בס”ד

Gemara Review, Masechet Sukkah

                                    By Ari Gilder, 3-201L

 

Due to the tremendous positive feedback I’ve gotten from my last review, I’ve decided to continue with it and do one for this semester as well.. I hope you make use of it properly and distribute it freely among whoever needs it. Note that you may not be responsible to know certain sugyot or Tosafot. Go ahead and skip over them, come back to them if there’s something you don’t understand. I’d especially like to thank Avi Harari and Albert Setton for answering my questions about the gemara. I wish everyone the best of luck on the final! Please note…this is not a direct translation from the Gemara, but only an outline of how the Gemara is structured. Don’t use this without your notes to study. And please don’t take advantage of this review.

 

-Ari

 

I. Daf Kaf Tet Amud Bet (Page 18)

 

A. Introduction

 

 

This is a very important passuk and the I will refer to it without quoting it entirely, so it’s best to be familiar with this passuk. The 2nd line refers to etrog, 3rd is lulav, 4th is hadasim and 5th is aravot.

  1. We learn from “lachem” that the 4 minim have to be yours and not stolen or borrowed.
  2. We learn from “hadar” that the etrog must be nice and pleasant-looking.
  3. We learn from “kapot” that the lulav must be tied.
  4. According to Rashi, “lifnei Hashem” refers to only Beit HaMikdash. Rambam says it refers to anywhere in Jerusalem.

 

B. Mishnah

  1. The following types of lulavs are not kosher: a stolen or a borrowed one, a dried-out or spoiled one, one that came from an ashera tree and one that’s from an Ir Nidachat (city of idol-worshippers).
  2. Why is a dried-out lulav pasul? Rashi says because a dry lulav is not considered very pretty, and you’re supposed to beautify the mitzvah (hiddur mitzvah), as you learn from the pasuk “”. Tosafot disagree with Rashi and say that the reason it’s pasul is because of a heikesh (if two different topics are in one pasuk, you can learn halachot from one and apply it to the other) between lulav and etrog. The heikesh says that if an etrog has to be beautified, so does a lulav (from the word “hadar”). So what’s the difference between Rashi and Tosafot? According to Rashi, you would think that if a mitzvah is not beautified, it’s automatically not counted as a mitzvah. This isn’t the case, as proved by Tosafot by bringing a case in which you don’t tie a lulav together (tying it is beautifying the mitzvah), the lulav is still kosher. According to Rashi, the hiddur is only in the best case scenario. But according to Tosafot, since there is a pasuk (and a heikesh), you must have the beautification.
  3. A lulav of an ashera tree (specifically, an ashera shel Moshe – a tree that was planted for the purposes of avoda zara) and of an ir nidachat are both supposed to be burned. There is a specific shiur, or measurement, of a branch from one of this trees, that is required in order to be burned. Rashi says that since this required measurement is to be burned, it is considered as if it halachically does not exist, even if it has not been burned yet. Therefore, you can’t use it as a lulav, because it doesn’t exist halachically. This is the concept of .
  4. Additionally, if the top of the lulav was cut off or the leaves fell off the spine of the lulav, it is not kosher.
  5. If the leaves just simply opened up (the leaves now point outwards instead of upwards), it’s kosher. R’ Yehuda says that you should tie the leaves to the spine. Branches from palm trees on Har HaBarzel are kosher, even though their leaves are very small.
  6. If you have a lulav that’s only 3 tefachim high (it’s supposed to be 4) and a little extra, enough for you to see it shake (the hadasim and aravot are also 3 high – you have to be able to distinguish between them), then it’s kosher.

 

C. Gemara

  1. The Mishnah speaks in an affirmative tone, which leads us to think that the above listed lulavs are pasul on both on chag (=yom rishon) and chol hamoed (=ch”m=yom sheni).
  2. It’s understood why a dry lulav would be pasul – it needs to be “hadar” as we stated above (we’ll go according to Tosafot’s explanation), and it isn’t, so it shouldn’t matter if it’s chag or ch”m, it would still be pasul. But, as for a stolen lulav, we can understand that it would be pasul on chag because the pasuk says “lachem” – the lulav must be yours. But the “lachem” only applies to chag, since it says “v’lakachtem lachem bayom harishon” – why should a stolen one be pasul on ch”m? The “lachem” doesn’t apply!
  3. R’ Yochanan says that it is pasul both chag and ch”m because it is considered to be a (=M.H.B.B. is the abbreviation I will use) – you come to the mitzvah of lulav by way of an aveira (stealing).
  4. How do we know this? From the pasuk in Malachi from which we learn that a stolen korban is similar to a lame korban – just like you can’t fix a lame korban and make it kosher, neither can you fix a stolen korban and make it kosher, even if the owner has given up looking for it (if the owner gives up, it makes the stolen item halachically belong to the person who stole it).
    1. If the owner has given up, and it halachically belongs to the person who stole it, why should it be unfixable? There should be no problem in bringing a stolen korban if it’s been given up on!
    2. The reason is because the korban is pasul because it is a M.H.B.B (mitzvah haba’ah b’aveira). Therefore we know now that M.H.B.B. can make an object pasul.
  5. Why does Yeshayahu emphasize how much Hashem hates a stolen korban? It is a parable to a king who passes a customs house and commands his servants to pay the customs for him. His servants ask “don’t all the customs payments belong to you anyway?” The king answers that this is so that passers-by won’t neglect paying customs since even the king pays it. Similarly, if Hashem says he hates a stolen korban, Bnei Yisrael should learn from Him and hate to steal.
  6. R’ Ami summarizes: a dry lulav is pasul because it’s not “hadar,” and a stolen one is pasul because it’s a M.H.B.B.
  7. R’ Yitzchak argues and says the Mishnah is only talking about a case of yom rishon (chag). On yom rishon, neither a stolen nor a borrowed lulav is kosher. On yom sheni (chol hamoed), since a borrowed is kosher, we can learn that a stolen one is kosher too, though not preferred. There is no M.H.B.B. to make the lulav pasul.
  8. Summary of reasons for a stolen lulav to be pasul:

 

 

Yom Rishon

Yom Sheni

R’ Yochanan

Not “lachem”

+ M.H.B.B.

