menashya bar Gada might maintain that even Acheirim holds like him (that stalks do not have the Din of Yados) - by establishing the Beraisa when the owner initially cut the stalks for food, but then changed his mind to use them as S'chach. And Acheirim gives the stalks the Din of Yad because we go after the owner's intention at the time when he cut them; whereas the Rabbanan hold that his second thought cancels his first one (and wheat-stalks for a Sukah, according to Rebbi Menashya bar Gada, do not have the Din of Yados).