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 11
1) SPEAKING DIVREI KEDUSHAH UNCLOTHED (cont'd)
(a) A house which is less than 10 Tefachim is still distinct
from a Kilah (which is viewed as his garment) because a
house is fixed in place, it is like a Kinuf (and his head is
viewed as being with the rest of his body).
2) ALTERNATE RENDITION OF SHMUEL (see Sukah 10, Paragraph 5)
(a) (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel) It is permitted to sleep under a
Kilah made for Chasanim (two posts, unattached to the bed)
in the Sukah, even if it is more than 10 Tefachim tall.
3) MISHNAH: A SUKAH WITH A GROWING VINE COVERING
(b) Question: The Beraisa teaches that one who sleeps in a Kilah
has not fulfilled his obligation!?
(c) Answer: That Kilah has a roof (at least a Tefach wide).
(d) Question: But the Beraisa which discusses the Naklitin (two
posts) permits it only if it is less than 10 Tefachim tall!?
(e) Answer: Naklitin is more stringent than a Kilah since the
posts are fixed on the bed.
(f) Question: If the Naklitin are fixed then they should be
viewed as an Ohel even with less than 10 Tefachim (like a
(g) Answer: Naklitin 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 permitted.
(h) (Rabah b.R. Huna) A Kilah is permitted 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).
(i) Question: Like whom is this position!?
(j) Answer: Like R. Yehudah who holds that a temporary Ohel does
not have the power to negate a permanent one.
1. R. Yehudah permits sleeping under a bed in the Sukah
(even if it is higher than ten Tefachim from the
2. Question: Then Rabah b.R. Huna should have reported
that the Halachah is like R. Yehudah (not taught it in
his own name)!?
3. Answer: We would then have thought that R. Yehudah's
reason is because a bed is (not an Ohel since it is)
made to sleep on top of and not underneath.
(a) 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
may not be used.
4) TA'ASEH V'LO MIN HE'ASUI
(b) This can be rectified either by adding more S'chach (to form
a majority) or by detaching them from the ground.
(c) Anything which can receive Tumah or which does not grow from
the ground may not be used as S'chach.
(a) (R. Yosef citing Rav) Cutting the branch is insufficient,
one must also shake each branch that one cuts.
(b) R. Huna reported that this was said by Shmuel.
(c) This correction bothered R. Yosef who angrily said that he
had never claimed that *only* Rav had said it, and that it
could well be that *both* Rav and Shmuel said it.
(d) R. Huna explained that what he indeed had meant was that it
was Shmuel who said it and *not* Rav (who disagrees).
1. R. Chiya b. Ashi quoted Rav as maintaining that cutting
something or cutting it off, is sufficient - to remove
the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asui'
(e) Question: It should then follow that, according to Shmuel
(who requires lifting the S'chach after it is cut), then
cutting the Tzitzis should *not* be enough (yet Shmuel
taught the opposite in the name of R. Chiya)!?
2. An incident demonstrated Rav's position when R. Amram
Chasida put Tzitzis on his wife's four cornered
garments (see Rashi) and he only cut the eight strings
apart after affixing them to the garment.
3. R. Chiya b. Ashi cited Rav as permitting this case.
1. (Shmuel citing R. Chiya) If one threaded the Tzitzis
into two corners before cutting them, they are Kosher.
(f) Answer: The Beraisa speaks when he cut them first and then
made the Tzitzis (thereby removing the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh
ve'Lo min he'Asui').
2. We assume 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
(g) Question: What, then, is the need for Shmuel to teach us
this obvious Din?
(h) Answer: That the Tzitzis does not become Pasul by the fact
that they were threaded in the holes of *two* corners (in
spite of the Pasuk 'al Tzitzis *ha'Kanaf*').
5) THE MACHLOKES RAV AND SHMUEL ON KETZITZAH (cont'd)
(i) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that if one affixed the
string and then cut it into segments that it is Pasul
(unlike Rav who permitted this case)!?
(j) Answer: The Beraisa means that they are Pasuk only until
they are cut, but not permanently.
1. Levi supports this explanation.
(k) Alternate Rendition of the above:
2. Shmuel maintains that the Beraisa means that these
Tzitzis are permanently Pasul.
1. R. Masnah reported that he asked just such a question
of Shmuel who invalidated the Tzitzis which were
affixed and then cut.
2. First Question (on Rav who validates such a case): The
Beraisa says that this case is Pasul!?
3. Second Question (on Rav): The Beraisa provides the
rationale of Ta'aseh to forbid 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.
i. The Beraisa must be speaking when they were cut,
because if they were still attached, the Tana
would not need the reason of Ta'aseh (since the
attached S'chach would anyway be Pasul).
4. Answer (to the second Question): This Beraisa speaks
when the branch was torn from the tree at its source,
and left in that position (even Rav would agree that
cutting it would not be a sufficient Asiyah, since this
cutting is not noticeable).
ii. We see that cutting does not validate the Sukah!
5. The first Beraisa, however, remains a question on Rav.
(a) Question: Shall we understand their Machlokes (whether
Ketzitzah is an Asiyah) to be a Machlokes Tanaim?
6) THE SOURCE FOR THE LIMITATIONS ON S'CHACH
1. R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak invalidates the Hadas if one
transgressed and removed the berries on YomTov while
the Chachamim hold that the Hadas is Kosher.
(b) Answer: No, they both hold, like Shmuel, that Ketzitzah is
not an Asiyah, but they are arguing over whether we learn
Lulav from Sukah (and prohibit- R. Shimon) or not (and
2. It is assumed that an Asiyah is needed here (to bind
the Minim together) and that the Minim, like a Sukah,
must have Ta'aseh V'Lo Min He'Asui.
3. The Chachamim hold (like Rav) that Ketzitzah is an
Asiyah (by Sukah hence the plucking of the berries is
the same) and R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak holds (like
Shmuel) that Ketzitzah it is not an acceptable Asiyah
by Sukah (nor is plucking the berries by the Hadas).
(c) Alternate Answer: They are arguing over whether Lulav
requires an Asiyah [Eged] (R. Shimon) or not (Chachamim),
while agreeing that any Asiyah which we *would* find by
Lulav *would* be learned from Sukah.
1. The source for such a Machlokes is found in the Beraisa
where R. Yehudah learns from the Gezeirah Shavah of
Lekichah that the three species need to be tied.
(d) Question: The Beraisa which teaches that it is a *Mitzvah*
to tie the species together seems not to be in concert with
2. The Rabanan did not receive a tradition to learn this
1. According to R. Yehudah it should not be Kosher without
(e) Answer: The Beraisa is the Rabanan and the Mitzvah derives
from the command to beautify the Mitzvos.
2. According to Rabanan, whence the Mitzvah?
(a) Question: Whence that S'chach is not Kosher if it is Mekabel
Tumah or does not grow from the ground?
(b) Answer (Resh Lakish): The Pasuk refers to the primordial
clouds as emerging from the earth, hence the S'chach must
emerge from the earth and not be susceptible to Tumah.
1. Question: What of the opinion that the Sukos of the
desert were actual tents (and not clouds), since;
(c) Answer (R. Dimi citing R. Yochanan): The Pasuk links Sukah
to the Korban Chagigah (that which is not Mekabel Tumah and
grows from the ground [R. Yochanan's view of animals]).
2. We have learned that R. Eliezer and R. Akiva disagree?
(d) Question: Following that logic, we should *only* be able to
use *animals* (hides) for S'chach!!