(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Sukah 11



(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permits a Kilas Chasanim even if it is ten Tefachim above the bed - because it does *not* have a roof.

(b) The Beraisa, which declares someone who sleeps under a Kilah in a Sukah, not Yotze - speaks about a Kilah which *does*.

(c) Naklitei Mitah, which the Beraisa forbids under the same circumstances, is different, because they are more fixed than a Kilah.

(d) Naklitei Mitah may well be *more* fixed than a *Kilah* - but it is *less* fixed than a four-poster bed*, which explains why one may sleep under it if it is less than ten Tefachim high, even though a four-poster bed is not.

(a) The most radical opinion to date is that of Rabah bar Rav Huna, who validates a Kilah even if it is more than ten Tefachim high, and has a roof (i.e. it is parallel with the ground, and not like a tent). This is because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah - who maintains 'that a temporary Ohel does not have the power to negate a permanent one, which is why he permits sleeping under a bed in the Sukah (even if it is higher than ten Tefachim from the ground).

(b) Had Rabah bar Rav Huna just said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah' - we would have thought that Rebbi Yehudah's reason is not because of a temporary Ohel not invalidating a permanent one, but because a bed is made to sleep on top of and not underneath.

(a) We have already quoted the Mishnah, which forbids a Sukah which has a growing vine, a pumpkin or a creeper on the roof, arranged on a trellis, to form part of the S'chach. This can however, be rectified - either by adding more S'chach (to form a majority) or by detaching them.

(b) Anything that can receive Tum'ah or that does not grow from the ground may not be used as S'chach.

(a) Rav Yosef quoted Rav, who said that cutting the branch that is growing on the S'chach is insufficient - but one also needs to shake each branch that one cuts.

(b) Rav Huna irked Rav Yosef by saying that it was Shmuel that said that. So what if it was, said Rav Yosef angrily, he had not said that Shmuel did *not* say it, but that Rav *did*. So they *both* said it.

(c) Rav Huna however, explained that what he had meant was that it was Shmuel who said it and not Rav.

(d) Rav Chiya bar Ashi quoted Rav as saying 'Mefaskan ve'Hein Kesheirin' in connection with Rav Amram Chasida, who placed the Tzitzis on his wife's garment before cutting them - from which we see that Rav maintains that cutting something or cutting it off, is sufficient - to remove the Pasul of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy' (not like Rav Yosef's original quotation).

5) Rav Amram Chasida put Tzitzis on his wife's four cornered garments - because he Darshened the Pasuk "u'Re'isem Oso" to exempt the garment of a blind man, rather than a night-garment. Consequently, according to him, Tzitzis is a Mitzvah that is not time-related, in which women are therefore obligated.


(a) Shmuel quoted a Beraisa in the name of Rebbi Chiya, which says that if one threaded the Tzitzis into two corners before cutting them, they are Kasher - and we initially understand that this speaks when one made the Tzitzis and then cut them, from which we see that cutting the Tzitzis *is* sufficient to remove Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy (a Kashya on Rav Huna, who said in Shmuel's name that it is *not*)?

(b) We answer this by establishing the Beraisa when he cut them first and then made the Tzitzis (thereby removing the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy').

(c) The Chidush is that the Tzitzis does not become Pasul by the fact that they were threaded in the holes of *two* corners (in spite of the fact that the Torah writes "al Tzitzis *ha'Kanaf*").

(d) Rav, who holds that cutting the Tzitzis is considered an act which renders them Kasher - will explain the Beraisa which invalidates the Tzitzis that one suspended before cutting them to mean only until they are cut, but not permanently.




(a) Rav has no way of explaining the Beraisa which invalidates the Tzitzis that one suspended before cutting them - *forever*; in fact, this Beraisa is a Kashya on Rav.

(b) The Beraisa, which forbids a Sukah which has a growing vine, a pumpkin or a creeper on the roof arranged on a trellis to form part of the S'chach - because of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy' must be speaking when they were cut, because, otherwise, why would the Tana need to give the reason of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy'? Why is the Sukah not Pasul anyway because the S'chach is still attached. In any event, we see that cutting does not validate the Sukah (another Kashya on Rav).

(c) Rav establishes this Beraisa when the branch had previously been lowered until it was actually mixed with the S'chach, in which case even Rav would agree that cutting it would not help, since the act of cutting is not noticeable.

(a) Berries growing on a Hadas render it Pasul for the Mitzvah of Lulav - when there are more berries than leaves.

(b) One may not remove them on Yom-Tov to make the Hadas Kasher - because of Tikun Mana (rectifying a vessel to make it fit for use).

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak invalidates the Hadas if one transgressed and removed the berries on Yom-Tov; the Rabbanan hold that the Hadas is nevertheless Kasher.

(d) Assuming that both Tana'im agree that it is a Mitzvah to tie the Lulav, and that we learn Lulav from Sukah, their Machlokes will be whether we learn Sukah from Lulav (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak) or not (the Rabbanan).

(a) Assuming they both agree that cutting the S'chach is not considered an act by Sukah, they might argue whether one learns Lulav from Sukah - with a 'Binyan Av'.

(b) Even assuming that, on principle, they both learn Lulav from Sukah - they might also argue as to whether a Lulav needs to be tied (Rebbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak), or not (the Rabbanan - in which case it will not require any act that might make it Pasul because of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy').

(c) Rebbi Yehudah from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of 'Lekichah' 'Lekichah' that the three species need to be tied.

(d) The Rabbanan disagree - because they did not receive this 'Gezeirah- Shavah' from their Rebbes, and a 'Gezeirah Shavah' is only valid if it has been handed down from Rebbe to Talmid.

(a) The author of the Beraisa which says that, although it is a Mitzvah to tie the Lulav, one is nevertheless Yotze, even if one did *not* - cannot be Rebbi Yehudah, who learns from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' that the Lulav must be tied.

(b) The author must therefore be the Rabbanan, who agree that Lechatchilah, one should tie the Lulav because of the Pasuk in Beshalach "Zeh Keili ve'Aneveihu".

(a) We try to learn from the Pasuk in Bereishis "ve'Eid Ya'aleh min ha'Aretz" - whatever is used as S'chach must be subject to Tum'ah and must grow from the ground (like a cloud, which we see is also considered as having grown from the ground). This is assuming that the Sukos in the desert consisted of the Ananei Kavod (the Clouds of Glory) ...

(b) ... the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, but not according to Rebbi Akiva, in whose opinion the Sukos in the desert were regular huts, this Derashah will not work.

(c) So Rebbi Yochanan learns the specifications of S'chach from the Pasuk in Re'ei "*Chag* ha'Sukos Ta'aseh Lecha" - which compares the Sukah to the Korban Chagigah (which is not subject to Tum'ah and (like all animals) is considered as having grown from the ground.

(d) The problem with that source - is that if we learn Sukah from the Chagigah, why should we not say that the S'chach, like a Chagigah, must consist of animal hides?

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,