M.H.B.B.

R’ Yitzchak

Not “lachem”

Kosher but not preferred

 

  1. R’ Nachman bar Yitzchak asks why the Mishnah did not write anything about a borrowed lulav? Obviously, it must be kosher. If the Mishnah were talking about yom rishon, it couldn’t be kosher, because it doesn’t follow “lachem.” Therefore, we are forced to say that the Mishnah is talking about a case of yom sheni – and if so, it’s saying that on yom sheni a stolen lulav is pasul, which poses a serious question on R’ Yitzchak, who says it’s kosher.
  2. Rava answers that the Mishnah is in fact written about yom rishon. The reason nothing is written about a borrowed lulav is as follows:
    1. If only borrowed were to be written, and not stolen, you would still say that a stolen is kosher because you might think that the concept of  applies (it means that if something is stolen from you, the default is that you give up on it, thus making it belong to the person who stole it). If so, you would think that a stolen lulav would be kosher since it halachically would belong to the person who stole it.
    2. Rather, the Mishnah needs to teach us that the concept of “stam gzeila…” does not apply in this case and a stolen one is pasul because it is not considered “lachem.” From this, we can extrapolate to a borrowed lulav that it is also pasul because it isn’t “lachem” either.
  3. Tosafot ask what we need the pasuk about “lachem” for? Can’t we just learn everything out from M.H.B.B.?
    1. The pasuk is needed for two reasons: for a stolen lulav and for a borrowed one. You need it for a borrowed one because without the pasuk “lachem,” you cannot extrapolate that it would be pasul (as we just did in 10b). You need it for a stolen one, because even though you have M.H.B.B., we originally learned M.H.B.B. from a case of korbanot. The pasuk is just to reassert that M.H.B.B. applies here, as well as with all mitzvot. We know this, because it’s proven in Bava Kama – in a case where a thief stole some wheat, ground it (first change/shinui) and then baked it (second change/shinui) and took off some dough for hafrashat chalah, the bracha he makes on that isn’t a blessing, but more like a curse (an anathema is a good synonym, for all you who are studying SAT words). From this we can see that the chalah is pasul for hafrashat chalah because it is a M.H.B.B.
    2. Why does the gemara say later on that a lulav from an ashera or ir nidachat is pasul because of  (see I.B.3.)? Can’t it just say that they’re both M.H.B.B.? And furthermore, why is an etrog from an ashera that is not an ashera shel Moshe (see above) allowed? Shouldn’t it be pasul also because of M.H.B.B.?
    3. The reason is because M.H.B.B. does not apply here. With a stolen lulav, the reason it is pasul is because of the aveira of the stealing – the stealing is a direct cause for obtaining the lulav. But with an ir nidachat or ashera shel Moshe, there is no real aveira that you obtain the lulav by. Just because it happened to be growing in an ir nidachat or it happened to be planted for the purposes of idol worship does not make it that it came to your hands by way of an aveira. Therefore there is no M.H.B.B. here and you need .

 

D. Gemara from “Amar lehu Rav Huna lehinehu avankiri”

  1. First, let’s define some concepts:
    1.  there is never yeush (giving up) on a piece of land, it always remains halachically belonging to its owner.
    2.  – Anything connected to the land is considered part of the land. However, when it’s disconnected, it becomes the property of whoever took it (in this case the thief).
  2. Rav Huna told a group of avankiri, or Jewish peddlers that when they buy hadasim from non-Jews, they should be sure not to cut the hadasim themselves, but rather the non-Jew should cut it and give it to you. Why? Because land owning non-Jews by default are considered to have stolen the land from Jews, and the concept of  applies.
  3. If so, if the avankiri themselves were to cut the hadasim, it’d be as if there was no yeush (giving up) yet by the original Jewish owners.
  4. Rashi brings two possible explanations what the results of this are and why the non-Jew must cut the hadasim (or you could say that he explains why the hadasim are pasul for the mitzvah of 4 minim):
    1. We can say that  does not apply by itself, but rather it needs yeush PLUS a change in possession (shinui reshut) before anyone can claim ownership of it. (If you only needed yeush, then there would be no problem, because the avankiri could cut it themselves and there would be instantaneous yeush, and therefore it would instantaneously become theirs.) If a non-Jew cuts it, it takes care of the yeush, and it alters the current possession (from the Jew to the non-Jew). Then, from there, the non-Jew gives it to the avankiri, it’s fine, because the avankiri receives it by way of something allowed (beheteira ata leyadei).
    2. If we say that yeush by itself does apply and is adequate to claim ownership, then the avankiri receives it via something allowed (beheteira ata leyadei), it becomes his with respect to monetary issues, but it is still considered a M.H.B.B. because they are still stealing (even if it does become theirs halachically) and thus cannot be used for the 4 minim.
    3. Rashi offers these two explanations because he is unsure if R’ Huna follows the opinion of R’ Yochanan (M.H.B.B. is pasul – second explanation) or R’ Yitzchak (M.H.B.B. isn’t pasul – first explanation).
  5. If the avankiri ended up cutting the hadasim by themselves, wouldn’t there be yeush plus a change in possession anyway when they sell the hadasim (and thus making it able for them to claim ownership)?
  6. Yes – but R’ Huna is giving advice specifically to those avankiri who use some of the hadasim they buy for themselves – and in that case there wouldn’t be a change in possession, and the hadasim would be pasul.
  7. If instead of a change in possession (shinnui reshut), they were to use a change in the object’s physical state (shinui maaseh), such as tying the lulav, hadasim and aravot together, couldn’t that solve the problem? Because a shinui maaseh is also a possibility to use for claiming ownership on the hadasim. But tying them together wouldn’t be considered a shinui maaseh because there is no obligation to tie the 3 together.
  8. Even if you were to say there was an obligation to tie them, then it’s a reversible type of change because you can untie the knot, which means it’s not a real change, or shinui.
  9. So maybe you would change the name of it (shinui shem)? For example, instead of calling the hadasim “asa,” call them “hoshana”? But this doesn’t work, because originally, it also used to be called “hoshana” and then it was changed to “asa” – it’s basically going back and forth between names so it’s not a real change, or shinui.

