Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=* Summary Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer: Just as one cannot use his fellow’s lulav, based on the possuk “Take yourselves…” which means “take your own”, so too one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah by sitting in his fellow’s sukkah, as the possuk states “Make yourselves sukkos”, it means “your own sukkah”. Chachomim: Although one cannot use his fellow’s lulav on the first day of Yom Tov, he may sit in another’s sukkah as it states “All citizens of Yisroel should dwell in a sukkah” which indicates that one sukkah is enough for all Yisroel (although it is impossible for all of klal Yisroel to have a perutah’s share in just one sukkah*). Question: How do the Chachomim explain the possuk “Make ‘yourselves’ sukkos”? Resolution: It means (7.3) that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah by sitting in a stolen sukkah (if you know that he doesn’t want you using his sukkah. The rule is that in general a person doesn’t mind if you use his property for a mitzvah). Question: How does Rabbi Eliezer explain the possuk “All citizens of Yisroel should dwell in a sukkah”? Response: Although one cannot be in a sukkah for part of Yom Tov, a ger or a bar mitzvah who could only be in a sukkah for part of Yom Tov are included by this verse. The Chachomim do not need a possuk to teach this lesson, since they hold that one can sit in a sukkah for part of Yom Tov. Beraisa: Rabbi Ilai went to see his rebbi, Rabbi Eliezer, in Lod. Rabbi Eliezer said to him “You don’t observe Yom Tov?” because Rabbi Eliezer would say “I praise the lazy ones who don’t leave their homes on Yom Tov, as it states ‘You should rejoice with your family’.” (This applies even to Pesach). Challenge: Rabbi Yitzchok: The obligation to visit one’s Rebbi on Yom Tov stems from the possuk said by the Shunamis’ husband “Why are you going today? It is neither Rosh Chodesh (which was a yom tov in those day) nor Shabbos”. So we see that visiting a rebbi on Yom Tov is a mitzvah? Resolution: Rabbi Yitzchok is referring to a case where he can go and return on the same day while Rabbi Eliezer objects to one leaving home and lodging elsewhere. To listen to the shiur with tosfos click here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PAzLHVeCTokrJ2qnvvSet9j4cWIjzJ3X/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos: This pshat of Rashi is unnecessary because even full partners who have a perutah-share should be excluded from the word “lecha”, only we learn from “all citizens can sit in one sukkah” that it can belong to many people and the “lecha” only comes to exclude a stolen sukkah. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored In honor of Ami Morgenstern, MAZEL TOV!! Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Rabbi Eliezer: If one didn’t eat a meal in the sukkah, he can make it up Shemini Atzeres. Summary Challenge: How can he make it up? With bread? So he’s eating the Shemini Atzeres meal. Resolution: He makes it up by eating delicacies, [meats, stuffed vegetables and other delicacies]. (Tosfos learns from this that the 14 meals of Rabbi Eliezer need not be full meals with bread). (Even according to the opinion that one must eat bread on yom tov, but not chol hamoed and if you omit yaaleh v’yavo you need not repeat birkas hamazon.) We also learned a beraisa to this effect: One who missed a yom tov meal can make it up on Shemini Atzeres by eating a delicacy (meat or fish; something that is not a mere nosh). The administrator of King Agripa asked Rabbi Eliezer: It is my custom to eat only one meal a day. Is that enough for me on sukkos too? Rabbi Eliezer: Every day you add many dishes as appetizers (a rich man eats after his meals to incite him to eat more). Can’t you add one dish in honor of your creator? He asked another question: Someone like me who has two wives; one in Tveria and one in Tzipori, am I permitted to have two sukkos in those two cities? Rabbi Eliezer: No. If one leaves from one sukkah to the other, his mitzvah goes lost. Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer: One cannot move between two sukkos (because a sukkah must be built for all 7 days) and one cannot build a sukkah on Chol Hamoed (for the same reason). Chachomim: It is kosher even if it was created in middle of Yom Tov Even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that one can rebuild a collapsed sukkah on Chol Hamoed. Question: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning? Response: It states “Build a sukkah for seven days”: it must be a sukkah that stands seven days. (The Chachomim agree with this understanding of the verse regarding schach. Accordingly, leaves that would wither in less than 7 days are not kosher for schach). Chachomim: It means that the mitzvah lasts seven days but not the sukkah. Everyone agrees that it can be rebuilt. Challenge: Isn’t that obvious? Resolution: The beraisa is teaching that it’s not considered a new building but a continuation of the original sukkah. Tosfos: This applies only if it is rebuilt with the same materials. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=* Summary We’ll see that Rabbi Eliezer has different opinions about many principles of the sukkah. Mishna: Rabbi Eliezer: One is obligated to eat 14 meals in the sukkah, mornings and nights for 7 days. Chachomim: He doesn’t have to eat any meals at all except for the first night of sukkos. Rabbi Eliezer: If one didn’t eat on the first day (text amended as per Maharsha), he can make it up [Shemini Atzeres]. Chachomim: The first meal is obligatory and cannot be made up. This is one of the things meant by the verse “When something is twisted crooked, you can never straighten it out. Something that’s missing can never be filled in again”. (While you can do teshuva for doing a sin you can never gain a mitzvah that you skipped). Gemara: Question: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning? Response: It states “You should live in the sukkah” [Teishvu k’ein taduru (21.2)]. All things you would do in your dwelling place [including eating 14 meals over 7 days], you must do in the sukkah. Question: How do the Chachomim explain this verse? Response: Just as one is not compelled to eat meals in his house, he can skip meals in the sukkah. Challenge: Then the first night shouldn’t be obligatory either? Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak: Regarding Sukkos it states “The fifteenth”, and regarding eating Matzoh it states “The fifteenth”. Just as there, the first night is an obligation and then it’s optional for the remainder of Yom Tov, so too here*, the first night a meal is obligatory, and afterwards it is optional**. Question: How do we know that eating matzoh the first night of Pesach is obligatory? Response: The possuk states “On that night you must eat matzoh”, the verse imposes it as an obligation. Rabbi Eliezer: If one didn’t eat on the first day, he can make it up Shemini Atzeres. Challenge: But Rabbi Eliezer holds that one must eat meals in the sukkah on all 7 days? [And on the eighth day he can no longer eat in the sukkah (in Eretz Yisroel, we do eat in the sukkah), so when can he make up for what he missed]? Rabbi Ami: Rabbi Eliezer retracted. (His opinion is that only the first night’s meal must be in the sukkah. On all other days he must eat a meal, but it is not related to the law of sukkah. It is only these 13 meals that can be made up on Shemini Atzeres [Tosfos]). Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RaOnrRZoD9 qrOK88iGSxF9fOQ7SlmIx/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos quotes from the Yerushalmi a different method of deriving these laws from the pesukim. Additionally the Yerushalmi adds that eating in the sukkah should be similar to Pesach in two aspects. 1. One must build up an appetite for the meal in the sukkah. 2. He must eat at least a kezayis of one of the five grains. * *Tosfos : It seems from here that the obligation of a meal Yom Tov is only for the first night of Yom Tov. Thus, if one omits yaaleh v’yavo he need not repeat birkas hamazon. But the Poskim don’t accept this opinion of Tosfos. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored   Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Mishna: It happened that they brought a pottage for Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai to taste, and two dates and some water for Rabban Gamliel. They said: Take it up to the sukkah [on the roof]. When they would give Rabbi Tzadok less than a k’beitzah of food [even bread], he would take it with a cloth (he ate with tahara and would wash his hands before touching food, but for such a small amount he wouldn’t wash, so he would avoid touching the food directly), he would eat it outside of the sukkah, and he wouldn’t recite the blessing after it. Gemara: Challenge: Is the mishna quoting a story that contradicts the law it is teaching [Rabbi Tzadok didn’t follow the stringency of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel]? Resolution: The mishna is telling us that with regard to this law one can be stringent and is not considered arrogant (in general it’s not good to be demonstrative with one’s stringencies, but here it’s permitted). When they would give Rabbi Tzadok less than a k’beitzah of food [even bread], he would take it with a cloth, he would eat it outside of the sukkah, and he wouldn’t recite the blessing after it. Challenge: It seems that Rabbi Tzadok would not permit eating a full k’beitzah outside of the sukkah. This would be a challenge to the opinions of Rav Yosef and Abayye (21.6). Resolution: Perhaps the mishna is only teaching Rabbi Tzadok’s law of a beitzah with regard to the laws of netilas yodayim* and birchas hamazon, but one is still allowed to eat a beitzah or more outside of the sukkah.   * Tosfos: More than a k’beitzah cannot be eaten by covering one’s hands with a cloth because we’re concerned that he might touch the bread with his hands. But there is a difficulty here, because Rabbi Tzadok was a kohen who is permitted to eat more than a k’beitzah with a cloth. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by S.N.S., as a zechus for all those who need Shidduchim Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU One may take a quick nap in his tefillin, but he may not sleep in them. Summary Question: What is considered “just a nap”? Beraisa of Rami bar Yechezkel: The time it takes to walk 100 amos. We learned in a beraisa also thus: Rabbi Yaakov: If one sleeps with his tefillin and has a seminal emission, he should remove his tefillin by taking hold of the straps but he shouldn’t touch the tefillin (as a sign of respect). Chachomim: One may take a quick nap in his tefillin, but he may not sleep in them. A quick nap is the time that it takes to walk 100 amos. Rav: During the day one is forbidden to sleep more than a horse sleeps (this was a great generation for whom the Torah was life, sleeping during the day was giving up one’s life). A horse’s sleep is 60 breaths (nowadays many people sleep more than that because this was said to a great generation. Rav wouldn’t issue such a decree if people couldn’t withstand it). Abayye: My rebbe [Rabbah] would sleep as per Rav’s instruction. Rav learned this from Rebbe and Rebbe Learned it from Dovid. Dovid slept like a horse (a horse sometimes naps between deliveries). A horse’s sleep is 60 breaths. Bei Kuvi was a town near Pumbedisa. Abayye once allowed himself the ‘luxury’ of sleeping for the short amount of time it takes to travel from Pumbedisa to Bei Kuvi. Rav Yosef rebuked him with a possuk in Mishlei: “How long, you lazy one, will you lie in bed? When will you arise from sleep?” (We see from Abayye’s previous statement extolling his teacher that in Abayye’s generation it was already difficult to uphold the standard of Dovid Hamelech. We see also that Abayye slept more than Rav Yosef). Beraisa: Rabbi Nosson: If one would like to nap during the day (it means a short nap) he may remove his tefillin if he so wishes, or he may leave them on. But at night he must remove them (even if he merely wishes to nap. Because at night he may forget himself and lie with his wife). Rabbi Yosi: Young men must always remove their tefillin because young people are more likely to get tamei. Question: Does Rabbi Yosi hold that a baal keri is forbidden to wear tefillin? Abayye: He is referring to a young man who is with his wife, we’re concerned that he may forget about his tefillin and lie with her. Beraisa: If one forgot and came upon his wife while wearing tefillin, he cannot remove it even by taking hold of the straps until he washes his hands, because his hands may have touched an unclean place. