ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 4
(a) If a Sukah is higher than twenty Amos, it is possible to rectify it by
raising the floor of the Sukah. Raising it with blankets and pillows will
not help however - because the owner, not wanting to lose these items, will
(b) Nullifying them there for seven days will make no difference - because
most people would not do that, and we have a principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel
Kol Adam' (Halachos are not generally decided by the habits or whims of the
individual, but by those of the majority of people).
(c) Raising it with straw or with earth that he was Mevatel there for all
seven days *will* render the Sukah Kasher.
(a) 'Bayis she'Mil'ehu Teven O Tzeroros, u'Bitlo, Batel' - means that if one
filled up a room containing a corpse with straw or with pebbles or earth
(that one was Mevatel there), leaving a space of less than a Tefach between
them and the ceiling, the corpse renders Tamei even people or things that
are on the roof, because 'Tum'ah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah' (when there is
no Ohel Tefach, the Tum'ah rises beyond the roof and is Metamei whatever is
above it, even as far as the sky).
(b) We infer from this Mishnah in Ohalos - that if the owner had *not* been
Mevatel them there, the room would have had the Din of any other room, and
the Tum'ah would have extended only as far as the ceiling.
(c) Rebbi Yossi maintains that ...
1. ... regarding straw: knowing that the owner does not intend to remove it
will suffice - even if he did not actually pronounce it Batel, and will
cause the room to be filled in;
2. ... the same will apply to pebbles and earth - even 'Stam' (if he does
not specifically intend to take them away).
(a) A Sukah that is higher than twenty Amos is Kasher, if some of the
S'chach is protruding into the Sukah (below twenty Amos) - only if it
creates more *shade* than S'chach.
(b) Abaye contended that if, by the same token, bits of S'chach that allow
in more *sun* than shade, protrude below ten Tefachim, by a Sukah that is
exactly ten Tefachim high, it would be Kasher. Rava disagreed with him - on
the grounds that a Sukah of exactly ten Tefachim high, which has bits of
S'chach protruding into it from the ceiling, is considered 'a smelly
residence' (even if they form only a minority), and is therefore Pasul.
(c) A Sukah that is higher than twenty Amos, becomes Kasher if one raises
part of the floor - provided that it is raised along the entire middle wall
(to a width of at least seven Tefachim).
(d) The rest of the Sukah (the section that does not have a raised floor) is
Kasher too - like 'Pesel ha'Yotzei min ha'Sukah' (on Daf 19a), which is
considered an extension of the Sukah, and is Kasher (as we shall see there).
(a) The Sukah will be Kasher even if the raised floor is built alongside one
of the *side*-walls, and not alongside the *middle* one - provided the
distance from the tip of the raised floor to the opposite wall is less than
four Amos, because then we apply the principle of 'Dofen Akumah' (up to four
Amos, we consider Pasul S'chach as if it was part of the wall that has now
bent, and it does not therefore invalidate the Sukah, as long as there
remain seven by seven Tefachim Kasher S'chach, and as long as one does not
sit underneath the Pasul S'chach).
(b) We would not know this already from the Mishnah later, which validates a
Sukah, part of whose roof is broken in (where they now place the S'chach),
provided that the section that remains intact until the wall is less than
four Amos - because there, the Pasul S'chach under discussion, is at least
eligible to serve as part of the wall of the Sukah; whereas in our case,
where the wall in question is more than twenty Amos high, it is *not*.
(c) The Beraisa also needs to add that, if in the case of a Sukah that was
higher than twenty Amos, they raised the floor in the middle of the Sukah,
the Sukah is Kasher, provided that there is less than four Amos between the
raised platform and the walls on all four sides. We would not have known
that from our case - where one only needs to apply the principle of Dofen
Akumah to *one* wall, and it does not necessarily follow that we also apply
it to *four* (because, in matters of Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, we cannot
extend principles from one case to another).
(a) If the Sukah is less than ten Tefachim high, and one digs in the middle
to raise its height (by lowering the floor), the Sukah will be Kasher as
long as the distance from the walls to the area of floor that is ten
Tefachim is no more that three Tefachim (known as 'Levud').
(b) In the previous case (of 'Dofen Akumah') we permitted up to four Amos to
remain more than twenty Amos high - because there, the walls per se are
Kasher walls; whereas, in our case, where we now need to create walls of ten
Tefachim, it must be less than three Tefachim, so as to join the two
sections of wall by mens of 'Levud'.
(a) If the a Sukah was higher than twenty Amos and one built a column (of at
least seven by seven Tefachim) in the middle of the Sukah to within twenty
Amos of the ceiling, Abaye contends that the top of the column would then be
a Kasher Sukah - due to the principle of 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah'
(considering the outer walls of the column as if they reached the S'chach).
(b) Rava disagrees on the grounds that, by Sukah, the walls must be
recognizable, before we can apply this principle (presumably because of the
Pasuk in Emor "Lema'an Yeid'u Doroseichem ... ").
(a) Rebbi Ya'akov holds that S'chach which covers four posts on the roof,
constitutes a Kasher Sukah - according to the Chachamim, it is Pasul.
(b) Rav Huna establishes their Machlokes when the four posts are placed at
the four corners of the roof, where we say 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah' - but not
when they are in the middle (For the reason that we apply 'Gud Aseik
Mechitzasah' here, even though the walls are not recognizable - see Tosfos
(c) According to Rav Nachman, they argue when the posts are placed in the
*middle* of the roof - and Rebbi Ya'akov validates such a Sukah only if each
of the posts is one Tefach by one Tefach.
(d) The Gemara asks whether, according to Rav Nachman, Rebbi Ya'akov and the
Chachamim agree that, if the posts were placed in the corners, the Sukah
would be Kasher (because of 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah), or whether they argue
there too - and remains by a Teiku.
(a) The Beraisa cites the same Machlokes with regard to a Sukah consisting
of four posts that is built on the ground - which, seeing as there are no
walls (for the principle of 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah' to apply), resembles the
Sukah in the middle of the roof, a disproof to Rav Huna, who said that in
the middle of the roof, even Rebbi Ya'akov will agree that the Sukah is
If we came across the two pairs of Amora'im: Rav and Chanina, Rebbi Yochanan
and Rav Chaviva - we would need to change Rebbi Yochanan to Rebbi Yonasan,
provided this occurred in Seder Mo'ed, but not in the other five Sedarim.
(b) This Beraisa implies that Rebbi Ya'akov and the Chachamim's dispute is
confined to the ground (or the middle of the roof), but if the posts were
placed on the four corners of the roof, they would both agree that the Sukah
would be Kasher - a further disproof for Rav Huna, who maintains that *that*
is the basic case of their dispute.
(c) Rav Huna however, refutes *that* Kashya - by explaining that, in
reality, they argue in both cases, and the Tana mentions the case on the
ground (or in the middle of the roof), to teach us that, even there, Rebbi
Ya'akov, validates the Sukah.
(d) Rebbi Ya'akov validates a Sukah whose walls consist of four posts
because, in his opinion, they have a Din of 'Deyumad' - a square post, which
we consider as if part of it was cut away to form two adjacent one Tefach
walls (like in the case of the one Amah Pasei Bira'os in Eruvin 17b). In
fact, the word 'Deyumdin' means two posts 'Deyu Amudin'.