 

II. Daf Lamed Daled, Amud Bet (not in booklet)

 

A. Mishnah

  1. The Mishnah describes etrogs that are pasul – stolen, dry, one from an ashera or from an ir nidachat. The only main thing which we will be dealing with is an etrog of orlah (orlah = fruits that grow on a tree in the first 3 years) or an etrog from a trumah that is impure is pasul.

 

B. Gemara (Daf Lamed Hey, Amud Alef, starting from “v’shel orlah pasul” – page 23)

  1. Why is an etrog of orlah pasul? R’ Chiya and R’ Asi disagree on this matter. One of them says that it’s because there is no permission to be able to eat it (which there isn’t for orlah = no heiter achila), and the other says that it’s because there is no permission for you to be able to do whatever you want with it like your property (= no din mammon). The gemara assumes that the one that says you need a heiter achila says you don’t need a din mammon, and the one that says you need a din mammon says you don’t need a heiter achila.
  2. But what about a case of an impure trumah (which has no heiter achila, but it has din mammon)? It’s understood why it’s pasul according to the person who requires a heiter achila. Rather, according to the other person, why should it be pasul? There is a din mammon – it should be allowed according to him!
  3. Therefore we see that the assumption the gemara made about the two opinions being exclusive is wrong – rather, both of them agree that you need a heiter achila. The disagreement is only whether or not you need a din mammon in addition to the heiter achila.
  4. What’s the difference between the two opinions? The difference arises in a case of an etrog from maaser sheni, located in Jerusalem, according to R’ Meir (R’ Meir says that maaser sheni is considered “mammon gavoha” – i.e. there is no din mammon. Chachamim disagree with him and say that it is considered “mammon hedyot” – there is a din mammon. Both agree that when in Jerusalem, there is a heiter achila).
    1. According to the person who requires a din mammon, the etrog would be pasul in this case (again, this is only according to R’ Meir).
    2. According to the other guy, the etrog is permitted.
  5. If so, we can deduce that it is R’ Asi that says you need a din mammon, because there is a breita that quotes R’ Asi in saying that according to R’ Meir, an etrog from maaser sheni in Jerusalem is not allowed, and according to Chachamim it is allowed.
  6. R’ Asi also says that in addition to etrog of maaser sheni being pasul, matzah on Pesach made from wheat of maaser sheni is pasul according to R’ Meir (according to Chachamim it’s fine). Additionally, dough made from wheat of maaser sheni does not require hafrashat chalah according to R’ Meir, and according to Chachamim it does.
  7. R’ Papa asks: If R’ Asi justifies his requirement of a din mammon from the fact that it needs to be yours (i.e. “lachem”), which he does, we can understand it with chalah where it says , as well as with etrog where it says “lachem.” However, with matzah, there is no place that it says that the matzah must be yours.
  8. Rabbah bar Shmuel says that there is a gzeira shava between chalah and matzah via the word  – if in chalah it must be yours and not maaser sheni, so to it must be yours with matzah.

 

III. Daf Mem Alef, Amud Alef (page 25)

 

A. Mishnah

  1. Originally, the lulav was shaken in the Beit HaMikdash for 7 days, and in the rest of Israel only one day. After the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, R’ Yochanan ben Zakkai decreed that in the rest of Israel, the lulav should be shaken for 7 days as a memorial to the Beit HaMikdash. Also, he decreed that on Yom Henef (16th of Nisan), kemach chadash should be forbidden the entire day.
    1. Yom Henef is the day they brought the Korban haOmer – after the korban was brought, you were allowed to eat the new wheat from the year (=kemach chadash).
    2. After Beit HaMikdash was destroyed, according to the Torah, you have to wait till the sun rises on the 16th of Nisan to eat kemach chadash.
    3. Instead, R’ Yochanan ben Zakkai decreed that you have to wait till the day is over to eat it, because the pasuk is ambiguous as to the time when kemach chadash is allowed.
  2. Tosafot say that when R’ Yochanan decreed these two decrees together. But they ask why does the gemara in Menachot not mention the one about Yom Henef when it talks about the decree regarding the lulav, when the gemara in Rosh Hashana does bring them together? (Tosafot do not answer their question).

 

B. Gemara

  1. Why did R’ Yochanan decree these in memorial to the Beit HaMikdash? Because of the pasuk in Yirmiyahu (it is quoted inside the gemara, look there for it). People should remember the Beit HaMikdash, even though we have so many things in memory of it already – it should not become a trite, habitual thing.
  2. Why did he make the decree about Yom Henef? In hopes that the Beit HaMikdash will be rebuilt quickly. If they were to allow it in the morning as soon as the sun rises, perhaps if they Beit HaMikdash was built the next year, people would not realize that they can no longer wait only until the morning, but must revert back to waiting for the Korban haOmer to be brought.

 

IV. Daf Mem Alef, Amud Bet (page 26)

 

A. Mishnah

  1. If the first day of Sukkot falls on Shabbat, the people must take their lulavs to shul on Friday night, leave it there overnight, and in the morning come and take it by recognizing it by a unique characteristic. This is because chachamim said that you cannot borrow your friend’s lulav on the first day, but on the other days you can.
  2. R’ Yossi says that if he forgot it was Shabbat and he brought his lulav out to public domain, he isn’t punished because he was in the permissible realm of the mitzvah.