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by   Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU   Summary Rav permitted Rav Acha Bardela to sleep in a canopy bed in the sukkah [the canopy was flat roofed and 10 tefachim high, which is considered problematic according to all opinions (see 8.5-9.2)] because the mosquitoes were bothering him. Rava permitted Rabbi Acha bar Ada to sleep outside of the sukkah because he was bothered by the odor of the soil. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rava: One who is distressed is exempt from sukkah. Challenge: The mishna says that only people who are sick and their attendants are exempt, not just anyone who is distressed? Resolution: When someone is sick his attendants are exempt as well, when he is in distress, only he is exempt. Mishna 21.2: Eating and drinking casually is permitted outside of the sukkah. Question: How much is considered ‘casual’? Rav Yosef: The volume of 2-3 eggs. Abayye to Rav Yosef: People are often satiated with that amount and it should be considered a full meal? Abayye: The amount that a talmid chochom eats as he rushes out to the shiur (Tosfos explains that it’s the volume of 1 egg). Beraisa: Eating a little bit, casually, is permitted outside of the sukkah but sleeping a little bit is forbidden. Question: Why is a little sleep forbidden? Rav Ashi: Because we’re concerned that he may end up oversleeping. Abayye to Rav Ashi: What about this beraisa: “One may take a quick nap in his tefillin, but he may not go to sleep in them”. Why isn’t the beraisa concerned he may oversleep? Rav Yosef brei D’rav Ilai: The beraisa of tefillin is discussing a case where he asked someone to wake him. Rav Mesharshia: “Your guarantor needs a guarantor!” The waker may also fall asleep. Rabbah bar bar Chana quoting Rabbi Yochanan: The beraisa of tefillin is discussing a case where he put his head between his knees (he is sleeping in an uncomfortable position and is bound to wake up). Rava: There is no differentiating between “sleep”s [a nap and a sleep are the same thing]. We learn in one beraisa (1) “One may take a quick nap in his tefillin, but he may not go to sleep in them”. Another beraisa (2), “You can even sleep a real sleep”. Another beraisa (3), “You can’t even nap”. 3 refers to a case where he’s holding the tefillin in his hands so he can’t even nap lest he drop them. 1 refers to a case where he’s wearing the tefillin, if he sleeps for a while we’re concerned he may pass gas while wearing the tefillin. 2 refers to a case where the tefillin are near him and he covered it. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored   Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here   https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary We return now to the principle of teishvu k’ein taduru (21.2) — a sukkah should be regarded as one’s home. In all cases where one would not seek a home to lodge in, he is absolved of his obligation to dwell in the sukkah. Beraisa: Wayfarers who travel by day, are exempt from eating in the sukkah by day but are obligated in the nighttime. Wayfarers who travel by night, are exempt all night but are obligated by day. If they travel by day and by night, they are exempt by day and by night as well. If they’re travelling for a mitzvah (even if only by day), they are exempt by day and by night as well (Tosfos explains that the necessity of seeking a sukkah at night would be a deterrent to doing the mitzvah). This is illustrated by the case of Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna who lodged on the shore of Sura when they came to the Reish Galusa for the Shabbos of Yom Tov (The Reish Galusa was the Jewish king and there was a big shiur given during Yom Tov so it was a big mitzvah to join). They explained: We’re emissaries of mitzvah. Beraisa: City watchmen who work by day, are exempt from eating in the sukkah by day but are obligated in the nighttime. Watchmen who work at night, are exempt all night but are obligated by day. If they work by day and by night, they are exempt by day and by night as well. People who guard their gardens and orchards are exempt both by day and by night. Challenge: Let them make a sukkah in the orchard? Abayye: Teishvu k’ein taduru since they wouldn’t ordinarily put up a booth while they’re guarding, they’re exempt on Sukkos as well. Rava: “A breach invites a thief” a sukkah is an obstacle to guarding properly. Question: What’s the difference between them? Response: A case where he’s guarding a grain pile. It can be easily guarded from inside the sukkah. But according to Abayye, since he wouldn’t put up a booth ordinarily, he’s not obligated now either. Mishna (21.2): Sick people and those who are tending to them, are absolved of the sukkah obligation. Beraisa: Even if he is not in danger, but he has pain in his eyes which is exacerbated by sitting out in the sukkah, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: Once in Caesari, my eyes were hurting me and Rabbi Yosi Brivi (it means the great Rabbi Yosi) permitted me and my attendants to sleep outside of the sukkah (since he was the nasi his attendants were deemed essential and allowed to sleep with him). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Bizfluence — The New Standard in Business Networking https://join.bizfluenceapp.com/ Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Rabbi Abba bar Zavda quoting Rav: A chosson, his shushvinin [close friends] and everyone who comes to the chuppah are exempt from the Sukkah all seven days that they’re celebrating. This is because they have to rejoice [with the chosson in the chuppah]. Challenge: Let them eat and rejoice in the sukkah?! Resolution: Proper rejoicing is only in the chuppah . Challenge: Let them eat in the sukkah and rejoice in the chuppah?! Resolution: Proper rejoicing is only where there is a festive meal.* Challenge: Why can’t a chuppah be built in the sukkah?! Abayye: [Since a sukkah is built on the roof where there aren’t many people] it may cause yichud [if the chosson had to leave when only one of his friends were present, he would be left alone with the kallah]. Rava: Because of the chosson’s distress. [Since a sukkah is open from one side, the chosson doesn’t feel comfortable caressing his kallah which causes him distress]. Question: What is the difference between the two explanations? Response: A case where people come and go; there is no issue with yichud but there is distress for the chosson. Rabbi Zeira: I ate in the sukkah and rejoiced in the chuppah and I was doubly happy, because I had both the mitzvah of sukkah and simchas chosson v’kallah. Beraisa: A chosson, his shushvinin and everyone who comes to the chuppah are exempt from tefillah and tefillin but they’re obligated in Shema (when it’s possible to accomplish both mitzvos, one is not exempt. Since only the first possuk of Shema is an absolute obligation, one can recite it without interfering with the festivities). It was quoted in the name of Rabbi Shila: The chosson is exempt but all the guests are obligated. Beraisa: Rabbi Chananya ben Akavya: Sofrei Stam, their salesmen and their retailers and all providers of mitzvah articles [such as those who sell techeiles], are exempt from Shema, tefillah and tefillin and all mitzvos, (Tosfos explains that this only applies when there is no way to delay delivery of the mitzvah articles, e.g. the client is departing on a journey, but otherwise they are certainly obligated) as Rabbi Yosi Haglili said “One who is busy with a mitzvah is exempt from other mitzvos”. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1 1Zyg-4DitOLK6i93C4Hc6ea-Qn3LcTr/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos wishes to derive from here that Sheva Brachos cannot be made outside of the place of the Chosson and Kallah, but Tosfos themselves are unsure of this and we don’t follow this opinion. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Bizfluence — The New Standard in Business Networking https://join.bizfluenceapp.com/ Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU One who is on a mitzvah errand is exempt from reciting the Shema as it states “when you’re at home” this excludes someone who is out on a mitzvah errand. Summary Challenge: Is this the source that one who is occupied with a mitzvah is exempt from other mitzvos? We learned it from somewhere else, as in the beraisa: “There were people who were tamei [and couldn’t bring the korban pesach]” Who were they? Rabbi Yosi Haglili: They were the bearers of Yosef’s coffin. Rabbi Akiva: Mishael and Eltzafan who had assisted with the bodies of Nadav and Avihu. Rabbi Yitzchok: The bearers of Yosef’s coffin had ample time to purify themselves (they were camped in one place for a while), Mishael and Eltzafan also had plenty of time (there were 8 days between Nadav and Avihu’s death and the korban Pesach, they could have purified themselves in just 7), rather these were people who had busied themselves with a meis mitzvah seven days earlier, as it states “They couldn’t make the Pesach on that day” but on the next day they would have been allowed to do so.” So we see that one who is involved with the mitzvah of burying the dead is exempt from the mitzvah of Pesach! Resolution: Had this law been taught only regarding Pesach, one might think that caring for the dead trumped the mitzvah of Pesach simply because it was not yet Pesach when the opportunity came up but one cannot do a mitzvah when he should be reciting the Shema. Had this law been taught only regarding Shema, one might think it’s because there’s no kareis penalty for failing to recite the Shema, but since there’s kareis for skipping the Pesach, it is never allowed; This is why we need both sources. We learned (21.2): Rabbi Abba bar Zavda quoting Rav: “A mourner is not absolved of any mitzvos with the exception of Tefillin which are called ‘glory’. As the Merciful One said to Yechezkel: ‘Don your glory’ [it means] only you – the prophet – should don your glory at this time but other mourners do not wear tefillin. This is only on the first day of aveilus as it states ‘a day of bitterness’ [but a mourner on subsequent days must keep everything]. (Until the corpse is buried the mourner is absolved of all Torah obligations. After the burial, for the remainder of the first day he is exempt only from tefillin. For the remainder of the week he is obligated in everything). Rabbi Abba bar Zavda quoting Rav: A mourner is obligated in the mitzvah of sukkah. Challenge: Isn’t that obvious? Resolution: One might think that since Rabbi Abba bar Zavda quoted a law from Rav: “One who is in distress is absolved from sitting in the sukkah” so a mourner should be absolved as well; that’s why he teaches that a mourner is obligated. One who is distressed means that he is distressed by circumstances beyond his control (he is nauseated by the odor of the schach or he is ill. His pain doesn’t have to result from the sukkah – as it seems from Rashi – rather any type of pain would absolve someone from the sukkah), but a mourner is distressing himself, he should pull himself together [because a man is in control of his mind]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary There is a principle of teishvu k’ein taduru (11.1) — a sukkah should be regarded as one’s home. In all cases where one would not seek a home to lodge in, he is absolved of his obligation to dwell in the sukkah. Mishna: People who are on a mitzvah errand* [shluchei mitzvah], are absolved of the sukkah obligation. [Rashi and Tosfos give an example that they’re travelling to learn Torah. People who are learning already are surely obligated to go sit in the sukkah. They must stop for kiddush levanah, they must stop for every minhag! The purpose of learning is to bring us to do mitzvos, so if they won’t stop for mitzvos they’re not really learners. But one who travels to learn is not learning but doing a mitzvah and is thus absolved from other mitzvos during that time.] Sick people and those who are tending to them, are absolved of the sukkah obligation. Eating and drinking casually is permitted outside of the sukkah. Gemara: Question: What is the source for these exemptions? Response: Beraisa: “The possuk states ‘[Recite the Shema] when you’re at home’ — this excludes one who is on a mitzvah errand ‘And when you’re travelling on the road’ — this excludes a chosson** (because he has ‘anxiety about a mitzvah’ which is also a mitzvah). This is the source for the rule that ‘One who marries a virgin is exempt from Shema, but one who marries a widow must recite the Shema’ (breaking through the hymen is not a simple matter and causes anxiety to the chosson, but with a widow there’s no anxiety).” Question: How does this verse exclude one who is on a mitzvah errand [perhaps it excludes anyone who is not comfortably at home]? Rav Huna: It states “on the road”, travelling on the road is not a mitzvah, so it includes anything that is not a mitzvah. Challenge: Perhaps the possuk is referring to one who is travelling for a mitzvah, so we see that he does have to recite the Shema? Resolution: It states: “When you’re at home and when you’re travelling”, it could have said “when one is at home or when one travels” the usage of ‘you’ implies that it is for your personal needs but for a mitzvah, one is exempt. Challenge: Why is one required to recite Shema when marrying a widow, isn’t that also a mitzvah? Resolution: One who is marrying a virgin; his mind is occupied with it, not one who marries a widow. Challenge: Anyone whose mind is occupied is exempt? What about one whose ship sunk at sea? He is surely not absolved as we see from the statement of Rabbi Abba bar Zavda quoting Rav: A mourner is not absolved of any mitzvos with the exception of Tefillin (for the first day) which are called “glory”*. Resolution: The chosson is occupied with a mitzvah but the merchant who lost his ship is not. (Although a mourner also has a mitzvah to mourn, Rashi explains that he doesn’t have a mitzvah to get anxious and lose his presence of mind). Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFwu8Vtbl78da7W18Piq2PlVQLp84dFg/view?usp=sharing * Rashi: If they’re travelling to learn Torah, to visit their rebbe for Yom Tov (even the travel is a mitzvah) or to redeem captives, so even when they’re not actually travelling, they’re exempt from sukkah. Tosfos: We can prove this from the gemara “one who travels for a mitzvah is absolved from sukkah by day and by night”. This obviously refers to someone who only travels by day. Anyone who is on the road travelling, even if not for a mitzvah, is absolved from sukkah because of teishvu k’ein taduru. So there is no need to teach that one who travels for a mitzvah is absolved unless it means that he is absolved at night because of his daytime travels. But this is very difficult, since they can accomplish both mitzvos, why should they be absolved of one?! Would we say that anyone wearing tzitzis is now absolved of all other mitzvos? Tosfos also raises another difficulty from masichta Nedarim where we see that one is not absolved from the mitzvah of tzedakah while a lost article is in his house. Tosfos thus concludes that one who is involved in a mitzvah is only absolved of sukkah if sleeping in a sukkah would keep him from accomplishing the mitzvah. * *Rashi: Although he is also doing a mitzvah, it doesn’t seem like he’s doing anything or going anywhere, it is merely a preoccupation in his mind. * Tosfos: There is a possuk that teaches the exemption of an avel from tefillin and we would learn all mitzvos from tefillin. That’s why the gemara explains the reason for the exemption is because of a svara. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rav Acha bar Yaakov: A wall that cannot withstand an ordinary wind, is not considered a wall. Summary Challenge: “A tree, a wall or a thicket of reeds can be considered a dyumad” (3.4. If the wall is thick enough that a dyumad can be cut out from it, it is considered a valid dyumad). But reeds sway in the wind? Resolution: The reeds are interlaced with sticks which hold it in place. Challenge: “A tree with low hanging branches [its branches come down all around, sort of like the walls of a hut], if its foliage comes within 3 tefachim from the ground [so it’s like complete walls] is considered a house and one can carry inside of it on Shabbos”. But the branches wave in the wind? Resolution: The branches are interlaced with sticks which hold it in place. Challenge: So then it’s a man-made home! Why did Rav Huna brei D’Rav Yehoshua say: One may only carry in that area if it’s smaller than 2 se’ah? Resolution: It’s a home for the purpose of the outside (See 14.4, 18.5) [it is made for watchmen or shepherds who do not want to be indoors]. Any home that is not built for residence is only considered ‘indoors’ if its size is up to 2 se’ah. Challenge: “If one spent Shabbos on a plateau that is 10 tefachim steep (if it’s slanted it may not qualify as a wall) and is between 4 amos and 2 sea’h in area; or if he spent Shabbos in a pit that is 10 tefachim deep and is between 4 amos and 2 sea’h in area; or if he spent Shabbos in a field surrounded by a wall of standing grain, then the entire space is considered his home, and he can walk the entire area plus an additional 2000 amos in every direction”. But the stalks wave in the wind? Resolution: The stalks of wheat are interlaced with sticks which hold it in place. (Tosfos explains that only previously there was an additional challenge “So then it’s a man-made home!” because here, there’s no roof). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rav Acha bar Yaakov: A wall that cannot withstand an ordinary wind, is not considered a wall. Summary Challenge: “A tree, a wall or a thicket of reeds can be considered a dyumad” (3.4. If the wall is thick enough that a dyumad can be cut out from it, it is considered a valid dyumad). But reeds sway in the wind? Resolution: The reeds are interlaced with sticks which hold it in place. Challenge: “A tree with low hanging branches [its branches come down all around, sort of like the walls of a hut], if its foliage comes within 3 tefachim from the ground [so it’s like complete walls] is considered a house and one can carry inside of it on Shabbos”. But the branches wave in the wind? Resolution: The branches are interlaced with sticks which hold it in place. Challenge: So then it’s a man-made home! Why did Rav Huna brei D’Rav Yehoshua say: One may only carry in that area if it’s smaller than 2 se’ah? Resolution: It’s a home for the purpose of the outside (See 14.4, 18.5) [it is made for watchmen or shepherds who do not want to be indoors]. Any home that is not built for residence is only considered ‘indoors’ if its size is up to 2 se’ah. Challenge: “If one spent Shabbos on a plateau that is 10 tefachim steep (if it’s slanted it may not qualify as a wall) and is between 4 amos and 2 sea’h in area; or if he spent Shabbos in a pit that is 10 tefachim deep and is between 4 amos and 2 sea’h in area; or if he spent Shabbos in a field surrounded by a wall of standing grain, then the entire space is considered his home, and he can walk the entire area plus an additional 2000 amos in every direction”. But the stalks wave in the wind? Resolution: The stalks of wheat are interlaced with sticks which hold it in place. (Tosfos explains that only previously there was an additional challenge “So then it’s a man-made home!” because here, there’s no roof). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Bizfluence - The New Standard in Business Networking https://join.bizfluenceapp.com/ Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi Haglili: The possuk states “He should write her a sefer (document) of divorce”. It seems that the possuk limits us to using only a sefer. But the possuk says “he should write”, so it seems that it can be written on anything. If so, why does the possuk mention a sefer specifically? This teaches that a get can be written on anything that bears a resemblance to a document. Meaning, it is not a living creature or a food. The Chachomim argue on Rabbi Yosi Haglili: The possuk doesn’t say “write it in a sefer” which would indicate a specific form of writing. The possuk merely says that a sefer, a sippur devarim: a document, should be written. Summary Challenge: According to the Chachomim what is taught by the words “he should write” [without those we know it can be written on anything]? Resolution: It teaches that one cannot divorce his wife by giving her money, he must divorce her through writing. One would think that since the Torah compares divorce to marriage, [v’yatza v’haysah], divorce can be affected by money just like marriage. Rabbi Yosi Haglili: Learns this from the words “sefer krisus” - a document of divorce. This teaches that divorce is achieved only through a document. The Chachomim: Use the word kerisus to learn that the get must be something that is koreis [cuts them off from one another]. As we learn in a beraisa: “This is your get on condition that you don’t drink wine or go to your father’s house forever (Tosfos in Gittin explains that even after the father’s passing it’s still called his house); cannot be considered kerisus [the get is not valid]. If the condition was only made for thirty days, it is a valid get.” Rabbi Yosi Haglili: Learns this from the word kerisus. The possuk could have said Kores, the double term kerisus teaches both laws. (In lashon kodesh, letters are added to a word for emphasis, as in: adamdam, shcharchores). The Chachomim: Declined to learn anything from this grammatical construct. Mishna: If one builds a sukkah using trees as walls [not the roof], it is kosher. Gemara: Rav Acha bar Yaakov: A wall that cannot withstand an ordinary wind [the wind causes it to sway 3 tefachim, even if it’s anchored to the ground], is not considered a wall (20.2). Challenge: “If one builds a sukkah using trees as walls, it is kosher.” Trees may sway in the wind? (From this question we learn that even if the swaying wall is anchored, it’s still possul). Resolution: The mishna refers to trees with thick trunks. Challenge: What about the foliage? Resolution: The foliage is interlaced with sticks which hold it in place. Challenge: If the foliage is fastened, what new law is the mishna teaching? Resolution: One might think that trees cannot be used as walls because it would lead to people making use of the trees by hanging things on them (which is forbidden, see 20.1). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rabbi Meir: An animal cannot be used as a sukkah wall. Rabbi Yehuda: It may be used. Abayye: Rabbi Yehuda is “not concerned about death”, and there is no fear of the animal dying and invalidating the sukkah. Summary Challenge: Is Rabbi Yehuda “not concerned about death”?! We learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda: They would prepare a second wife for him [the kohen gadol who would do the avodah on Yom Kippur only if he was married] in case his wife died. Resolution: We learned regarding this: Rav Huna brei D’Rav Yehoshua: This was a special stringency because of the greatness of the kapparah for the entire nation on that day. We learned a beraisa in 20.2: If one stationed an animal on one side of the sukkah to use it as a wall: Rabbi Meir: It is possul. Rabbi Yehuda: It is kosher. Rabbi Meir would say: A living thing cannot be used as a wall for a sukkah, a lechi for a mavui, pasei bira’os (3.4), or a golel. They quoted Rabbi Yosi Haglili: Additionally, a get cannot be written on a living animal’s hide. Challenge: According to both Abayye (the animal may die) and Rabbi Zeira (the animal may escape) [20.2], Rabbi Meir agrees that d’orayso an animal is a valid mechitza it is only d’rabbanan that it is considered invalid. If so, why would Rabbi Meir say that an animal cannot be a golel? (If it’s a valid mechitza min hatorah then it should contract tumah even if the chachomim say it cannot be used as a mechitza)! Rav Acha bar Yaakov: Rabbi Meir holds that a mechitza held up by air (the animal’s life force) is not a valid mechitza even d’orayso. Ikka D’omri [a different version]: Rav Acha bar Yaakov: Rabbi Meir holds that a natural mechitza (something that cannot be manmade) is not a valid mechitza. Question: What is the difference between the two ways? Answer: The difference would be if one used an air-filled sack as a mechitza. While it is air-filled, it is manmade. Rabbi Yosi Haglili: A get cannot be written on a living animal’s hide. Question: What is Rabbi Yosi Haglili’s reasoning? Answer: Beraisa: The possuk states “He should write her a sefer (document) of divorce”. It seems that the possuk limits us to using only a sefer. But the possuk says “he should write”, so it seems that it can be written on anything. If so, why does the possuk mention a sefer specifically? This teaches that a get can be written on anything that bears a resemblance to a document. Meaning, it is not a living creature or a food. The Chachomim who argue on Rabbi Yosi Haglili answer: The possuk doesn’t say “write it in a sefer” which would indicate a specific form of writing. The possuk merely says that a sefer, a sippur devarim: a document, should be written. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rabbi Meir: An animal cannot be used as a sukkah wall. Rabbi Yehuda: It may be used. Rabbi Meir’s reasoning: Abayye: The animal might die. Challenge: Abayye resolved the disparity between a mishna and a beraisa by explaining that one follows Rabbi Meir who is “not concerned about death” and the other follows Rabbi Yehuda who is “concerned about death” — as we learn in a beraisa: Rabbi Meir holds that one can designate Terumah without separating it and we’re not concerned that the keg may break and Rabbi Yehuda is concerned that the keg may break! Summary Resolution: Abayye resolved the disparity differently: The mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda who is “not concerned about death” and the beraisa follows Rabbi Meir who is “concerned about death” — as we learn in a beraisa (20.2): If one stationed an animal on one side of the sukkah to use it as a wall: Rabbi Meir: It is possul. Rabbi Yehuda: It is kosher. Challenge: If Rabbi Meir is concerned about death, why is he not concerned that the keg may break? Resolution: Death is frequent but the keg will not necessarily break if guarded properly. Challenge: And if Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about death, why is he concerned that the keg may break? Resolution: Rabbi Yehuda is actually not concerned that the keg may break. The reason he holds that one cannot designate terumah without separating it is because he doesn’t agree with the principle of breirah. Challenge: But that beraisa goes on to state: Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon to Rabbi Meir: Don’t you agree that the keg may break, and he will have turned out retroactively to be drinking tevel! Rabbi Meir: [I will deal with that question] when it will break. [He wasn’t concerned about the prospect of the keg breaking]. So Rabbi Yehuda obviously was concerned about the keg breaking! Resolution: Rabbi Yehuda was saying, “The terumah is surely not valid because I don’t subscribe to breirah. But even if you hold of breirah, perhaps the keg may break?! [After all, regarding sukkah you’re worried that the animal may die].” This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rabbi Meir: Ana animal cannot be used as a sukkah wall. Rabbi Yehuda: It may be used. Rabbi Meir’s reasoning: Abayye: The animal might die. Rabbi Zeira: The animal might escape. Summary Everyone agrees that a tied elephant would make a valid wall [even according to Rabbi Meir]. Even if it dies, the mound of flesh would be higher than 10 tefachim and since it is tied it cannot escape. They argue regarding a loose elephant: According to Abayye, even if it dies, since it’s an elephant it would remain a valid wall. According to Rabbi Zeira, since it is untied, we’re concerned it may escape. Challenge: Why wouldn’t Abayye be concerned that it may escape? Resolution: Everyone agrees that a loose elephant would not make a valid wall since it may escape. They argue regarding a small tied animal [not an elephant]: According to Abayye, we’re concerned that it may die. According to Rabbi Zeira, since it is tied, we’re not concerned it may escape. Challenge: Why wouldn’t Rabbi Zeira be concerned that it may die? Resolution: It is uncommon for an animal to die. Challenge: How can an animal be used as a wall? What about the space under its stomach? Resolution: It is filled with a mat of sticks and branches. Challenge: Perhaps the animal will lie down? Resolution: The animal is held up with ropes. Challenge: If it held up with ropes, why is Abayye concerned it will die? It will still be held up! Resolution: It may be held up just within 3 tefachim of the schach. When it dies it may slouch imperceptibly and it will no longer be lavud with the schach. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one may use an animal as a sukkah wall. According to Rabbi Meir, one may not. Abayye explains the reasoning of Rabbi Meir: since the animal might die. Apparently then, according to Abayye, Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned that the animal may die. Challenge: Is Abayye’s opinion that Rabbi Meir is “concerned about death” and Rabbi Yehuda is “not concerned about death”? We learned in a mishna: A woman who was married to a kohen may eat terumah even if his whereabouts are unknown; we assume he’s alive. We learned in a beraisa: The wife of a kohen who stipulates “This get shall be valid a moment before I die”, is immediately forbidden from partaking in terumah. Abayye: The mishna follows Rabbi Meir who is “not concerned about death” and the beraisa follows Rabbi Yehuda who is “concerned about death” — as we learn in a beraisa: “Rabbi Meir: If one bought [a hundred log of] wine from Kusim [who are not trusted with regard to terumos and maasros and they must be separated. But since it is almost Shabbos, there is no time to do so], he may say 2 log (1/50) that I will separate [after shabbos] are terumah. 10 are maaser rishon (1/10). 9 are maaser sheini (1/9. These numbers aren’t precise since after terumah was taken there is only 98 log left) l which can be redeemed immediately. He can now drink the wine [following the principle of ‘yesh breirah’ a portion of the remaining wine will retroactively be established as the terumos and maasros]. Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon: do not allow this.” Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon are of the opinion that the keg of wine may break [Rabbi Yehuda is “concerned about death”]. Rabbi Meir is not concerned that the keg will break [Rabbi Meir is “not concerned about death”]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Mishna: If one built his sukkah on a wagon or a ship, it is kosher. Summary Gemara: Question: Whose opinion is this mishna following? Answer: Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a beraisa: A sukkah on a ship is possul according to Rabban Gamliel and kosher according to Rabbi Akiva. It once happened that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva were travelling on a ship together. Rabbi Akiva built a sukkah on the deck; the next day a wind knocked down his sukkah. Rabban Gamliel said to him: “Akiva, where’s your sukkah?” (Don’t you see that a ship is not a stable place for a sukkah?). Abayye: Everyone agrees that if it cannot withstand an ordinary land wind [although this sukkah is at sea], it is possul. If it can withstand an unusually strong land wind [which is a usual sea wind], it is kosher. They disagree if it can withstand an ordinary land wind, but not an ordinary sea wind [which is an unusually strong land wind]: According to Rabban Gamliel, a sukkah must be a diras keva (6.3) and it must be able to stand where it is [at sea]. According to Rabbi Akiva, a sukkah mustn’t be so strong, as long as it can stand on land, it is kosher. Atop a camel’s back, it is kosher but he may not enter it on Yom Tov. Question: Whose opinion is this mishna following? Answer: Rabbi Meir. As we learned in a beraisa: A sukkah on an animal is kosher according to Rabbi Meir and possul according to Rabbi Yehuda. Question: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning? Answer: It states “Make a sukkah celebration for seven days”, only a sukkah that can be used for seven days is kosher [but this sukkah cannot be used on Shabbos or Yom Tov]. Challenge: What would Rabbi Meir say? Resolution: This sukkah is usable all seven days, it is only d’rabbanan that we cannot use it (20.1). (Superficially we can say that this machlokes is the key to a question that comes up constantly in Minchas Chinuch: Does a d’rabbanan affect d’oraysos? It seems that Rabbi Yehuda hold it does, and Rabbi Meir holds it does not). If one stationed an animal on one side of the sukkah to use it as a wall: Rabbi Meir: It is possul. Rabbi Yehuda: It is kosher. Rabbi Meir would say: A living thing cannot be used as a wall for a sukkah, a lechi for a mavui, pasei bira’os (3.4), or a golel (according to Rashi it means the stone that covers a grave, this stone is tamei like the corpse). They quoted Rabbi Yosi Haglili: Additionally, a get cannot be written on a living animal’s hide. Question: What is Rabbi Meir’s reasoning? Abayye: The animal might die. Rabbi Zeira: The animal might escape. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary The reason we don’t touch a pencil on shabbos is because it would move if we touch it, and it is forbidden to move muktzah but it is permissible to touch muktzah. Therefore one is allowed to touch a camel or a tree on shabbos. However there is a rabbinic ban on using an animal or a tree on shabbos. Mishna: If one built his sukkah on a wagon or a ship, it is kosher and he may enter it on Yom Tov. Atop a tree or on a camel’s back, it is kosher but he may not enter it on Yom Tov. If two walls were built in the tree and only one wall is supported independently, or if two walls are standing independently and one is supported by the tree, it is kosher but he may not enter it on Yom Tov. If three walls are standing independently and a fourth wall is supported by the tree, it is kosher and he may enter it on Yom Tov. This is the rule: If the sukkah can stand independently if the tree were to be removed, it is kosher and he may enter it on Yom Tov. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

It's Purim! Click here to Give to Toras Avigdor https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rav Ashi to Rav Kahana: Less than a tefach cannot be knocked down by Chavot Remi?! We learned in a Beraisa: If the boards were not level, one was higher than the other: We look at the boards as if they were on the same level. As long as the higher board is not above 20 amos, and the lower board is not below 10 tefachim, we consider them to be on the same level and if they can hold a brick together, another board is not necessary.” So we see that as long as both boards are between 10 tefachim and 20 amos, we can apply “Chavot Remi” even though they are less than a tefach wide! Summary Rav Kahana to Rav Ashi: The principle here is not Chavot Remi but lavud. The beraisa must be understood as follows: As long as the higher board is not above 20 amos, and is within 3 tefachim of the lower board, or, the lower board is not below 10 tefachim , and is within 3 tefachim of the upper board, we consider them to be on the same level. But if there are 3 tefachim between the boards, since they’re not a tefach wide, we cannot apply the principle of Chavot Remi. We learned in the mishna 19.2: A sukkah whose “shade is more than its sunlight”, is kosher. But if the shade is equal to the sunlight, the sukkah would be possul. Challenge: In the first perek (1.1) we learned “A Sukkah whose schach lets in more sunshine than shade, is possul.” which implies that if the sunshine is equal to the shade it would be kosher! Resolution: Our mishna implies the law in a case where the shade and the sunshine are equal above. The first perek where it seems that when the shade and sunshine are equal, the sukkah is kosher, is referring to the shade below. Rav Papa: As people say “An aperture the size of a quarter above, seems like a half-dollar below”. We learned in the mishna 19.2: A sukkah whose schach is thick like a solid roof is kosher even though the stars cannot be viewed from inside the sukkah. Beraisa: A sukkah whose schach is thick like a solid roof is kosher even though the stars cannot be viewed from inside the sukkah. If however the sun rays cannot be seen through the roof: It is possul according to Beis Shammai. Beis Hillel: It is kosher. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Mishna: A sukkah that is meduvleles (the gemara will explain this term) and one whose “shade is more than its sunlight”, is kosher. A sukkah whose schach is thick like a solid roof is kosher even though the stars cannot be viewed from inside the sukkah (sometimes houses were made with thatched roofs, thus this sukkah would be indistinguishable from a house, but it still kosher). Gemara: Question: What is Meduvleles? Rav: A sparse sukkah. Shmuel: It means that the schach is uneven; there are two layers of sparse schach [from the top everything is covered, but the cover is not level]. (The top layer is at least 3 tefachim higher than the bottom layer, otherwise it’s considered one level). According to Rav the mishna is saying one thing, “a sparse sukkah whose shade is more than its sunlight, is kosher”. According to Shmuel the mishna is saying two separate things, “a sukkah whose shade is more than its sunlight” is a separate law. Rav says that a sukkah meduldeles [a sparse sukkah] whose shade is more than its sunlight is kosher. Shmuel says that a sukkah mevulbeles [a confused sukkah that’s not level] is kosher and a sukkah whose shade is more than its sunlight is kosher. Abayye: Shmuel’s law is only applicable when there is no 3 tefach airspace on the bottom level, if there’s 3 tefachim empty, then it’s not kosher. Rava: If the upper level has a board that’s a tefach wide above the airspace, the sukkah remains kosher because of the rule that “Chavot Remi”, the tefach can be ‘knocked down’ from above. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Mishna: If one supports schach with his bedposts, it is kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: If it cannot stand without the posts [it is supported only by bedposts], it is possul. Gemara: Question: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning? Answer: Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Mammal: One of them explained: Because it’s not a permanent dwelling [according to Rabbi Yehuda, a sukkah must be permanent; 6.2, 18.6]. One of them explained: Because it is supported by something that is mekabel tumah (just as the schach cannot be made from something that’s mekabel tumah [9.3], it cannot be supported by a mekabel tumah). Question: What is the difference between the reasons? Answer: If the schach would be held up by four iron rods. According to the first reason, it would be kosher, since the rods are not portable. According to the second reason, it would be possul, since the rods are mekabel tumah. (This all according to Rabbi Yehuda. According to the Chachomim a sukkah must not be permanent and it may be supported by something that’s mekabel tumah). Abayye: If the schach is over the bed [the walls are a part of the bed, but the schach is on posts over the bed] Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is kosher. Why? Because it’s permanent and not mekabel tumah [although the walls may be portable and mekabel tumah, the posts are not and we’re only concerned with the schach]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by KACH MAGI’IM THE BOOK THAT WILL TRAIN YOU TO LEARN THE ENTIRE TORAH “Making the Entire Torah Attainable for ALL” AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH AND HEBREW ORDER YOURS ONLINE CLICK HERE OR CALL/TEXT 732-691-2907 https://www.shopeichlers.com/products/within-reach/50012 Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permissible to sleep under a bed in the sukkah. But if the bed is an ohel, the person sleeping should be considered sleeping only in the ohel and not in the sukkah? Summary Another answer: Rabbi Yehuda follows his opinion (6.2) that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling, and “a casual ohel (the bed) cannot nullify a permanent ohel” (9.2). (The Chachomim disagree, according to them, the sukkah is also an ohel arai - temporary and casual - so sleeping under a bed is problematic). Challenge: Rabbi Shimon is also of the opinion that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling (6.2), still he holds (18.3) that one cannot sleep under a bed in the sukkah? Resolution: Indeed, Both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling. But they argue over whether a casual ohel can nullify a permanent ohel (Rabbi Shimon), or not (Rabbi Yehuda). Mishna (18.3): Rabbi Shimon: It happened that Tavi, the eved of Rabban Gamliel slept under the bed in the sukkah. Rabban Gamliel pointed out to the Chachomim that Tavi is a talmid chochom and is aware that he is pottur from the sukkah, so he sleeps under the bed. Beraisa: Rabbi Shimon: From Rabban Gamliel’s “schmooze” we learn two things: 1. That a servant is pottur from sukkah.* 2. That one who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Question: Why does Rabbi Shimon say it is learned from Rabban Gamliel’s “schmooze”, let him say “from Rabban Gamliel’s words”? Answer: He teaches us “by the way” what was taught by Rav Acha Bar Ada, some say, Rav Acha bar Ada quoting Rav Hamnuna quoting Rav: Even the casual talk of Talmidei Chachomim must be studied. We know this from the possuk: “His leaves shall not wither”. (It means, not only are his fruit valuable, even his leaves don’t wither! So although Rabban Gamliel seemingly made a passing remark, a joke, it became a mishna. * Tosfos: One might think that women are also obligated in sukkah because it’s supposed to be like dwelling in a home. So it’s a chiddush that an eved is pottur. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Aaron Stimmel L'ilui Nishmas Avraham Yosef ben Moshe on his 44th Yahrzeit. May his Neshama have an Aliyah. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU There were courtyards in Yerushalayim built on rock atop caves because of graves in the depths. Pregnant women would be brought there to give birth and these children would be brought up there for the service of the Parah Adumah. They would bring oxen with doors on their backs and the children would sit on these holding stone cups. When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back sitting on the doors of the oxen. Rabbi Yosi: They wouldn’t enter the water, rather they would lower their cups and draw water with ropes, in case there’s a grave under the stream. Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: Doors were not necessary, the children would sit on oxen, and the oxen would intervene between the child and the tumah. Summary Challenge: According to Rabbi Yehuda, why shouldn’t they sit on doors, it is very high off the ground, more than many full fists? (This is a difficult question to understand because (1) a door is a good ohel according to everyone, even when it’s only one tefach above the ground and (2) why would an ox be a better ohel? According to Rabbi Yehuda (18.3) an ox shouldn’t be an ohel! [Tosfos]). Abayye: Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the doors were not necessary, not that there’s any problem with sitting on a door. Rava: According to Rabbi Yehuda doors should be avoided, because the child may become cocky sitting atop the door and stick his head out and become tamei. We learned a beraisa like Rava: “Rabbi Yehuda: Doors should not be used at all, because the child may become cocky sitting atop the door and stick his head out and become tamei. Rather they would bring wide-bellied Egyptian oxen and the children would sit on these holding stone cups. When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back on the backs of the oxen. Challenge: According to Rabbi Yehuda, there are many ‘full fists’ under a bed, and it should be considered an ohel, yet we learned in the mishna (18.3) “Rabbi Yehuda: It was our custom to sleep under the bed in the sukkah in the presence of the Chachomim”? (But if it’s an ohel it shouldn’t be considered part of the sukkah!) Resolution: A bed is made for its top (it’s not made to cover anything, see also 14.4). Challenge: Oxen aren’t either made to cover anything! When Ravin came from Eretz Yisroel, he quoted Rabbi Elazar: Oxen protect the shepherds from the heat or the rain. Challenge: In that case (that the casual use of the shepherd makes the ox an ohel), a bed also protects shoes and sandals! Rava: The oxe’s back was created for the purpose of protecting the oxe’s inner organs so it can be considered “built for an ohel” as the possuk states “You clothed me with sin and flesh, and you made a sukkah around me of bone and sinew”. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Chachomim: An unintentional Ohel is still an ohel. Rabbi Yehuda: an unintentional ohel is not an ohel. Rabbi Yehuda learns this from the mishkan which is called an ohel and it was intentional*. Summary The Chachomim explain: Since the word ohel is repeated in the Torah, it comes to include any type of ohel. Challenge: Does Rabbi Yehuda hold that an unintentional ohel cannot be considered an ohel? We learned: There were courtyards in Yerushalayim built on rock atop caves because of graves in the depths (the parah adumah had to be done in complete purity, these courtyards were built above a hollow so that even if there was a grave somewhere in the depths below, the hollow would not allow the tumah to rise). Pregnant women would be brought there to give birth (these children would be completely protected from tumas meis) and these children would be brought up there for the service of the Parah Adumah. They would bring oxen with doors on their backs and the children would sit on these (as if on a sedan. This was done so that the doors would make an ohel and interven between the children and any potential tumah) holding stone cups (which aren’t mekabel tumah). When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back sitting on the doors of the oxen. Rabbi Yosi: They wouldn’t enter the water, rather they would lower their cups and draw water with ropes, in case there’s a grave under the stream. Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: Doors were not necessary, the children would sit on oxen, and the oxen would intervene between the child and the tumah. But an ox is an ohel that was not intentionally made by man, which should not be an ohel according to Rabbi Yehuda?! When Rav Dimi came, he quoted Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if an ohel is a full fist (more than a tefach), even an unintentional ohel is significant (Thus an ox can be considered an ohel). We learned a beraisa also thus: Rabbi Yehuda agrees with regard to an arcade or an erosion in rocks [since these are big hollows, they’re considered ohalim]. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-H0O2CJl0L-0BVA85VgRBSliDZ8C2AAd/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos : Then an ohel should have to be made of pishtan too, as we learn in Shabbos? Tosfos answers that we learn other materials from Metzora. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

18.3 - Sukkah Daf 20 B (Misnah) Summary Mishna: One who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his mitzvah. Rabbi Yehuda: It was our custom to sleep under the bed in the sukkah in the presence of the Chachomim and they didn’t tell us anything (in those days they wouldn’t hold back criticism if someone was doing something wrong). Rabbi Shimon: It happened that Tavi, the eved of Rabban Gamliel (this eved was a pious and scholarly man. It was common for the family of the nesi’im to have scholarly servants. We find that the maidservant of Rebbi had certain knowledge that the Chachomim didn’t have) slept under the bed in the sukkah*. Rabban Gamliel pointed out to the Chachomim that Tavi is a talmid chochom and is aware that he is pottur from the sukkah (since an eved is like a woman who is absolved of mitzvos asei she’hazman grama), so he sleeps under the bed which is not considered to be in the sukkah. Thus we learn that one who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his mitzvah. Gemara: Challenge: But the bed is not 10 tefachim high?! Resolution: Shmuel explained that our mishna is referring to a bed that is 10 tefachim high**. We learned there [in Ohalos]: If [an unintentional ohel was formed; it means that] something was hollowed out by water, by moles, or if it was corroded by salt, [or if an ohel was unintentionally formed by] a pile of stones or wood: constitutes an ohel if it is over a meis. Rabbi Yehuda: It cannot be an ohel unless it was made intentionally as an ohel. Question: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s source? Answer: He learns it from the word ohel that is used regarding the mishkan. Just as the mishkan was built by intentional humans, so too an ohel hameis needts to be made intentionally. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1svN7dbl20Q5SV16k933VMae0qUYQ3ZCJ/view?usp=drivesdk * Tosfos: The Yerushalmi says that he would put on tefillin too. The Yerushalmi asks why they allowed him to put on tefillin (which may mislead people into thinking that he is a full-fledged Jew) but not to sleep in the sukkah. The answer is that he was allowed into the sukkah proper but he wanted to make more room for the Chachomim. The question is though, why he didn’t leave the sukkah entirely to make even more room. The answer is because he wanted to hear the conversations of the Chachomim. ** Tosfos has a discussion about whether this gemara is based on a unanimous opinion or if it’s only Shmuel’s opinion. If it’s unanimous, then we understand the question and the answer. But if it’s only Shmuel’s opinion then we must explain that the question was also asked by Shmuel, not only that he answered the question. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU In 17.6, a mishna discussing the tumah of “Chotzlos” was referenced. The Chachomim ascribed a severe level of tumah to them while Rabbi Dosa was more lenient (while still considering them tamei, and thus invalid for use as schach). Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri said that Chotzlos are Marzuvli - sacks filled with leaves. Reish Lakish said that they’re mats. Summary Challenge: We learned: “Rabbi Dosa: Chotzlos become tamei with meis-level tumah.” And yet we learned (17.6): “Rabbi Dosa concurred [to the opinion of Rabbi Yosi, that mats can be used for schach].” Resolution: It depends whether the mat has walls [like a large basket] or not. (A metal keili is always mekabel tumah, but other materials require a ‘beis kibul - indentation that can hold things’ in order to be considered a keili that is mekabel tumah. If the mat doesn’t have walls, then it’s flat like ‘peshutei klei eitz - flat slabs of wood’ and not mekabel tumah, but a mat with walls has a beis kibul and is considered a keili mekabel tumah [this discussion is only relevant to tumas meis, but something flat can become tamei with tumas midras, it can then become tamei meis as well]). Challenge: Beraisa: Chotzlos of shaam, gmi, goat-hair, and sfira have the potential of becoming tamei with tumas meis according to Rabbi Dosa. According to the Chachomim they can become tamei with midras as well. According to the opinion that Chotzlos are Marzuvli, so sacks of shaam and gmi can be used for transporting food, while sacks of goat hair and sfira can be used for larger objects. But according to the opinion that Chotzlos are mats, so mats of goat hair and sfira can be used for curtains (Tosfos explain why a curtain would be mekabel tumah), or as sieves, but what are the other materials fit for? Resolution: It is fit for dragging kegs*, since it has some walls around it. Ikka D’omri [a different version of the foregoing]: According to the opinion that Chotzlos are mats, so sacks of shaam and gmi can be used for dragging kegs, while sacks of goat hair and sfira can be used for curtains or as sieves. But according to the opinion that Chotzlos are Marzuvli, so mats of goat hair and sfira can be used for transporting large objects, but what are the other materials fit for? Resolution: For transporting food. Beraisa: Rabbi Chananiah: When I went down to Bavel I encountered a zakein who said that a mat can be used as schach when I returned to [Eretz Yisroel, where I met] my uncle Rabbi Yehoshua, he concurred. Rav Chisda: Provided that the mat doesn’t have walls. Ulla: The mats of Mechuza** would be valid for schach if they didn’t have a wall surrounding them. We learned in a beraisa also thus: A mat can be used as schach provided that the mat doesn’t have walls. Click here to listen with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ylp2MkzBbF5PJDV58CUuaC M5KI7maWR/view?usp=sharing * Rashi explains that it can be used for covering kegs. But Tosfos argues that in that case it would not be considered a beis kibul. ** Tosfos explains that they were placed under trees to catch the falling fruits, but in that case it should be disqualified as schach just as “a baker’s board” is not considered peshutei klei eitz! Tosfos answers that since these mats were only made to catch the fruit if they had walls around it, the lack of walls would make them peshutei klei eitz. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU There was a discussion about using “Machtzulos - mats” for schach. A mishna discussing the tumah of “Chotzlos” was referenced. Summary Question: What are Chotzlos? Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri: Marzuvli. Question: What are Marzuvli? Rabbi Abba: Mazbeli. (A sack of coarse material that’s packed with leaves that can sometimes be used as a cushion. Rabbi Dosa says it can become tamei meis because it’s a keili, but not midras, because it is not made to be used as a cushion. But the Chachomim hold that tumas midras also applies). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Chotzlos are mats. Reish Lakish thereby follows his principle as we find: Reish Lakish: May my suffering provide atonement to Rabbi Chiya and his sons [he so admired them that he wished to take upon himself any of their potential suffering] because in the beginning [of the second temple period] when the Torah was being forgotten (there were many great sages at the time, but the Torah Center of the nation was in Bavel, and in Eretz Yisroel there was a good deal of ignorance) Ezra [with the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah] went up and established it again. It was again forgotten (when the Chachomim fled Eretz Yisroel due to the persecution of the Tzeduki Chashmonai Kings) and Hillel Habavli went up and established it again. Hillel renewed the Torah that was on the verge of being forgotten in Eretz Yisroel. It was once again forgotten (after the war of Beitar when the Romans ravaged all of Eretz Yisroel leaving no places for talmidim to gather) so Rabbi Chiya and his sons [Yehuda and Chizkiyah] went up and established it again (they established Torah schools across the country and raised up a generation of Torah students). Rabbi Chiya and his sons taught: Rabbi Dosa and the Chachomim agree regarding mats of Usha; they are potentially tamei midras (they’re made of a soft material and are used for sitting or lying on). The mats of Teveriah cannot become tamei with midras. Their debate is only regarding other small mats. Rabbi Dosa is of the opinion that since they’re not made for sitting on, they’re like the mats of Teveriah. The Chachomim hold that since it happens sometimes that people use them as a seat, they're like the mats of Usha. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Aaron Stimmel l'ilui nishmas פּלטיאל בן בינימין. His Neshama should have an aliyah. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU When the mishna says: “A large reed mat that was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach.” , so we understand that if it was not known to be made with that intention, it’s kosher. But then the mishna says “If it was made to cover merchandise or the like, it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah.”, so it seems that only if it was made with this specific intention, it’s kosher?! The same ambiguous wording is used by Rabbi Eliezer who uses this wording regarding both large and small mats. Thus we cannot be sure whether a mat can be used for schach unless we’re certain about which intention it was made with. Rava explains that everyone agrees that a large mat is most likely kosher (unless it was known to be made with the intention of lying down on it). But a small mat is a matter of debate. The Tanna Kamma holds it is most likely possul while Rabbi Eliezer holds that even a small mat is most likely kosher. Summary Abayye to Rava: But actually only large mats are a matter of debate and Rabbi Eliezer takes the more stringent position. As we learn in a beraisa: A large mat of reeds can be used for schach. Rabbi Eliezer: It can only be used if it is known not to be mekabel tumah. Rav Papa: Everyone agrees that a small mat is likely to be used for lying down on and is generally possul. They argue only regarding large mats. The Tanna Kamma holds that large mats are generally made to use as coverings. Rabbi Eliezer holds that large mats are also generally made to lie down on. One sentence in the gemara is missing from the recording. Beraisa: Mats made of Shifa and Gmi (certain soft grass fibers): Large ones can be used for schach, but small ones were made to sit on and cannot be used for schach. Mats made of Reeds or Cheilas (coarse materials): If it’s plaited, it can be used for schach (even though it’s small, because it’s too coarse to sit on) but if it’s woven it cannot be used for schach. Rabbi Yishmael B’rebbi Yosi quoting his father: [Small mats made of rough material can be used] whether plaited or woven. Rabbi Dosa concurred. We learned there [in Idiyos]: Rabbi Dosa: All Chotzlos [mats] become tamei with meis -level tumah (by touching and ohel). Chachomim: They become tamei with midras (a more sensitive tumah than mere touching, it means that if a zav or niddah are on top of something, it becomes an av hatumah even if he’s not in direct contact with it. However midras can only be applied to something that is made for standing, sitting or lying on it). Challenge: Can it be that they only become tamei with midras? We learned “All tumas midras is certainly tamei meis”. Resolution: The Chachomim add that chotzlos are also tamei midras in addition to being tamei meis. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU A large reed mat: If it was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach. If it was made to cover merchandise or the like, it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah. Gemara: Challenge: The mishna seems to contradict itself!You say that “If it was made to lie down on it, it cannot be used”, so we understand that if it was not known to be made with that intention, it’s kosher . But then you say that “If it was made to cover, it can be used”, so it seems that only if it was made with this specific intention, it’s kosher?! Summary Resolution [this resolution is improbable, but the gemara suggests it for the time being]: The second half of the mishna’s statement is referring to a small mat. [A large reed mat is kosher as long as it’s not known to be made with the intention of lying down on it. A small mat is only kosher if it was made with the specific intention of using it to cover things]. Challenge: The mishna continues: Rabbi Eliezer: Whether the mat is small or big: If it was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach. If it was made to cover merchandise or the like, it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah. Here he explicitly stated that he is discussing both large and small mats, yet the same question can be raised about his words (from the first part of his statement it seems that if it was not known to be made with the intention of lying down on it, it’s kosher. Yet from the second part of his statement it seems that mats are only kosher if they were made with the specific intention of using them to cover things). Rava: Everyone agrees that a large mat is most likely kosher (unless it was known to be made with the intention of lying down on it). But a small mat is a matter of debate. The Tanna Kamma holds it is most likely possul while Rabbi Eliezer holds that even a small mat is most likely kosher. The mishna must be read as follows: “A large reed mat: If it was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach. [But] If it was [not] made [specifically to lie down on, then we treat as if it was made] to cover merchandise or the like, [and] it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah.” Rabbi Eliezer argues that even a small mat is not perceived as being designed only for sleep and can be used as schach. Abayye to Rava: So why does Rabbi Eliezer say “whether the mat is small or big”? He should say “big or small”! (That’s the proper order of speaking, the bigger chiddush should be the mentioned last). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by    Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here   https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Now we come to the subject of “schach mats”, these require a hechsher to ensure they weren’t made for any other purpose [13.6]. Mishna: A large reed mat: If it was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach. If it was made to cover merchandise or the like, it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah. [But small mats are always made as seats and can never be used, no matter what they say]. Rabbi Eliezer: Whether the mat is big or small: If it was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach. If it was made to cover merchandise or the like, it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah. Gemara: Challenge: The mishna seems to contradict itself! You say that “If it was made to lie down on it, it cannot be used”, so we understand that if it was not known to be made with that intention, it’s kosher. But then you say that “If it was made to cover, it can be used”, so it seems that only if it was made with this specific intention, it’s kosher?! This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by  Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Mishna: A sukkah made (of schach) like a wigwam or a lean-to; Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies it since it does not have a roof. The Chachomim permit it. Summary Question: What is the Chachomim’s reasoning? Answer: A sloping ohel is considered an ohel, they disregard the slope. Since the wigwam is large enough to contain a 7x7 sukkah with a height of 10 tefachim , it is considered a proper sukkah. In the Mishna it seems that Rabbi Eliezer is machmir while the Chachomim are meikil. But actually it can come out the other way too: According to Rabbi Eliezer, a pointed roof is not considered a roof at all. Thus if someone sleeps under a pointed roof in a sukkah he is still considered to be sleeping in the sukkah (see 9.1). But according to the Chachomim, a sloping ohel is an ohel and one cannot sleep under a pointed roof in a sukkah. Abayye saw Rav Yosef lying in a killas chassanim canopy bed [with a pointed roof]. Abayye: You’re forsaking the Chachomim and following Rabbi Eliezer? Rav Yosef: In a beraisa their opinions are switched. Abayye: You’re forsaking the Mishna and following a beraisa? Rav Yosef: The mishna follows the opinion of an individual, as we see in the beraisa (the beraisa is identical to our mishna but it is said by an individual): Rabbi Nosson (he was from Bavel and the Av Beis Din in Rebbe’s generation. In many cases he had a different version of the mishna than Rebbi): A sukkah made (of schach) like a wigwam or a lean-to; Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies it since it does not have a roof. The Chachomim permit it. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Mishna: A sukkah made (of schach) like a wigwam or a lean-to; Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies it since it does not have a roof. The Chachomim permit it (because part of the slope - until 10 tefachim above ground - serves as a wall, and part of it serves as a roof). Gemara: Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer agrees that if the wigwam is raised a tefach above the ground; or if the lean-to finishes a tefach away from the wall, that it’s kosher. (Since a tefach makes an ohel, it is considered significant enough to make a wall or a roof. According to Tosfos 2 tefachim are necessary, one to indicate a wall, and one to indicate a roof. According to Rashi, airspace is considered a tefach, because of lavud, but according to Tosfos the tefach must be an object such as a block). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Beraisa: Psal [it means schach] extending outside of a sukkah is considered an extension to the sukkah [it is kosher]. Ulla: It refers to schach that sticks out behind the sukkah. Rabbah and Rav Yosef both said: It refers to schach that projects in front of the sukkah. Rabbah bar bar Chana quoting Rabbi Yochanan: It refers to a sukkah that is mostly properly shaded, but a small area has ‘more sunshine than shade’. Summary Rabbi Oshaya: It refers to a small sukkah [precisely 7x7 tefachim] in which less than 3 tefachim are covered with possul schach. (Here ‘psal’ means possul schach). Extends ‘outside of the sukkah’ means that it “goes out” from the status of kosher schach. Rav Hoshaya: Airspace is worse than possul schach (14.6) but even airspace of less than 3 tefachim does not invalidate such a sukkah. [So the law of the beraisa is superfluous]. Rabbi Abba: Possul schach less than 3 tefachim is considered schach: It is counted as part of 7 tefachim and one may sleep underneath it. Airspace is not considered schach. Although it is counted as part of 7 tefachim, one may not sleep underneath it. Challenge: How can airspace be counted as part of the sukkah while one cannot sit underneath it? Is there any other case similar to this? Rabbi Yitzchok ben Elyashiv: There is. Mud that is soft enough to pour. It can be counted towards 40 seah to make a mikvah kosher, but one cannot immerse in that part of the water. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored לזכות נעכא מינטשא בת צפורה לבריות גופא ונהורא מעליא Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Beraisa: Psal [it means schach] extending outside of a sukkah is considered an extension to the sukkah [it is kosher]. Question: What is meant by that? Ulla: It refers to schach that sticks out behind the sukkah. Challenge: But it doesn’t have walls? Resolution: The walls also extend behind the sukkah. Challenge: But it needs a shiur [7x7 tefachim]? Resolution: The area is 7x7 tefachim. Challenge: But it needs to have ‘more shade than sunlight’? Resolution: It is fully shaded. Challenge: So then it’s obviously kosher?! Resolution: We might think that since the wall is made for the main sukkah it cannot be used for the small outer sukkah. Rabbah and Rav Yosef both said: It refers to schach that projects in front of the sukkah. One wall also extends out in front of the sukkah. One might think that it's not a proper sukkah (it doesn’t have the requisite amount of walls), so the beraisa teaches that it is kosher (it can be compared to a sukkah of two walls and a tefach, although that area is not enclosed by walls). Rabbah bar bar Chana quoting Rabbi Yochanan: It refers to a sukkah that is mostly properly shaded, but a small area has ‘more sunshine than shade’. The entire sukkah is kosher. (Here ‘psal’ means possul schach). Extends ‘outside of the sukkah’ means that it “goes out” from a kosher status to a possul status. (Although there’s a possibility of this sukkah being covered by more airspace than schach - if all the tiny airspaces were to be added up with the small area which is majority airspace. Still, if most of the sukkah is properly shaded, the tiny airspaces are not considered at all). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by. The Wolhendler Family לע"נ הרה"ח ר' חיים שמואל מאיר ב"ר יצחק פינחס ז"ל Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Rav Ashi encountered Rav Kahana who was putting schach on a postless exedra. He said to him: Don’t you agree with the rule taught by Rava (16.2) “If there are no posts, it is possul”? (The sukkah was not wholly without walls. There were two walls at a right angle adjacent to a long, unwalled, postless exedra. Rav Ashi thought Rav Kahana was relying on ‘pi tikrah’ even though Rava did not rely on ‘pi tikrah’ in the case of exedra). Rav Ashi showed him: [There was a third wall] visible from the outside but not from the inside (The sukkah was made up of a lengthwise wall parallel to the exedra, and another wall perpendicular to it leading up to the exedra. Then there was a tefach extending out behind the second wall, near the exedra, which, if extended, would make up a third wall). This is in accordance with what we learned (Eiruvin): A lechi which is visible from the outside but not from the inside, permits a mavuy. And this case is actually the debate of Abayye and Rava (16.2, 16.4) regarding 'posts' (the posts that they argue about is such a case, where the post is 'visible from the outside' only). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Abayye: If one puts schach atop an exedra, it is kosher even though there are no posts because ‘pi tikrah yoreid v’soseim’. Rava: It is possul. Summary Challenge: We learned in the Mishna (14.4): The same rule applies to a courtyard surrounded by cloisters, the center may be covered with schach [only] if it would be less than 4 amos away from the wall. This is a clear contradiction to Abayye, who says in our case that pi tikrah yoreid v’soseim”! Rava explained it according to Abayye: In the mishna’s case, the schach covers up the thickness of the ceiling (pi tikrah works based on the premise that the thickness of the ceiling can be seen as the beginning of a wall. But here the thickness is covered by schach, so there is no wall). 16.2: If one puts schach atop an exedra [a partially roofed courtyard as in 14.4] where there are posts within 3 tefachim of each other, it is kosher. If there are no posts; Abayye: It is kosher. Rava: It is possul. This is how the sugya was taught in Sura (the yeshiva of Rav). In Pumbedisa (the yeshiva of Shmuel) it was taught differently: If one puts schach atop an exedra that has no posts, it is possul (nobody holds ‘pi tikrah’). If it has posts within 3 tefachim of each other: Abayye: It is kosher. Rava: It is possul. Abayye: It is kosher, because we follow the principle of lavud. Rava: It is possul , because we don’t follow lavud in this case (because the wall that would be created by lavud, can only serve the portico, not the open courtyard [if it would be a solid wall it wouldn’t matter]). The halacha follows the first version. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Abayye: If one puts schach atop an exedra, it is kosher even though there are no posts because ‘pi tikrah yoreid v’soseim’. Rava: It is possul . Summary Rava to Abayye: So according to you, a sukkah can be made up of 2 parallel walls, as long as there is a board running across from one to the other? (It would seem so, because in the case of the exedra there are no walls at all!) Abayye to Rava: In that case I would agree that it’s possul because it’s like an open alleyway. (The imaginary wall is erased by the fact that people are breaking through it all the time. But behind the portico the exedra has actual walls around it). Challenge: It seems that Abayye and Rava are merely rehashing an old debate of Rav and Shmuel: An exedra that is in an open valley (it is not surrounded by walls, but it does have two walls at a right angle): Rav: One is permitted to carry within its bounds on Shabbos because of ‘pi tikrah’. Shmuel: ‘Pi tikrah’ is not applied in this case. Resolution: There is no doubt with regard to Shmuel’s opinion. Abayye and Rava’s argument depends on their understanding of Rav. Abayye holds that Rav always applies the principle of pi tikrah, so he applies it here as well. Rava explains that Rav applied the principle of ‘pi tikrah’ here in the valley because the walls were made especially for the exedra. But in the first case the walls are actually part of houses, and they are not there for the exedra at all. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary We learned: If one puts schach atop an exedra [a partially roofed courtyard as in 14.4] where there are posts within 3 tefachim of each other, it is kosher. (16.4). If there are no posts; Abayye: It is kosher. Rava: It is possul. Abayye: It is kosher because pi tikrah yoreid v’soseim [the thickness of the exedra ceiling is seen as a full wall]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Issak Rodriguez To honor of the wonderful Jew that called me and spoke lovely words of encouragement. That wonderful Jew and his family should know only of the goodness and kindliness of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. May he go from strength to strength in his work at B'nei Avigdor. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai lectured: Little fish that come in baskets are permissible. Rabbi Yishmael B’rebbi Yosi: Rebbi, you have to explain that there is a condition involved! As my father [Rabbi Yosi] explained: From certain places it is forbidden (because there are forbidden fish mixed in with them) but from certain places it is permissible (because there are no forbidden fish in those rivers). As Abayye said: The little fish of Bub Nahara are permissible (the basket does not need to be carefully inspected for forbidden species). What is the reason? Is it because the river has a swift current and spineless non-kosher species cannot survive there? We see that it is not so. Is it because the waters are salty and the unclean fish which have no scales cannot survive there? We see that it is not so. It is because unclean species cannot develop in their mud (the environment is not favorable to these species). Ravina: Nowadays that the rivers were redirected and the Eisan and Gamda rivers pour into there, the little fish from Bub Nahara are no longer permissible. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU There is a debate in the matter of “lavud b’emtza”. According to one opinion when there is a hole in a roof we do not look at it as if it’s closed up even when less than 3 tefachim. Summary The reasoning of the opinion that Ein lavud b’emtza: Mishna: In the case of a skylight that is a tefach or less (the size of the skylight has no bearing on the laws quoted here, but it matters to other laws mentioned in that mishna): If there is a tumah in the room, everything in the room is tamei; anything under the skylight remains tahor. If the tumah is under the skylight, the entire room remains tahor. According to lavud b’emtza, a hole smaller than 3 tefachim shouldn’t matter. The other opinion: In this mishna we don’t say lavud b’emtza because it is a specific law regarding tumah which was taught halacha l’Moshe misinai. Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai lectured: If part of a house’s roof caved in and schach was placed there, it is kosher. Rabbi Yishmael B’rebbi Yosi: Rebbi, you have to explain that there is a condition involved! As my father [Rabbi Yosi] explained: If there are 4 amos from the schach to the wall it is possul. If there is less than 4 amos it is kosher (14.4). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Toras Avigdor *In honor of our esteemed director Rabbi Moshe Horowitz Upon the birth of his baby boy Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU* 3 tefachim of empty space disqualifies a sukkah. The sukkah remains kosher if less than 3 tefachim are empty, because up until 3 tefachim we consider it closed off because of “lavud”. Summary Less than 3 tefachim of airspace is only kosher if it’s near the wall, but in the middle of the sukkah [“Lavud B’emtza”] is a matter of debate between Rav Acha and Ravina. According to one: There is lavud in the middle too. According to the other: There is no lavud in the middle, only near the walls. (Tosfos notes that even this opinion agrees that there is lavud in middle of a wall. It is only with regard to a roof that this opinion holds there is no lavud in the middle). The reasoning of the opinion that lavud b’emtza: Beraisa: If a korah [a board placed over the open fourth wall of a mavuy, in which there is a rabbinic prohibition to carry, in order to permit carrying there on Shabbos] does not reach all the way from wall to wall. Or if two boards were placed on the two sides of the open fourth wall but they do not meet in the middle: If there is less than 3 tefachim of empty space, the arrangement suffices. If there is more than 3 tefachim of space, another korah is necessary. (So we see that lavud works even in the middle [since the korah goes across the top of the mavuy, it is like a roof - Tosfos]). The other opinion: In the beraisa we say korah b’emtza because it is only d’rabbanan. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary 3 tefachim of empty space disqualifies a sukkah. (This refers to a sukkah of only 3 walls. If a sukkah has 4 walls and is split in middle by an empty space, it becomes two kosher sukkahs with 3 walls each). Abayye: In a large sukkah the disqualification caused by 3 empty tefachim can be reversed by a wooden stick or an iron rod. In a small sukkah [precisely 7x7 tefachim] the disqualification caused by 3 empty tefachim can be reversed only by a wooden stick, not by an iron rod. (Because here it is lacking kosher schach). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Issak Rodriguez For the merit of HaRav Yisroel Brog, Shlit"a, who has been teaching bitachon in an ongoing series of lectures. Hashem should shower Rabbi Brog with an abundance of blessings, good health, Torah and mitzvos. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: Possul schach running down the middle of a sukkah is possul when it’s 4 tefachim. Near the wall, it is only possul if it’s 4 amos. Rav says that it’s always 4 amos. Summary Challenge: Beraisa (12.5): “If a sukkah was covered with cedar boards that are 4 tefachim wide, everyone agrees that it’s possul. If the boards are less than 4 tefachim wide (but more than 3. Less than 3 tefachim are mere sticks), it is possul according to Rabbi Meir and kosher according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir agrees, if there is empty space between the boards as wide as the boards (even if the board is 4 tefachim wide. Rashi), and those spaces are covered with schach , it is kosher.” According to the opinion (Rav) that possul schach only invalidates a sukkah when it is 4 amos wide, we understand why the sukkah is kosher in this beraisa. But according to the other opinion (Shmuel), why is the sukkah kosher? Once there are 4 tefachim of possul schach, the sukkah should be invalidated! Rav Huna brei D’Rav Yehoshua (He was the second most distinguished disciple of Rava; after Rav Papa): We’re dealing here with a sukkah that is precisely 8 amos (48 tefachim) long - there are three times “4 tefachim of board” interspersed by three times “4 tefachim of schach” at one end of the sukkah and three times “4 tefachim of board” interspersed by three times “4 tefachim of schach” at the other end of the sukkah. There are thus 8 tefachim of kosher schach in the middle, which is [larger than] the size of a kosher sukkah (and less than 4 amos to the walls, so that we can employ dofen akumah). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Sura: Rabbanan of Rav’s Beis Medrash Possul schach invalidates a sukkah when it is 4 tefachim wide. Neharda’a: Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: Possul schach running down the middle of a sukkah is possul when it’s 4 tefachim. Near the wall, it is only possul if it’s 4 amos. Rav says that it’s always 4 amos. Summary Challenge: We learned in a mishna (12.3): “If it is covered with a board that is 4 tefachim wide, the sukkah is kosher”. According to Rav, possul schach only invalidates a sukkah when it is 4 amos wide, this is why the mishna deems such a sukkah kosher. But according to Shmuel, a board that is 4 tefachim wide in the middle of a sukkah should invalidate it! Resolution: The mishna is referring to a board that was placed near the walls of a sukkah which is only possul if it’s 4 amos wide. Challenge: Beraisa (12.4): “Two sheets add up (since they are possul schach, they add up to 4 amos and disqualify the sukkah). Two boards (which are kosher for schach) do not add up. Rabbi Meir: Boards are like sheets (they are intrinsically possul for schach) and they add up.” According to the Neharda’a version of Rav’s opinion, we understand “add up” means that the boards add up to 4 amos. But according to the Sura version, what are we discussing? If the board is 4 tefachim wide, it need not add up, it is possul! If the board is not 4 tefachim wide, why would it add up? It’s just like sticks? Resolution: The beraisa is discussing boards that are 4 tefachim wide. The question being discussed is if the boards add up to 4 amos on the side (12.4). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU The Rabbanan of Rav’s Beis Medrash hold that empty space of 3 tefachim invalidates a sukkah, and possul schach of 4 tefachim invalidates a Sukkah Rabbah holds that while 3 tefachim of empty space invalidates a sukkah only 4 amos of possul schach will invalidate a sukkah. According to Rabbah, the measurement of 4 amos is an absolute handed down from Moshe at Sinai. Such a measurement cannot be connected to the empty space which has a different shiur. But according to the Rabbanan a strip just a bit less than 4 tefachim of schach possul running down the middle of the sukkah, adjacent to an empty space of just under 3 tefachim should be possul. Since there is no tradition regarding the shiur of schach possul, it is only that 4 tefachim is considered a breach, just as 3 tefachim of empty space is a breach. In that case, two almost-breaches should add up to make one breach! Summary Abayye to Rabbah: You’re correct regarding a large sukkah but in the instance of a small sukkah [of precisely 7 tefachim], 3 tefachim of anything other than kosher schach [both airspace and schach possul] would be possul. Since airspace and possul schach can sometimes combine, they should combine in the case of less than 3 tefachim airspace adjacent to less than 4 amos possul schach as well?! Rabbah: The law you’re quoting regarding a small sukkah is a mere circumstance. But in ordinary cases we say that the shiur of airspace is different from the shiur of possul schach, and they do not add up. Challenge: Is it true that when two shiurim are different, they do not add up? Mishna: A cloth textile is mekabel tumah when it is the size of 3x3 fingers. A textile woven from goat’s hair needs to be the size of 4x4 fingers. Leather needs to be the size of 5x5 fingers. A woven straw mat needs to be the size of 6x6 fingers. A beraisa adds: Cloth and goat’s hair; Goat’s hair and leather; Leather and woven straw, add up together. Resolution: Ordinarily different shiurim cannot add up, but there a reason is given: Rabbi Shimon: Why do they add up? Because in one instance they can become tamei as “a seat”, as we learned in a mishna: If one combined shreds of these materials to make a square tefach, it is mekabel tumah. What can be done with such a small square? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from Rabbi Yannai: It can be used to patch up a donkey’s saddle. [Here the gemara ends and it seems that Rabbah is victorious but actually the halacha doesn’t follow his opinion. 4 tefachim of possul schach make a sukkah possul]. The gemara up to here was presented as memorized in Sura. In Neharda’a they memorized it as follows: Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: Possul schach running down the middle of a sukkah is possul when it’s 4 tefachim. Near the wall, it is only possul if it’s 4 amos. Rav says that it’s always 4 amos. (We note that in Sura, Rav’s city, this sugya was presented as if Rav’s shittah is the one we follow in practice. In Naharda’a, city of Shmuel, they presented his shittah as the correct one. This sugya was a very difficult sugya, because of Rabbah’s style; Rabbah was very great in pilpul, as was his talmid Abayye. Here and in many other cases the halacha doesn’t follow their opinions). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU The Rabbanan of the beis Medrash hold that empty space of 3 tefachim invalidates a sukkah, and possul schach of 4 tefachim invalidates a sukkah. Rabbah holds that while 3 tefachim of empty space invalidates a sukkah only 4 amos of possul schach will invalidate a sukkah. Rabbah said to them: If so, what if there were a strip just a bit less than 4 tefachim of schach possul running down the middle of the sukkah and adjacent to it there was an empty space of just under 3 tefachim, it would be kosher. But if that empty space were now filled with iron rods, it would become possul. But airspace is worse than schach possul (since it disqualifies a sukkah with only 3 tefachim). So how can it be that in this case airspace would be more lenient than schach possul? Summary Rabbah: They said to me: According to you also, what if there were a strip just a bit less than 4 amos of schach possul running down the middle of the sukkah and adjacent to it there was an empty space of just under 3 tefachim, it would be kosher. But if that empty space were now filled with iron rods, it would become possul. But airspace is worse than schach possul (since it disqualifies a sukkah with only 3 tefachim). So how can it be that in this case airspace would be more lenient than schach possul? Rabbah: I said to them: The measurement of 4 amos is an absolute handed down from Moshe at Sinai. Only once the measurement is filled do we disqualify the sukkah. So until the rods were placed in the empty space, the measurement was not filled. But according to you, there is no tradition regarding schach possul, it is only that 4 tefachim is considered a breach, just as 3 tefachim of empty space is a breach. In that case, two almost-breaches should add up to make one breach! This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Mishna: If the schach is 3 or more tefachim away from the sukkah walls, it is possul. If part of a house’s roof caved in and schach was placed there: if it is 4 amos away from the walls, it is possul. Summary Rabbah: I encountered the Rabbanan of the Beis Medrash and heard them saying: Empty space disqualifies a sukkah with 3 tefachim. Possul schach disqualifies a sukkah with 4 tefachim. Rabbah: I said to them: How do you know this law about empty space? Isn’t it from our mishna? But from our mishna it seems that possul schach disqualifies a sukkah only with 4 amos! Rabbah: They said to me: Forget about that case. Rav and Shmuel both explained our mishna as being based on the principle of dofen akumah. Rabbah: I said to them: If so, what if there were a strip just a bit less than 4 tefachim of schach possul running down the middle of the sukkah and adjacent to it there was an empty space of just under 3 tefachim, it would be kosher. But if that empty space were now filled with iron rods, it would become possul. But airspace is worse than schach possul (since it disqualifies a sukkah with only 3 tefachim). So how can it be that in this case airspace would be more lenient than schach possul ? This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here Rabbi Yosi holds that a mechitza teluyah is a valid wall for Sukkah. Rabbi Yehuda in eiruvin holds that a mechitza teluyah is valid for separating courtyards. Summary Rabbah bar bar Chana quoting Rabbi Yochanan: Rabbi Yehuda is following the opinion of Rabbi Yosi. But it’s not so. Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t necessarily agree with Rabbi Yosi. Rabbi Yosi doesn’t necessarily agree with Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda teaches that a mechitza teluyah is valid with regard to an eiruv between two courtyards which is a d’rabbanan. He wouldn’t hold this way regarding sukkah which is a d’orayso. Rabbi Yosi teaches that a mechitza teluyah is valid with regard to sukkah which is a mitzvas asei (there’s no punishment for neglecting it). He wouldn’t hold this way regarding Shabbos which is a question of skilah. Challenge: Wasn’t a mechitza teluyah used in Tzipori once on Shabbos? (Tzipori was Rabbi Yosi’s city. So we see that Rabbi Yosi held that a mechitza teluyah is valid even on Shabbos). Resolution: That story occurred when Tzipori was under the leadership of Rabbi Yishmael B’rebbi Yosi. The story in Tzipori: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisroel (see 10.2), he brought a report: They once forgot to bring the sefer Torah to the Beis Haknesses before Shabbos, so they spread out curtains on poles to create a new reshus, and they brought the sefer. Challenge: How did they bring the sheets on Shabbos if they couldn’t carry?! Resolution: The sheets had been hanging from before Shabbos. (But they were a mechitza teluyah). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate