ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 21
SUKAH 21-25 - my brother Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored one month of
Dafyomi publications for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ohel" "Ohel" from Mishkan
that, with regard to Tum'as Ohel - any Ohel that is not man-made (like that
of the Mishkan) is not considered an Ohel.
(b) The Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah, maintain 'Ohel Ohel Ribah' -
meaning that the word "Ohel" appears a number of times, and from one of them
we learn that any Ohel, even one that is man-made, is called an Ohel.
(a) 'Kever ha'Tehom' means a Safek Tum'ah i.e. that someone might just be
(b) They built courtyards in Yerushalayim on top of rocks to avoid Kever
ha'Tehom - which they did by building them on top of a large hollow, to
ensure that, even if there was an unknown grave there, the hollow (which was
certainly more than a Tefach) would prevent the Tum'ah from reaching the
(c) They brought pregnant women there, so that the babies to whom they
subsequently gave birth, would grow up without being subjected to Tum'as
Meis. Later, they would make all the necessary preparations for the Parah
Adumah. The children only worked in this capacity until they reached the age
of six or seven, the age when one begins to see Tum'as Keri.
(d) Chazal considered it necessary to introduce a number of stringencies in
connection with the Parah Adumah - in order to counter a leninecy, which
they introduced in order to prove wrong the Tzedokim (who maintained that
the Parah had to be burnt by a Kohen who was completely Tahor i.e. if he had
been Tamei and had Toveled, he had to wait until nightfall). Consequently,
they would make a point of being Metamei the Kohen who burned it and making
him Tovel, prior to burning it on the same day that he burned it.
(a) Only stone vessels (which are not subject to Tum'ah) were used in
preparing the Parah Adumah.
(b) The Kohen who was designated to burn it - had to separate from his wife
and move to the Beis Hamikdash for seven days, as we learned in Yoma.
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah, the children rode to the
spring of the Shilo'ach to draw the water for the Parah Adumah - on top of a
door that was placed on the back of a bull, holding stone vessels.
(b) Rebbi Yossi permitted them to fill their stone jars from the backs of
the bulls rather than dismount and enter the water - to avoid Tum'as
(c) The Tana Kama, on the other hand, insisted that they dismount - because,
in his opinion, the water must be filled in the normal way, and not by
lowering the jar via a string.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the children did not ride on doors - but
directly on the wide backs of the bulls, which served as an Ohel, to protect
the children from Tum'as ha'Tehom (in spite of the fact that the back of the
bull is not a made-made Ohel, and Rebbi Yehudah ruled earlier that a natural
Ohel is not considered an Ohel).
(b) Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Elazar, differentiates between a natural Ohel of
a Tefach (which is not considered an Ohel) and one of a 'Me'lo Egrof' i.e.
the size of the fist of Ben Avti'ach, which was as large as a human head
(which Rebbi Yehudah agrees is Chashuv, and is therefore considered an
(c) But Rebbi Yehudah himself said earlier that the children rode on bulls
with wide backs and *not on doors*, which we take to mean literally -
because doors are not normally used as an Ohel, in which case, neither are
bulls? And if the fact that an Ohel more than a 'Me'lo Egrof' can turn a
*natural* Ohel into an Ohel, why can it not also turn an *unusual* Ohel into
(d) Abaye re-interprets 'not on doors' to mean that it was *not necessary*
for them to ride on doors (but that they could if they chose to). Rava
explains that they deliberately avoided riding on doors - because it would
give the child too much of a feeling of security, encouraging him to lean
over the side, perhaps over a Kever ha'Tehom. The Beraisa supports Rava's
(a) The problem with Rebbi Elazar, who maintains that Rebbi Yehudah concedes
by a Me'lo Egrof, that a *natural* Ohel becomes important and is considered
an Ohel, is from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who permits sleeping under a
bed (because it is a *temporary* Ohel) in the Sukah is - because, if a Me'lo
Egrof transforms a *natural* Ohel into an Ohel, why should it not also
transform a *temporary* Ohel into an Ohel?
(b) A bed is not considered an Ohel - (not just because it is temporary) but
because the definition of an Ohel is one which is made to protect what is
*underneath* it, whereas a bed is made to sleep on *top* of it, and is
therefore not considered an Ohel (irrespective of its size).
(c) If the backs of bulls were considered an Ohel - because of the
shepherds' tendency to lie underneath them as a protection from the sun and
the shade, then why should the bed too, not be considered an Ohel - because
of the tendency of people to place their shoes and sandals underneath it?
(d) People's whims do not create an Ohel, answers Rava, and the reason that
Rebbi Yehudah considers the back of a bull an Ohel, is - because of the
Pasuk "Or u'Basar Talbisheini, u've'Atzamos ve'Gidin *Tesochecheini*", which
refers to bones and nerves as S'chach (a Lashon of Ohel).
(a) The contradiction in Rebbi Yehudah currently under discussion assumes
that Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah does not consider a bed (e.g. a temporary
Ohel) to be an Ohel. According to the way we originally explained Rebbi
Yehudah however - (that even though a temporary Ohel *is* an Ohel, it cannot
however, negate a permanent one) the entire Kashya falls away.
In a Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon says that we can learn two things from Raban
Gamliel (as we saw in our Mishnah). In saying that, he uses the expression
'*mi'Sichaso* (rather than '*mi'Devarav*) shel Raban Gamliel' - to teach us
that one can even learn from the mundane speech of Talmidei-Chachamim.
(b) Rebbi Shimon too, requires a permanent structure as a Sukah (as we saw
above on Daf 7b.), yet he forbids sleeping under a bed in the Sukah -
because *he* holds 'Asi Ohel Arai u'Mevatel Ohel Keva' (a temporary Ohel
does negate a permanent one).
(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, a Sukah that is supported by
a bed is Kasher. Rebbi Yehudah says that if the Sukah cannot stand by
itself, it is Pasul.
Abaye says that Rebbi Yehudah only invalidates the Sukah if the S'chach is
actually resting on the *legs of the bed*, but not if it rests on
*independent posts* - because why should the Sukah then be Pasul? It is
neither temporary, nor is it held up by something that is subject to Tum'ah!
(b) Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Aba argue over Rebbi Yehudah's reason. One of them
explains that it is because it is not fixed - meaning that a Sukah that can
be moved around via a bed, is not a Sukah Kavu'a, and we have already
learned that in Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, a Sukah must be a permanent
(c) The other explains that Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the Sukah - because it
is being held up by something that is subject to Tum'ah (and whatever holds
up the S'chach is like the S'chach itself).
(d) The difference between them will be if the S'chach is placed on four
metal posts that are fixed - on the one hand, the Sukah will then be
permanent (and Kasher); on the other hand, it is resting on something that
is subject to Tum'ah (and is Pasul).