 

B. Gemara

  1. We learn from the word “velakachtem” (from the pasuk above) that each and every person must shake the lulav himself. We learn from “lachem” that it excludes a stolen or borrowed lulav. This brought chachamim to say that you can’t use your friend’s lulav unless he gave it to you as a present (matanah).
  2. Rabban Gamliel, R’ Yehoshua, R’ Elazar ben Azaria and R’ Akiva were on a boat, and only Rabban Gamliel had a lulav, which he bought for 1000 zuz. Rabban Gamliel shook it and fulfilled the mitzvah. Then he gave it to R’ Yehoshua as a present, and he shook it. He gave it to R’ Elazar as a present, who shook it and gave it similarly to R’ Akiva. Then R’ Akiva returned it to Rabban Gamliel.
  3. Why does the breita specifically have to say that R’ Akiva return it to Rabban Gamliel? To teach you that it was a specific kind of present – a present which is given on the condition that it will be returned (). The breita indicates that such a present is legally considered like any other present you give, and thus it is good for the mitzvah.
  4. However, Rava says that you only fulfill the mitzvah after the lulav or etrog is returned to the owner – it’s as if you are fulfilling the mitzvah retroactively.
  5. Why does it say he bought it for 1000 zuz? To show you how valuable and meaningful the mitzvot are to them.

 

V. Daf Mem Bet, Amud Alef (page 27A)

 

A. Mishnah

  1. Sometimes you shake the lulav and aravot for seven days, and sometimes six.
  2. You say hallel and rejoice (i.e. eat meat) for eight days.
  3. You sit in the sukkah and in the Beit HaMikdash they poured water on the mizbeach for seven days.
  4. The flute was played at Simchat Bet HaShoeva sometime for five days, and sometimes six (this was done during chol hamoed – if Shabbat was on chol hamoed, it was only 5 days).
  5. When is the lulav shaken for 7 days? If the first day of Sukkot falls on Shabbat, you can shake the lulav on Shabbat. If Shabbat comes out on any other day, you do not shake the lulav on Shabbat, making it only 6 days that you shake the lulav.
    1. The same reasoning applies for aravot, except with aravot it depends if the 7th day falls on Shabbat, not the 1st.
  6. On the first day when it fell on Shabbat, people used to bring their lulavs to Beit HaMikdash, and a bunch of people were waiting there to accept the lulavs and put them on shelves (older people put theirs in the lishka, a side room). This group of people told everyone to declare that “whoever gets a hold of my lulav, I give it to them as a present.” The next morning, the group of people stood on stages and threw lulavs to people in the crowd. Unfortunately, people in the crowd were stealing lulavs from each other and hitting one another. When the Bet Din saw that people were coming into physical danger, they decreed that everyone should shake their lulav at their own home.

 

B. Gemara

  1. Why is it than on any other day besides the first, lulav does not supercede Shabbat? The only prohibition on Shabbat would be muktzeh, which is from Rabanan, and since it’s for a mitzvah from the Torah, shouldn’t it be allowed? Rabbah answers because there is a possibility that he doesn’t know how to shake it, and he will go to an expert to learn how to, and in doing so he might carry 4 amot in a public domain. This is the same reason why we don’t read the megilah or blow the shofar on Shabbat.
  2. If Rabbah is right, then why does lulav supercede Shabbat on the first day? Isn’t there suspicion that he will violate Shabbat then too? Because Rabanan decreed that on the first day, people should shake the lulav in their home, where there is no suspicion of carrying in a public domain.
  3. That’s fine, but what did they do in the time of the Mikdash before Rabanan made this decree? In the time of the Mikdash, people didn’t shake the lulav in the house, they did it at the Mikdash. Since when it’s at the Mikdash, it is a mitzvah from the Torah, Rabbah’s decree about suspicion of violating Shabbat did not apply (mitzvah from the Torah supercedes the muktzeh from Rabanan). But on the other days, when shaking the lulav itself was from Rabanan, Rabbah’s decree does apply, and therefore lulav does not supercede Shabbat on days other than the first. Yes, this is pretty confusing, but I tried to explain it as clear as possible.
  4. What about today, why doesn’t lulav supercede Shabbat even on the first day nowadays? Because we don’t know the exact fixations of the months, therefore we can’t really tell when the first day really is.
  5. However, in Israel where they do know when the first day really is, lulav does supercede Shabbat there. This is because there is a mishnah that says instead of everyone bringing their lulavs to Beit HaMikdash on Friday night (see the Mishnah above), they brought it to shul. This way, we know that they do in fact do lulav in shul on the first day if it falls on Shabbat.

 

 

 

VI. Daf Mem Gimel, Amud Bet (page 29)

 

A. Gemara from “Arava b’shvi’i”

  1. Why does the mitzvah of placing the aravot on the mizbeach supercede Shabbat if the 7th day falls on Shabbat? R’ Yochanan says in order to make known that the mitzvah of aravot in the Mikdash is from the Torah (because it’s not stated explicitly in the Torah really).
  2. If so, why shouldn’t we use R’ Yochanan’s reasoning to have lulav supercede Shabbat on every other day besides the 1st day (in the Mikdash, where it is from the Torah)? (Even though lulav is written in the Torah, Rashi explains that it’s also sort of only hinted to)
  3. Because of the gzeira of Rabbah – we are suspicious that the people who came to the Mikdash would possibly forget it’s Shabbat and go to learn how to shake the lulav (see V.B.1.).
  4. Why don’t we say that for aravot, the gzeira of Rabbah also applies and that we would be suspicious of people who would violate Shabbat?
  5. Because aravot is only done by a select few messengers from Beit Din, whereas lulav is done by everyone, and there is more room for a possible violation of Shabbat.
  6. If there is less room for possible violation of Shabbat with aravot, why don’t we use the exact same question we asked in #2 for aravot instead of lulav? Why shouldn’t aravot supercede Shabbat every day, not just the 7th? (The gzeira of Rabbah doesn’t apply with aravot so the answer in #3 is inapplicable).
  7. Because if we were to have aravot supercede Shabbat every day, and lulav supercede Shabbat only on the 1st day, it would bring about improper degradation of the mitzvah of lulav.

 

VII. Daf Bet, Amud Alef (page 1)

 

A. Mishnah

  1. A sukkah taller than 20 amot is pasul. R’ Yehuda says it’s not.
  2. If it’s shorter than 10 tefachim or in has less than 3 walls, or there is more sun than shade in the sukkah, it’s pasul.
  3. Very important Rashi: the schach is what the sukkah is named for. Therefore many times when the gemara mentions the word “sukkah” it means the essence of the sukkah, or the schach itself.

 

B. Gemara

  1. In the time of the gemara, dead-end sidestreets used to have large beams above the entrance to the street (to indicate that you’re going from a karmelit to public domain). In masechet Eruvin, it says that a beam higher than 20 amot should be lowered, and it doesn’t say that it’s unneeded (the equivalent of pasul in this case). What’s the difference between here, with sukkah where it says pasul and there where it says it should just be lowered?
  2. Sukkah is from the Torah, whereas the beam by the dead-end is only something made by Rabanan. Sukkah should be pasul because if it doesn’t follow the Torah’s specifications, it is in fact pasul. With the beam, since it’s from Rabanan, there is more leniency. Also, since the idea of the beam is something people aren’t very familiar with (whereas people are already familiar with a sukkah), it needs to be more explained in the mishnah in Eruvin.
  3. An alternate answer is that if the mishnah were to specify how to correct the problem of 20 amot, the mishnah would have had to specify how to correct the other things it wrote about, which would make it longer and more verbose, and the mishnah tries to keep the wording to a minimum.
  4. So, why is a sukkah higher than 20 amot pasul?
  5. Rabbah says because of the pasuk : a person only “knows” that he’s in a sukkah up to 20 amot. Beyond that, the eye doesn’t lead up the wall far enough to see the roof and notice that it’s a sukkah.
  6. R’ Zeira says because of : up to 20 amot, a person knows the shade is coming from the sukkah (i.e. the schach). Beyond that, most of the shade comes from the tallness of the walls.
  7. Abayei asks on R’ Zeira what if there is a sukkah below 20 amot between two mountains (see picture) – the mountains provide most of the shade, and not the schach – does that mean that it’s not a good sukkah?
  8. R’ Zeira answers that had the mountains not beem there, the sukkah would have been fine, and that’s all that counts – it is regardless of external environmental conditions.
  9. Rava says it’s because of : the Torah says you have to live in a temporary house – and a house is temporary only up to 20 amot. More than that, it’s a permanent house.
  10. Abayei asks Rava what if a person put up steel walls and put schach over it, since it’s a permanent house, does that mean it’s not a good sukkah?
  11. Rava answers that it doesn’t matter if the sukkah itself is temporary or permanent – as long as you still have the option between the two. Past 20 amot, it can only be permanent.
  12. Everyone agrees that we do not follow Rabbah’s opinion, because the “knowing” that the pasuk refers to is a “knowing” for generations, not an active “knowing” in the sukkah.
  13. Neither do we accept R’ Zeira’s opinion because his pasuk is said in reference to the time of Moshiach – only then will a sukkah be the majority of the shade.
  14. If so, why didn’t the pasuk just call it a canopy (chupah) that provides shade? Therefore, R’ Zeira answers that the fact that “sukkah” is written is to hint that the sukkah (i.e. the schach) has to be the source of the shade.
  15. We don’t accept Rava’s opinion because of the question that Abayei asked about steel walls – Abayei is correct and it is in fact a kosher sukkah.
  16. Rav says that the case in which there is a disagreement in the Mishnah between R’ Yehuda and Rabanan according to Rabbah is in a case where the walls of the sukkah do not actually touch the schach (see picture) but rather the schach is rested on an outer frame that rests above the walls. If they do touch, which is what most sukkahs have today, then Rabanan and R’ Yehuda both agree that it’s kosher if it’s more than 20 amot. This is because when the wall touches the schach, when you look at the wall, you can see the schach by peripheral vision. But when the schach is way above the walls, your eyes don’t lead up the wall far enough to see the schach. Therefore, you would not “know” that you are in a sukkah (remember, this is according to Rabbah).
  17. According to R’ Zeira, the case of dispute in the Mishnah is when the sukkah is 4x4 amot or  less, because only then will the walls provide most of the shade over 20 amot. However, if it’s bigger than 4x4 amot, it will be kosher if the walls are taller than 20 amot because the increase in area proportionally increases the amount of shade from the schach.
  18. According to R’ Chanan, the case of dispute is when there is just exactly enough space in the sukkah to hold a person’s head, most of his body and a small table. If it’s larger than that, it’s kosher even if it’s taller than 20 amot.
  19. Tosafot ask what R’ Chanan’s reasoning is for this (after all, we said Rabbah’s and R’ Zeira’s before). If the sukkah is the size where his head, most of his body, and table fit in, it’s about the size of a chicken coop, which is a small, but tall (over 20 amot) structure. R’ Chanan’s reasoning is that since a chicken coop is not considered a human dwelling, the sukkah should be recognizable as a human dwelling and not as a chicken coop. Therefore, if it’s larger, you can see it’s a human dwelling, and it’s kosher regardless of size.

 

