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.
I. Daf Kaf Tet Amud Bet (Page 18)
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.
learn from “lachem” that the 4 minim have to be yours and not
stolen or borrowed.
learn from “hadar” that the etrog must be nice and pleasant-looking.
learn from “kapot” that the lulav must be tied.
to Rashi, “lifnei Hashem” refers to only Beit HaMikdash. Rambam says it
refers to anywhere in Jerusalem.
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).
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
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 .
if the top of the lulav was cut off or the leaves fell off the spine of
the lulav, it is not kosher.
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.
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
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).
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”
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).
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
of reasons for a stolen lulav to be pasul:
Kosher but not preferred
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.
answers that the Mishnah is in fact written about yom rishon. The reason
nothing is written about a borrowed lulav is as follows:
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.
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.
ask what we need the pasuk about “lachem” for?
Can’t we just learn everything out from M.H.B.B.?
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.
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.?
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”
let’s define some concepts:
– there is
never yeush (giving up) on a piece of land, it always remains halachically
belonging to its owner.
– 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).
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.
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.
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):
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).
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.
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).
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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
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.
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).
to the person who requires a din mammon, the etrog would be pasul in this
case (again, this is only according to R’ Meir).
to the other guy, the etrog is permitted.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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)
you shake the lulav and aravot for seven days, and sometimes six.
say hallel and rejoice (i.e. eat meat) for eight days.
sit in the sukkah and in the Beit HaMikdash they poured water on the
mizbeach for seven days.
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).
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.
same reasoning applies for aravot, except with aravot it depends if the 7th
day falls on Shabbat, not the 1st.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
VI. Daf Mem Gimel, Amud Bet (page 29)
A. Gemara from “Arava b’shvi’i”
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).
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)
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.).
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?
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
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
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)
sukkah taller than 20 amot is pasul. R’ Yehuda says it’s not.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
why is a sukkah higher than 20 amot pasul?
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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).
to R’ Zeira, the case of dispute in the Mishnah is when the sukkah is 4x4
amot orless, 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.
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
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”
R’ Yehuda says in the mishnah that a sukkah over 20 amot is kosher, he
means up to an extent of40 or 50 amot. He brings a proof for this:
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.
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.
Yehuda responds: Hileni had 7 sons, and she did all her deeds according to
the decrees of the rabbis.
do we need to say she did all her deeds according to the rabbis?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
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
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)
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
didn’t Beit Hillel use Rav’s opinion in the dispute about tzitzit?
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,
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).
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.
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.
tzitzit, the is used to show that it must be
sukkah, the is used to exclude a stolen
sukkah and say that it’s pasul.
where does tzitzit exclude a stolen one? From a different pasuk entirely
that says – to show that it must be theirs.
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
person who builds his sukkah under a tree is as if he built it within his
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.
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.
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
what exactly happens when you have a tree with more sun coming through
than shade provided? There are two differing opinions on what happens
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?
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?
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
C. Gemara from “Tanu Rabanan (basukkot) teshvu”
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.
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
are both pasul when both have less shade than sun, and the height of the
top one alone is within 20 amot.
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.
bottom is pasul and the top is kosher when both have more shade and the
top is within 20 amot.
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
X. Daf Kaf Hey, Amud Alef (page 9)
on the way to do a mitzvah are exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah.
people and those taking care of them are also exempt.
you eat a temporary meal (snack), you may eat it outside of the sukkah.
says that examples of people on the way to do a mitzvah are:
going to learn Torah.
going to greet his Rabbi.
going to free captives.
illustrates the concept of osek b’mitzvah patur m’mitzvah.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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?
Yossi haGelili says they were the people who carried Yosef’s coffin (they
were impure because the coffin was metal and metal transfers impurity).
Akiva says they were Mishael and Eltzafan, that
were impure from removing Nadav and Avihu’s bodies from the Mishkan.
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
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.
so, we see that someone who is involved in the mitzvah of burying a dead
person is exempt from the mitzvah of korban Pesach.
do we need both sources?
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.
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.
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.
bar Zavda also says that a mourner is obligated in the mitzvah of sukkah.
But isn’t this obvious?
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.
R’ Abaalso 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.
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
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.
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
why can’t they just get married in the sukkah and have the sukkah be the
chupah, and solve all the problems?
says because of yichud – the groom might leave for a moment and the bride
would be alone with the one of the escorters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
is considered a temporary meal (snack)? R’ Yosef says beitzah (measurement of an egg).
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
Congratulations! You’ve just finished studying for
Gemara! Best of luck on the final!