POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafSukah 15
1) MISHNAH: TURNING A CEILING INTO S'CHACH
(a) (R. Yehudah) Beis Shamai requires the shaking of each plank
as well as the removal of every second plank while Beis
Hillel permits the S'chach after either of these acts.
2) THE RATIONALE FOR THE MACHLOKES IN OUR MISHNAH
(b) (R. Meir) He must remove every second plank (and shaking is
(a) Question: We understand that Beis Hillel requires an act to
remove the stigma of Ta'aseh v'lo Min he'Asui, but why does
Beis Shamai demand *two* acts (one should suffice)!?
3) MISHNAH: METAL RODS AND A SUKAH IN A HAYSTACK
1. Answer: To remove the concern of Gezeiras Tikrah.
(b) Answer: It is owing to Gezeiras Tikrah and Beis Shamai means
that *even though* he shakes the planks, he must remove
every second plank in order to make the Sukah usable.
2. Question: Then, again, removing every second plank
should be sufficient!
(c) Question: Then R. Meir is not arguing, he is only restating
the position of Beis Shamai!?
(d) Answer: R. Meir is telling R. Yehudah that Beis Hillel and
Beis Shamai do not argue on the matter.
(e) Question: It seems that R. Meir and R. Yehudah have already
argued over Gezeiras Tikrah in the previous Mishnah (14a)!?
(f) Answer (R. Chiya b. Aba citing R. Yochanan): The previous
Mishnah speaks of planks which are less than four Tefachim
wide (thus are not subject to Gezeiras Tikrah), but which
have been smoothed (and may be prohibited lest they be
confused with Keilim having a Beis Kibul [Gezeiras Keilim]).
(g) Question: But given the position of R. Yehudah citing Rav
(who on 12b permitted male arrows, in spite of the possible
decree forbidding them because of female arrows) if they did
not issue a Gezeirah there, why should they do so here?
(h) Answer: Rather, both Mishnayos discuss Gezeiras Tikrah with
the first Mishnah introducing the Machlokes.
(i) Question: Why would the Mishnah need to discuss it twice?
(j) Answer: In our Mishnah, R. Yehudah points out that Gezeiras
Tikrah is the opinion only of Beis Shamai, to which R. Meir
responds that it is unanimous.
(k) Question: But, according to Shmuel, why are they arguing in
1. We understand that, according to Rav (who says that R.
Meir and R. Yehudah argue regarding four-Tefach planks)
that they argue over Gezeiras Tikrah (since most
ceilings use four-Tefach planks).
(l) Answer: R. Yehudah concedes that planks of four Tefachim
invalidate a Sukah, but only if one can do nothing about it.
2. But for Shmuel (who says that all agree to invalidate
four-Tefach planks) why should even Beis Hillel
(according to R. Yehudah) permit the use of the ceiling
(whose planks, presumably, are four Tefachim)!?
1. However, if one does something to be Mevatel their
status as planks of a ceiling it is permitted.
2. This is because the suspicion that one may come to use
a ceiling no longer exists.
3. The Machlokes in our Mishnah is over what is required
to be Mevatel the status of the planks as a ceiling.
(a) It is permitted to use metal rods or bed-posts provided one
leaves space between them equal to the rods themselves.
4) PARUTZ KE'OMED
(b) One who burrowed out a room within a haystack has not made a
(a) Question: Our Mishnah seems to refute R. Huna b.R. Yehoshua
in his position regarding Parutz Ke'Omed!?
1. (R. Papa) Parutz ke'Omed is permitted by the walls of
Shabbos (if the spaces between the posts of a wall are
the same as the posts themselves, the wall is Kosher).
(b) Answer: The Mishnah, which says 'like spaces,' does not mean
identical spaces, but spaces which would allow rods of the
same width to be moved in and out easily (so the S'chach
covers more than 50% of the surface).
2. (R. Huna b.R. Yehoshua) It is not permitted to carry
there unless the Omed exceeds the Parutz.
3. Our Mishnah seems to permit with S'chach equal to the
(c) Question: But from the language of the Mishnah it would be
permitted even if, indeed, they were exactly equal!?
5) (FORMER) BED POSTS ARE NOT VALID S'CHACH
(d) Answer (R. Ami): Our Mishnah requires him to leave (slightly
larger) spaces for the S'chach to allow the S'chach
(equivalent in width to the rods) to be inserted easily,
thus creating a majority of S'chach (see Tosfos).
(e) Answer (Rava): When he spreads the S'chach over the rods, he
lays the S'chach perpendicular (not parallel) to the rods,
which will place more S'chach than rods (or the S'chach
would fall through the spaces).
(a) Question: Is our Mishnah a support for R. Ami b. Tivyumi
(who invalidates a Sukah whose S'chach is vessels/clothes
which are no longer fit for use)?
(b) Answer: No, because our Mishnah may be explained (as R.
Chanan, citing Rebbi, explained another Mishnah) as speaking
when the bed-post (the long side post or the short head
post) still has its two legs still attached to it, and such
a bedpost is still fit for use (and still subject to Tumah).