C. Gemara from “Meitvei sukkah shehi gvohah”

  1. When R’ Yehuda says in the mishnah that a sukkah over 20 amot is kosher, he means up to an extent of  40 or 50 amot. He brings a proof for this:
    1. Hileni the Queen had a sukkah over 20 amot and she had elders from the Sanhendrin visiting her sukkah, and they did not comment at all about it being over 20 amot. If so, this should show that over 20 amot is fine – a proof for R’ Yehuda.
  2. Rabanan answered that this story is merely a proof that a woman is exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah – they didn’t say anything because she didn’t need to do it in the first place.
  3. R’ Yehuda responds: Hileni had 7 sons, and she did all her deeds according to the decrees of the rabbis.
    1. Why do we need to say she did all her deeds according to the rabbis?
    2. In case you say that all 7 sons were under bar mitzvah, and they’re not obligated in the mitzvah, it is said so that you know that it is impossible for there not to have been at least one son among the 7 that was bar mitzvah, who was obligated. If he was obligated, she would have had to make sure her sukkah was according to the decrees of the rabbis so that her son can fulfill the mitzvah.
    3. What if you say that she had at least a few sons who were at or over the age at which education begins, who are obligated in sukkah by Rabanan? This is another reason why it is said that she did all her deeds according to the rabbis – to show that she wouldn’t ignore her sons’ obligation even if it’s from Rabanan.
  4. According to Rabbah, who says that the dispute is in a case where the walls don’t touch the schach above it, this story is understood because it’s common for a queen to sit in a sukkah with the schach way above the walls because of air ventilation.
  5. Rather according to R’ Zeira who says that the dispute is in a case of a small sukkah, how can this be? Is it really like a queen will sit in a small sukkah? The case is not understood then!
  6. Rabbah bar Rav Ada says that Hileni’s sukkah was made up of several small rooms. But is it like a queen will really sit in a sukkah of several small rooms?
  7. It doesn’t matter – all it needed was one room which was larger than 4x4 amot for her sons to fulfill the mitzvah, which there was, and then she sat in a smaller room by herself out of tzniut, because it doesn’t matter that her room would be pasul, since a woman is exempt from sukkah anyway. Therefore her sons were in a kosher sukkah, but she wasn’t, because she was exempt anyway (that’s why Rabanan say this is a proof that women are exempt).
  8. According to R’ Yehuda however, who uses this as a proof that a sukkah over 20 amot is kosher, Hileni had at least one of her sons with her in her small room, and therefore would have needed to sit in a kosher sukkah – so the sukkah that she was in, which was less than 4x4 and over 20 amot, must have been kosher according to R’ Yehuda, because the elders of the Sanhedrin didn’t mention anything.
  9. Rashi asks how do we understand the dispute between Rabanan and R’ Yehuda in this case according to R’ Chanan, who says that the sukkah is at a size enough for a person’s head, body and table? The case is unclear because according to R’ Yehuda, she had at least one son with her – and if so, the sukkah would have had to be larger than what R’ Chanan specifies (and we know already that if it’s larger, it’s kosher according to both Rabanan and R’ Yehuda). If so, what is R’ Yehuda’s proof from this case according to R’ Chanan? The answer is that instead of having one person and a full table in Hileni’s [smaller] room, the majority of the table was in the larger main room, and the table was long enough that part of it was in Hileni’s room. If there is only half the table in the room, while keeping the same measurements that R’ Chanan gives, there is more room for people to sit – that way her sons could have sat with her.

 

VIII. Daf Tet, Amud Alef (page 5)

 

A. Mishnah

  1. The main question in this mishnah is if the building of a sukkah has to be l’shma (for the purpose of the mitzvah). For example, matzah that is not l’shma is neither chametz nor matzah. Everyone agrees that the schach has to be for the purpose of shade, but there is a dispute whether the schach has to be for the purpose of the mitzvah.
  2. If a sukkah is an old sukkah (i.e. built more than 30 days before Sukkot), Beit Shammai say that it’s pasul (because it needs to be l’shma), but Beit Hillel say it’s kosher (it doesn’t need to be l’shma). But if the sukkah was built for the purpose of Sukkot, even if you built it from last year it’s kosher. Conversely, if you built it within 30 days before Sukkot, even without it being l’shma specifically, it’s as if it is l’shma by default (stama l’shma).
  3. Tosafot bring the Yerushalmi that says if you have an old sukkah, you need to renew something it in. The rabbis say that you need to renew at least one tefach, and R’ Yossi says that anything of any size you renew is adequate – as long as it covers the entire span of the sukkah. After this, the Yerushalmi discusses old matzah (i.e. not l’shma) – Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai argue in this. However, Rebbi says that everyone agrees matzah that’s not l’shma is pasul because there is a suspicion that the maker was not careful and there might be chametz.

 

B. Gemara

  1. Why does Beit Shammai say it’s pasul? Perhaps because of the pasuk : from this we learn that a sukkah has to be for the purpose of the mitzvah of sukkah.
  2. Beit Hillel follows R’ Sheshet: from the above pasuk we learn that you’re not allowed to make use of the wood of the sukkah all throughout Sukkot because shem shamayim takes effect over them (i.e. they are holy). This is said by R’ Yehuda ben Beteira – since the holiday is holy and for Hashem, so is the sukkah holy and for Hashem. But Beit Shammai also follow this learning from the pasuk! So we need a new pasuk to explain why Beit Shammai say an old sukkah is pasul.
  3. So instead, Beit Shammai use the pasuk  to say that sukkah must be for the purpose of the holiday. Beit Hillel use it to say that you’re allowed to build a sukkah on chol hamoed, whereas Beit Shammai say that you’re not allowed to build a sukkah on chol hamoed.
  4. Why didn’t Beit Hillel use Rav’s opinion in the dispute about tzitzit?
    1. Rav says that if any extra pieces that were left over or sticking out that were cut off from existing tzitzits are pasul. If he used a ball of yarn, it’s kosher.
    2. Shmuel says that a ball of yarn is not kosher either because the weaving (tviya) of the tzitzit needs to be l’shma (note: I am not sure why using a ball of yarn would not be l’shma, so it’s a little unclear to me).
    3. If Shmuel says the tviya has to be l’shma, then Rav must say it doesn’t have to be l’shma, and Beit Hillel could use Rav’s opinion and apply it to sukkah as their proof that sukkah need not be l’shma.
  5. You would think that tzitzit and sukkah are similar because both have the words  with them and you’d think there would be a gzeira shava. But the two psukim are used for different things.
    1. With tzitzit, the  is used to show that it must be l’shma.
    2. With sukkah, the  is used to exclude a stolen sukkah and say that it’s pasul.
    3. So where does tzitzit exclude a stolen one? From a different pasuk entirely that says  – to show that it must be theirs.
  6. Tosafot ask why we need the  pasuk in sukkah to learn about a stolen sukkah – can’t we just learn it from good ol’ M.H.B.B.? And furthermore, since we learned with lulav and etrog from the word “lachem” that a borrowed etrog/lulav is pasul and extrapolated from that that a stolen one is certainly pasul – so certainly  appears to be superfluous. But if we were to use what we learned with etrog/lulav and apply it to sukkah we see that a borrowed sukkah is pasul – but a borrowed sukkah is in fact kosher (because of the pasuk . Therefore we need the pasuk to teach us that a stolen sukkah, and only a stolen sukkah, is pasul. And what about M.H.B.B.? M.H.B.B. is from Rabanan, whereas coming from a pasuk it’s from the Torah. What’s the difference (i.e. the nafka minah) you say? The difference is that if it was from Rabanan, if he used a stolen sukkah he wouldn’t have to sit again and make another bracha, but if it is from the Torah, he has to do it over again as if he didn’t do anything in the first place.

