Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye applies the principle 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem' even if it is to enclose the adjoining space. Our Mishnah, which invalidates a Sukah in the Chatzer, when it is surrounded by a covered passageway that is more than four Amos wide - speaks when he filled in the space between the inner edges of the roof (rather than placing the S'chach on slats that are lying on top of them), leaving nothing visible on which to say 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem'.

(b) We rule like Rava in *this* Lashon, and not like the *second* Lashon, where even Abaye agrees that we do not apply 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem' under these circumstances. According to the second Lashon, Rava even forbids the Sukah when it has posts - because, in his opinion, even 'Levud' does not apply to form a Mechitzah to fill in an adjoining area for which it was not made.

(c) Rav Ashi was surprised to find Rav Kahana (the second) making a Sukah in the way that Rava just invalidated. The Sukah had two adjacent walls, but no third wall of one Tefach could be seen (so it seemed to Rav Ashi that he wanted to form the third wall of the Sukah through 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem').

(d) Rav Kahana pointed to Rava however, that there was a third wall consisting of one Tefach or more, that jutted out into the adjoining sun- porch, and which could be seen by people standing *outside* the Sukah (but not by those who were standing *inside*); alternatively, it jutted out in such a way that it could be seen by people standing *inside* the Sukah, (but not by people standing *outside* - in which case, Rav Ashi would have looked at the Sukah from the outside). And we have learned in Eruvin that a Lechi (an upright post) in both of these cases is Kasher, and permits carrying in the Mavoy.

(a) 'Pesel ha'Yotze min ha'Sukah', according to Ula - means S'chach that protrudes behind the third middle wall of the Sukah.

(b) The Pesel comprises ...

1. ... three Kasher walls.
2. ... seven by seven Tefachim.
3. ... and more shade than sunshine.

(c) The Chidush is that even though the middle wall (an intrinsic part of this Sukah) was not made for this S'chach - only for the S'chach on the other side - it is nevertheless Kasher.

(a) Rabah and Rav Yosef establish 'Pesel ha'Yotze min ha'Sukah' by S'chach that extends from *inside* the Sukah - but when only one of the walls follows the S'chach (i.e. that section of Sukah only has one wall).

(b) Rabah bar bar Chanah quoting Rebbi Yochanan, establishes it by a Sukah where most of its S'chach casts more shade than sunshine - and a small section does not. Even that small section (which is called 'Pesel') is Kasher even though it has 'gone out of the (Hechsher) Sukah'.

(a) Rav Hoshaya explains 'Pesel *ha'Yotze* min ha'Sukah' by Pasul S'chach - meaning Pasul S'chach of less than three Tefachim in a small Sukah. Even though it has 'left the (laws of) Sukah', it is nevertheless Kasher.

(b) It differs from *space* of less than three Tefachim in a small Sukah, which does not invalidate the Sukah either - inasmuch as one is nevertheless *forbidden to sleep* under a *space* of even less than three Tefachim in a small Sukah, whereas under *Pasul S'chach* of less than three Tefachim this is *permitted*.

(c) 'Tit ha'Neirok' - soft mud - (in the Mishnah in Zevachim) is a precedent of something which, although itself is not Kasher, yet it complements the deficient Shiur of water in a Mikvah.

(d) If someone Tovels in a Mikvah whose Shiur is complemented with soft mud, the Tevilah is *valid*, even if he Toveled *partially* in the mud - and it is only if one Tovels *completely* in soft mud that the Tevilah is *invalid* (See Tosfos DH 'Tit ha'Nerok').

5)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer invalidates a Sukah that is shaped like a wigwam or that leans against a wall at an angle. To render Kasher ...

1. ... either of the two Sukos - one could raise them one Tefach from the ground giving them (by means of Levud) a wall of one Tefach, and turning the sloping S'chach into a recognizable roof.
2. ... the latter Sukah only - by moving the top end of the S'chach one Tefach away from the wall (by leaning it against a sort of frame attached to the wall).

(b) The Rabbanan hold that a sloping Ohel is considered an Ohel.

(c) Rav Yosef justified the fact that he was sleeping under a Kilas Chasanim in a Sukah - because he saw in a Beraisa, that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan switched their opinions, in which case, he was following the opinion of the Rabbanan (and not of Rebbi Eliezer).

(d) He gave precedence to a Beraisa over the Mishnah - because, from another Beraisa, he learned that the author of our Mishnah is the minority opinion of Rebbi Nasan quoting Rebbi Eliezer, and that the Rabbanan disagree with him.

(a) We infer from the Mishnah, which states that a large reed mat that is custom-made for sleeping* on, *is* subject to Tum'ah, and is (therefore) *Pasul for S'chach* - that *S'tam* (if it was made without any particular intention) it is *not* subject to Tum'ah and is (therefore) *Kasher for S'chach*.

(b) It is Kasher for S'chach and is not automatically Pasul (due to the fact that it is fit to be used for sleeping) - because it is hard, and is not therefore commonly used for sleeping on.

(c) The previous statement however, clashes with the next ruling in the Mishnah, that if it is made for *S'chach*, it is *Kasher* - from which we can infer that if it is made *S'tam*, it is *Pasul*.

(d) To resolve this contradiction, we initially try to establish the Reisha by a large mat (which is not usually made to lie on), and the Seifa by a small one.

(a) We cannot explain the same discrepancy in Rebbi Eliezer in the same way - because Rebbi Eliezer says explicitly '*Achas Gedolah, ve'Achas Ketanah*, As'ah li'Shechivah, *Mekabeles Tum'ah* ... ' (from which we can infer that if one made it S'tam, it is *not* ... .

(b) To put the Mishnah in its right perspective - Rava (initially) interprets 'le'Sikuch', both of the Tana Kama and of Rebbi Eliezer - to mean S'tam.

(c) In his opinion, they both agree that a large mat is normally meant for S'chach (and is not therefore subject to Tum'ah). The Tana Kama however, holds that a small mat (which he does not mention in the Mishnah) that is made S'tam, is subject to Tum'ah and is Pasul for S'chach; whereas Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a small mat has the same Din as a large one in this regard.