Previous daf

1)

(a) In a Mishnah in Keilim, Rebbi Eliezer holds that a bed is subject to Tum'ah, only when it is complete - 'u'Metaheres Chavilah' means that it can also only be Toveled complete, and not section by section.

(b) According to the Chachamim, sections of it can become Tamei (and Tahor) independently - provided they are fit to be used independently, such as one length of bed including the two legs, or one width with the two legs.

(c) It is fit to attach ropes to it, then to lean it against the wall and sleep on it (according to the Aruch, it is fit to sit on whilst making ropes).

(a) When Rav Ami bar Tivyumi invalidated worn out vessels/clothes that are no longer fit for use from being used as S'chach - he was referring to clothes of less than three Etzba'os (finger-breadths) by three Etzba'os, which is the minimum size garment (that is fit for a poor man to wear).

(b) The Halachah is like him for two reasons: 1. because nobody disputes his statement; 2. because there is a Beraisa to support it.

(a) Our Mishnah invalidates a Sukah that is cut out of a haystack - but that is only if there is no hole one Tefach deep that covers an area of seven by seven Tefachim; if there is, then, seeing as the Din Ohel already exists for the entire area of the Sukah, it will be permitted to extend the walls from one Tefach to ten.

(b) This is because the Din of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy' is confined to the S'chach, and does not apply to the walls.

(c) This ruling is introduced by Rav Huna - and is Halachah for the same two reasons as that of Rav Ami bar Tivyumi, in 2b.

5)

(a) Rebbi Yossi says that the wall of a Sukah that begins from the S'chach, and stops at ten Tefachim, even if it is more than three Tefachim from the ground - is Kasher, because he maintains that, just as we say 'Gud Aseik Mechitzasah', we also say 'Gud Acheis Mechitzasah'.

(b) The Tana Kama in a Mishnah in Eruvin permits the residents of two adjoining courtyards (who did not make an Eruv) to draw water from a joint well, provided they made a partition, whether it extends down to the water or not, as long as it is built inside the well. The wall that divides the two courtyards cannot fulfill this role - because it was not built specifically for that.

(c) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the above is the opinion of Beis Shamai - according to Beis Hillel, the wall must extend close to the level of the water (Tosfos DH 'Beis Shamai' switches the opinions of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah adopts a very lenient view - he even allows the wall of the courtyard to fill that role, too.

6)

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah quoting Rebbi Yochanan, equates Rebbi Yehudah in the previous question with Rebbi Yossi, who permits a suspended Mechitzah in our Mishnah by Sukah. In fact though ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah does not hold like Rebbi Yossi, because he only applies his lenient ruling by *Eruv*, which is purely mi'de'Rabbanan (since the Torah only forbids carrying from one Reshus to a *different* Reshus - but not from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another), but *not* by *Sukah*, which requires a Mechitzah d'Oraysa.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi does not hold like Yehudah, who permits a Mechitzah Teluyah even by Shabbos, which is *basically* a Chiyuv Sekilah - whereas *he* permits it only by *Sukah*, which is no more than a Mitzvas Asei.

(b) Rebbi Yossi (who does not hold of Mechitzah Teluyah by Dinei Shabbos), was the Rav of Tzipori. They nevertheless permitted a Mechitzah Teluyah there - because that was in the days of Rebbi Yossi's son, Rebbi Yishmael, who disagreed with his father in this point.

(c) They kept the Sefer-Torah for Leining in a private house on Friday night, rather than in the Chatzer where they intended to Lein the next morning - because they were afraid of the gentiles, who had issued a decree, forbidding the Jews to Lein.

(a) The problem in Tzipori was that they forgot to make an Eruv Chatzeros to carry the Sefer-Torah into the Chatzer (or a Shituf Mavo'os to carry it into the Mavoy) - and they now permitted transporting the Sefer-Torah to the Chhatzer (or to house) where it was required, on the grounds that the house where the Torah was, was cordoned off from the other houses by means of the Mechitzah formed by the sheets hanging over the posts (or the Chatzer was cordoned off from the other Chatzeros - and a Chatzer that comprises only one house (or a Mavoy that comprises only one Chatzer), does not require an Eruv). The Mechitzah under discussion, was a Mechitzah Teluyah, which did not reach within three Tefachim from the ground.

(b) The original explanation, which states that they brought sheets and hung them up - is unacceptable, because, seeing as there was no Eruv, how could they carry the sheets?

(a) Rav Chisda permits putting up a mat in between the ceiling and the floor to form the wall of a Sukah. Assuming the mat goes all the way across the Sukah, the smallest size mat that one would need for a Sukah ten Tefachim high would be - four Tefachim and a bit (enabling us to apply 'Levud' both at the top and at the bottom).

(b) The Chidush is that we apply the principle of 'Levud'. Sure we know 'Levud' already - but *not* that we apply it twice in one case, that is Rav Chisda's Chidush.

(c) According to Rav Chisda, the Beraisa, which gives the minimum size mat as seven Tefachim and a Mashehu - is speaking about a large Sukah, that is higher than ten Tefachim. One places the Mechitzah within three Tefachim of the top, in which case, using 'Levud', we have a Mechitzah of ten Tefachim.

(d) The Beraisa comes to teach us that, whatever the height, the Sukah is now Kasher, due to the principle of Mechitzah Teluyah - like Rebbi Yossi.

Next daf