 

IX. Daf Tet, Amud Bet (page 6)

(Note, these two gemaras aren’t done precisely straight from the gemara, but more summarized. Keep this in mind when studying)

 

A. Mishnah

  1. A person who builds his sukkah under a tree is as if he built it within his house.
  2. If a person builds a sukkah on top of another sukkah, the top is kosher and the bottom is pasul. R’ Yehuda says that if there is no one present in the top one, the bottom is kosher.

 

B. Gemara

  1. Rava says that the case the mishnah is talking about is with a tree that provides more shade than sun coming through – but if there is more sun coming through than shade provided by the tree, the sukkah is kosher.
  2. Why does the mishnah say that if he builds it under a tree, it’s as if he built it within his house? Why didn’t it just say that it’s pasul? To show that a tree is similar to a house – since in a house there is more shade than there is sun coming in, so to is the tree in the mishnah’s case providing more shade than there is sun coming through.
  3. So what exactly happens when you have a tree with more sun coming through than shade provided? There are two differing opinions on what happens exactly.
  4. Rashi’s opinion is that shade provided by the tree is inherently pasul. However, if there exists kosher schach on the sukkah (more than there is of tree shade), the shade from the schach and the shade from the tree add up. Note: you need only a majority (i.e. 51%) of shade in the sukkah for it to be kosher. For example:

According to Rashi, the 10% adds up with the 45% and equals 55% which means that it is in fact kosher. But how can pasul + kosher = kosher?

  1. The Ran’s opinion is that pasul schach and kosher schach do add up – but in the opposite way. If you have a certain amount of kosher schach, any amount of pasul schach will detract from the amount of kosher you have. For example:

According to the Ran, the 10% takes away from the 55%, making it as if there is only 45% there. But if there’s only 45% how is it kosher?

  1. The answer to both questions is the concept of  – according to Rashi, the pasul can add up with the kosher because the majority of kosher schach cancels & converts the pasul to kosher – making 55% kosher. According to the Ran, the pasul is only cancelled – and not converted. That means that if you started out with 55%, the pasul 10% does absolutely nothing to it and it remains 55%.

 

C. Gemara from “Tanu Rabanan (basukkot) teshvu”

  1. In a case of a sukkah built on top of a sukkah: sometimes both are kosher, sometimes none are, sometimes the top is and the bottom isn’t, and sometimes the bottom is and the top isn’t.
  2. When are they both kosher? If there is more shade than sun in the top, and more sun than shade in the bottom, and both are within 20 amot – it’s as if the schach in the middle doesn’t exist.

  1. They are both pasul when both have less shade than sun, and the height of the top one alone is within 20 amot.

  1. The bottom is kosher and the top is pasul if the bottom has more shade and the top has more sun, and both are within 20 amot.

  1. The bottom is pasul and the top is kosher when both have more shade and the top is within 20 amot.

  1. In the case of the bottom kosher and the top pasul, isn’t it obvious that this should be the case (the percentages indicate that this is exactly what it should be, what’s new about it?) We need it for the person who holds the opinion that pasul schach and kosher schach add up. (There are differing opinions in this case with Rashi and Ran, but I will not go into them).

 

X. Daf Kaf Hey, Amud Alef (page 9)

 

A. Mishnah

  1. People on the way to do a mitzvah are exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah.
  2. Sick people and those taking care of them are also exempt.
  3. If you eat a temporary meal (snack), you may eat it outside of the sukkah.
  4. Rashi says that examples of people on the way to do a mitzvah are:
    1. Someone going to learn Torah.
    2. Someone going to greet his Rabbi.
    3. Someone going to free captives.
  5. This illustrates the concept of osek b’mitzvah patur m’mitzvah.
  6. While Rashi says that if you’re interrupted in the middle of a mitzvah, you are still exempt for the interim, Tosafot say that during the interim period you are obligated to do any other mitzvah.

 

B. Gemara

  1. Where do we learn this from? From the pasuk  – this excludes someone involved currently in a mitzvah. The pasuk  excludes a groom (he is also on his way to a mitzvah). From this, it was said that a person marrying a virgin is exempt, but one marrying a widow is not.
  2. So what do we learn from this? Just like the groom is on his way to do a mitzvah, someone on his way to do any other mitzvah should be exempt. If you’re not on your way to do a mitzvah, you are not exempt from kriat shma.
  3. So why did the Torah not write just  and ? The chaf sofit comes to teach you that if you are going on your way to do just anything (or sitting in your house doing nothing), then you are obligated in kriat shma. However, if you are not going on your way, but in the Torah’s way, i.e. on the way to do a mitzvah, you are exempt.
  4. If so, someone marrying a widow should also be exempt, because he is also on his way to do a mitzvah! The gemara answers that if he is marrying a virgin, he is busy preparing himself mentally, whereas if he marries a widow, he doesn’t have to prepare himself as much because she is more experienced.
  5. So does this mean that everyone that is mentally involved in something is exempt? For example, someone who owns a boat and heard it just sank is very disturbed by this mentally, should he be exempt also?
  6. R’ Aba bar Zavda attempts to bring a proof that the owner of the boat should be exempt by saying that a mourner is obligated to do all the mitzvot except tefillin, in which is mentioned the word . And a mourner is disturbed mentally!
  7. The gemara answers that with a mourner, the mental disturbance is one that is self-inflicted and it is only one of permission (reshut) – with a groom, the disturbance is one of a mitzvah, which is an obligation. Therefore it remains that any disturbance by permission (including the owner of the boat) is obligated in the mitzvah.
  8. Why must we learn it from kriat shma? The gemara brings an alternate way of learning it from the pasuk  (in reference to Pesach Sheni). Who are the people that the pasuk refers to?
    1. R’ Yossi haGelili says they were the people who carried Yosef’s coffin (they were impure because the coffin was metal and metal transfers impurity).
    2. R’ Akiva says they were Mishael and Eltzafan, that were impure from removing Nadav and Avihu’s bodies from the Mishkan.
    3. R’ Yitzchak says that if they were either the carriers of Yosef’s coffin or Mishael and Eltzafan, they would have had an adequate amount of time to purify themselves before Pesach and thus wouldn’t need to be coming to Moshe about Pesach Sheni. Rather, they were people that were involved in burying a  on the 8th day of Nisan, and thus didn’t have enough time to complete the purification by the start of Pesach (but rather by the day after Pesach started they would have been able to).
    4. Rashi asks what the problem was – they would have been pure to eat the korban by the 14th at night! But rather the problem isn’t with the eating, it’s with the slaughtering – R’ Yitzchak holds that impure people cannot slaughter the lamb on the 14th during the day.
    5. If so, we see that someone who is involved in the mitzvah of burying a dead person is exempt from the mitzvah of korban Pesach.
  9. Why do we need both sources?
    1. If we had only the source about Pesach Sheni, we might say that they were exempt from korban Pesach because at the time of the burial, they had no obligation for korban Pesach – someone involved in a mitzvah on the 8th need not worry about doing a mitzvah on the 14th – they have to concentrate on the moment. So we might’ve thought that perhaps a groom would be obligated.
    2. So why can’t we just use the source from kriat shma and learn from that that they would be exempt from korban Pesach? Because korban Pesach is a mitzvah with the risk of the punishment of . We need the source from Pesach Sheni to teach us than even in a mitzvah with the risk of the punishment of , you would still be exempt.
  10. Going back to what R’ Aba bar Zavda said (see #6), we examine the case. Hashem said to Yechezkel after his wife died that he must wear his tefillin – so we see that any other regular mourner does not have to. But this is only on the first day of aveilut.
  11. R’ Aba bar Zavda also says that a mourner is obligated in the mitzvah of sukkah. But isn’t this obvious?
  12. It isn’t obvious because R’ Aba also says that someone that is distressed is exempt from sukkah. Therefore R’ Aba teaches us that a mourner is obligated because his distress does not come as a direct result of the sukka, and he must come to terms with his distress for the mitzvah.
  13. R’ Aba also says that a groom and his escorters are exempt from sukkah throughout the seven days after the wedding. Why? Because they are obligated to rejoice.
  14. So why don’t they eat, drink and be merry in the sukkah, fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah? Because there is no real rejoicing other than at the chupah.
  15. Tosafot explain that this is why if the bride & groom go to eat elsewhere, they don’t make sheva brachot (=rejoicing) since the sheva brachot must be in the place where they got married. Sefardim hold by this.
  16. So why don’t they eat in the sukkah, and go to the chupah and rejoice there? Because there is no real rejoicing other than in the place that you eat at.
  17. So why can’t they just get married in the sukkah and have the sukkah be the chupah, and solve all the problems?
    1. Abayei says because of yichud – the groom might leave for a moment and the bride would be alone with the one of the escorters.
    2. Rava says because of tza’ar hachatan – stress of the groom. Since the sukkah only had 3 walls and both of them must remain there for 7 days straight, they don’t have as much privacy as they might like.
    3. The difference (i.e. the nafka minah) between them? According to Abayei, if there are a lot of people in the sukkah at any given moment, they can in fact get married in the sukkah. According to Rava, if the sukkah is larger and has 4 walls, they can get married in the sukkah.
  18. R’ Zeira says that when he got married, he ate in the sukkah, and then went back to the chupah to rejoice (against the concept that there is no real rejoicing other than in the place that you eat at) because fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah gave him such pleasure that he was constantly rejoicing – both at the sukkah and at the chupah.
  19. A groom and his escorters are exempt from prayer and tefillin (because they canot concentrate enough), but obligated in kriat shma, according to R’ Sheila who says that someone involved in a mitzvah is still obligated in any other mitzvah.
  20. R’ Chananya ben Akiva says that someone who is writing a Sefer Torah or tefillin or a mezuzah, as well as the wholesalers and retailers of the tefillin are exempt from kriat shma and all other mitzvot in the Torah, because according to R’ Yossi haGelili, a person involved in a mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah.
  21. A person who travels during the day is exempt from sukkah during the day, obligated at night. If he travels at night, he is exempt at night and obligated during the day. If he travels both day and night, he is exempt both day and night.
  22. This is because R’ Chisda and Rabbah bar R’ Huna went to visit the Resh Galuta (the exilarch – head of the Jewish diaspora in Bavel) during sukkot and on their way, they stopped and slept by the river in Sura, and not in a sukkah, because they were on their way to a mitzvah and thus were exempt.
  23. Tosafot says that we learn that travellers are exempt from sukkah and can eat while on their way from the concept of  – just like a person who lives at home doesn’t always eat at home, so can a traveller also eat on his way and not have to stop for the mitzvah of sukkah.

 

 

C. Gemara from “Ochlim achilat arai chutz lasukkah”

  1. What is considered a temporary meal (snack)? R’ Yosef says 2 to 3 beitzah (measurement of an egg).
  2. Abayei responds that many times, a size of 2-3 beitzah would be considered a full meal by many people. Rather, Abayei says that a snack is considered to be the size of one beitzah – and that is what the halacha is.

 

 

Congratulations! You’ve just finished studying for Gemara! Best of luck on the final!

 

-Ari