ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 50
SUKAH 50 (1st day of Shavuos) dedicated by Mrs. Bekelnitzky on the occasion
of the 34th Yahrzeit of her late husband's father, Shraga Feivish ben Nosson
Yakov (and Sima Gitle) Bikelnitzky.
(a) For Shabbos Sukos, they would fill a golden barrel that had not been
sanctified as a K'li Shares ... . Ze'iri explains that this Tana holds
'Ein Shiur la'Mayim' and 'K'lei Shares Mekadshin she'Lo mi'Da'as'. The
significance of ...
1. ... 'Ein Shiur la'Mayim' is that - however much water one would pour into
the jar for Nisuch ha'Mayim, it would be fit for the Mitzvah, and would
therefore become sanctified in the K'li Shares. Consequently, it was
imperative to use a jar that had not been sanctified.
(b) They were not permitted to use a K'li Shares to draw the water for
Nisuch ha'Mayim, according to ...
2. ... 'K'lei Shares Mekadshin she'Lo mi'Da'as' is that - even if one were
to pour the water into the jar without the specific intention of sanctifying
it, it would nevertheless become sanctified. For this reason too, it was
imperative to use a jar that had not been sanctified.
1. ... Chizkiyah, who (agrees that 'Ein Shiur la'Mayim', but) maintains that
our Tana may even hold '*Ein* K'lei Shares Mekadshin Ela mi'Da'as', due to a
decree - because people might say that the water was drawn in order to
sanctify it (and they will subsequently think that Linah does not disqualify
(c) Although a Kohen Hedyot would wash from the Kiyor - the Kohen Gadol
would make Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim from a golden jar, which had to be
2. ... Rebbi Yanai quoting Rebbi Zeira, who maintains that, in addition, our
Tana might hold both '*Ein* K'lei Shares Mekadshin Ela mi'Da'as' and '*Yesh*
Shiur la'Mayim' - because people might say that the water was drawn for the
Kohanim to wash their hands and feet. So when they see the water remaining
in the jar overnight and then being used the next morning for Nisuch
ha'Mayim, they will think that the Pesul of Linah does not apply to the
(a) If one leaves wine in an uncovered strainer, the Tana Kama forbids it to
be drunk (in case the venom seeps through the strainer - even if the lower
vessel is covered). Rebbi Nechemyah says - that as long as the lower vessel
is covered, the water is permitted (because the venom floats, and does not
seep through the strainer).
***** Hadran Alach, Lulav va'Aravah *****
(b) The author of our Mishnah, which does not permit water that was left
uncovered to be put through a strainer could nevertheless be Rebbi
Nechemyah, who agrees that - such water should not be brought on the
Mizbe'ach, for reasons that we shall now see.
(c) We learn from "Hakriveihu Na le'Fechasecha" - that whatever one would
not offer to a human king, one should not offer to Hashem either?
***** Perek ha'Chalil *****
Rav Yehudah and Rav Eina dispute whether to call it 'Simchas Beis
ha'Sho'eivah' (because of the Pasuk in Yeshayah "*u'She'avtem* Mayim
be'Sason") or 'Simchas Beis ha'Chashuvah' - because it is an important
Mitzvah, already prepared by Hashem since the days of the creation, when he
created the Shitin (according to this opinion).
(a) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the 'flute' overrode Shabbos.
the Chachamim say - that it doesn't even override Yom-Tov.
(b) Rav Yosef maintains that both of them agree that the flute of the
*'Simchas Beis ha'Sho'eivah'* did not override Shabbos or Yom-Tov. They
argue over the flute that was played when the wine of the Nesachim was
poured on the Mizbe'ach each morning and evening. (Note: Actually, the flute
was not played daily - only twelve times a year - but many other instruments
(incorporated in the word 'flute') were.
(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ikar Shirah bi'Ch'li' (the main
Shirah was the playing of the instruments); whereas according to Rebbi 'Ikar
(a) Rebbi disqualifies a K'li Shares that is made out of wood - Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah permits it. According to Rav Yosef - the Machlokes here is
exactly the same as the one above: Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ikar
Shirah bi'Ch'li', in which case, we will learn all the K'lei Shares from the
flute of Moshe, which was made of wood and not metal;
(b) The flute of Moshe was - a bamboo flute that remained from the time of
(c) They did in fact, attempt to overlay it with gold - but it sounded more
beautiful without, so they removed the gold and left it as it was.
(d) Rebbi holds 'Ikar Shirah be'Peh' - in which case, we cannot learn the
Din of K'lei Shares from the flute of Moshe (since, in his opinion, the
instruments were not K'lei Shares).
(a) We refute Rav Yosef's explanation on the grounds that - even Rebbi will
agree that the main Shirah constitutes *playing* the instruments.
Nevertheless, he does not learn the Din of K'lei Shares from the flute of
Moshe - because we cannot learn 'the possible' (to make other vessels out of
metal) from 'the impossible' (to make the flutes out of metal - since it
spoils the sound, as we saw earlier).
(b) Alternatively, perhaps even Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah will agree that
the main Shirah constitutes the *singing*, nor will we learn the possible
from the impossible. Yet he permits wooden K'lei Shares from the Pasuk in
Terumah "ve'Asisa *Menoras* Mikshah Te'aseh *ha'Menorah*" - "Menoras"
(according to him), constitutes a 'Ribuy', *"Zahav Tahor"*, a 'Mi'ut', and
*"ha'Menorah"* a 'Ribuy'. We include everything from the last 'Ribuy', and
exclude one thing only (earthenware vessels) from the 'Mi'ut'.
1. Rebbi learns a 'K'lal u'Frat u'Chelal': - The 'K'lal u'Frat' alone would
teach us 'Ein bi'Chlal Ela Mah he'bi'Frat' (i.e. only what the P'rat says).
Comes the second 'K'lal, and includes whatever is similar to the P'rat (i.e.
metal, but not wood).
2. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns a 'Ribuy, Mi'ut ve'Ribuy': - The
'K'lal u'F'rat' would include whatever is similar to the P'rat (i.e.. metal
and not wood - as Rebbi learns from the 'K'lal u'F'rat'). Comes the final
K'lal to include everything (even wooden vessels), except for one thing