Today’s learning sponsored by Yaakov Dwek Thanking my wife for all that she does constantly!! May Hashem bless her Bakol Mikol Mol. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Mishna 14.3: If one hollows out a haystack to make it a sukkah, it is not a sukkah. Rav Huna: If there was an area of 7x7 tefachim with the height of 1 tefach that was covered by the haystack, then it is kosher. Summary A supporting *beraisa:* “If one hollows out a haystack to make a sukkah, it is a kosher sukkah”. Since this directly contradicts the mishna we must explain it as discussing a different case - the case of Rav Huna. This beraisa is thus a proof to Rav Huna. Ikka d’rami lah mirmi [A different version which raises the beraisa as a challenge]: The mishna says “If one hollows out a haystack to make a sukkah, it is not a kosher sukkah”. The beraisa says “it is a kosher sukkah”?! Rav Huna: The beraisa discusses a case where there was an area of 7x7 tefachim with the height of 1 tefach that was covered by the haystack. The mishna discusses a case where the hay is simply placed on a pile but doesn’t make any type of roof. Mishna: If one builds walls [he weaves around an existing frame] starting from the top; if 3 tefachim near the ground remain uncovered: it is possul. If he started from the bottom; if he covered 10 tefachim, it is kosher. Rabbi Yosi: Just as it is kosher when 10 tefachim from the bottom are covered, it is kosher when 10 tefachim from the top are covered. Gemara: They argue about ‘mechitza teluyah’ [a hanging wall]. According to the Chachomim [whom we follow lehalacha] it is possul. Rabbi Yosi holds that it is kosher. (Even according to the Chachomim it is possible to make a kosher mechitza teluyah: If the mechitza comes within 3 tefachim of the ground, it is considered lavud and it is kosher). We learned there [in Eiruvin]: A water cistern that is between two courtyards cannot be used on Shabbos (perhaps the bucket will float into the other courtyard and he will transgress by retrieving it), unless there is a mechitza 10 tefachim in height. Whether it’s above the water line or below the water line, the mechitza must be within the pool. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Beis Shammai: It may be above the water line. Beis Hillel: It must be below the water line. Rabbi Yehuda: This mechitza need not be greater than the wall that separates the courtyards (even if the wall is not within the pool 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 Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary We learned: Rabbi Ami bar Tivyumi: Worn out clothes are possul to use as schach. Question: What type of worn out clothes are we referring to? Abayye: This refers to rags that are smaller than 3x3 fingerbreadths. Since they are no longer useful, even for the poor, they lose keili status. A supporting beraisa: “The remnants of a mat [it was used as a seat and is considered a keili which is mekabel tumah] of straw or grasses, although they are too small to be used [less than 6x6 tefachim], are possul for use as schach. (This is a proof to Rabbi Ami bar Tivyumi). A large reed mat may be used as schach (because it’s made for the purpose of schach. Nowadays it’s possible to buy a mat for schach if one is certain it was produced for this purpose). But a small mat [which is made to use as a seat] is possul. Rabbi Eliezer: A large mat is also mekabel tumah and possul for schach.” (Rabbi Eliezer would also agree that if the mat was manufactured specifically for schach, it would be kosher). 13.3: If one hollows out a haystack to make it a sukkah, it is not a sukkah. [Because it was never covered with schach. The top hay was put on top of other hay, it wasn’t placed as a roof]. Rav Huna: If there was an area of 7x7 tefachim with the height of 1 tefach that was covered by the haystack, then it is kosher. [Since the hay was placed as the ‘covering’ for an ohel, it can be considered ‘placed for a roof’ (see 8.2)]. 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 one covers his sukkah with the long boards of his bed, it is not kosher schach. Summary The long boards that were broken off of the side of a bed seem to fit the requirements for schach (9.3). They are wood [‘from the ground’] and are not mekabel tumah [only something that is a “keili” can be mekabel tumah, but once a keili breaks, its parts are called shivrei keilim and are no longer mekabel tumah]. Suggestion: This mishna seems to support Rabbi Ami bar Tivyumi. Rabbi Ami bar Tivyumi: Worn out clothes are possul to use as schach. It seems that while shivrei keilim are not mekabel tumah, there is a rabbinic prohibition against using them for schach. This is why boards of a bed are not kosher despite their being shivrei keilim. Response: The long board of a bed is not considered shivrei keilim as explained by Rabbi Chanan quoting Rebbi elsewhere “it is referring to the long side board with two legs or a short side with two legs” [which is still useful as a bed]. Perhaps here too it is referring to the long side board with two legs or a short side with two legs. Question: What is this statement by Rabbi Chanan quoting Rebbi? Answer: There is a mishna: “Rabbi Eliezer: A bed is mekabel tumah only when bundled [all parts are built]. A bed can be purified [if it became tamei] only when bundled. Chachomim: It is mekabel tumah in parts, and it can be purified in parts. Question: What type of parts are the Chachomim referring to? Rabbi Chanan quoting Rebbi: The long side board with two legs or a short side with two legs. It is fit to be supported by a wall and thus used as a bed. (Actually we pasken like Rav Ami bar Tivyumi that shivrei keilim cannot be used for schach. So our mishna need not be explained as referring to a board with legs, it can be referring to a broken piece of furniture. Still it’s possul because of a rabbinic prohibition). 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 one covers his sukkah with iron rods or the long boards of his bed. If there is space - equal in width to that of the rods or bed boards - between them [covered with kosher schach], it is kosher. Summary Challenge: Is this mishna a refutation of Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua? We learned: If the area of the breaches are equivalent to the area of the walls: Rav Papa: They’re valid walls. Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua: They’re not valid walls. Resolution: Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua can explain our mishna: The spaces are equal in width, plus some wiggle room to enable moving the rods in and out. Challenge: But it is possible to be exact, so wiggle room is not required. So why would the case of our mishna be kosher schach? Rabbi Ami: In our mishna the schach is increased* over more than just a space equivalent to the iron rods; the space is actually more than the rods. Rava: In our mishna, the kosher schach crisscrosses the rods perpendicularly. Although in aggregate, the empty spaces are equivalent to the rods, still since the entire sukkah is covered, the rods are battel. (In both answers there is more schach than rods). * Tosfos: It is not the gemara’s style to answer in such a manner [it disregards the challenge and returns to the prior understanding that there is some extra space]. Rav Ami’s answer should be understood “the schach is increased, covering more than just the amount of space equivalent to the iron rods.” Although the space between the rods is precisely equivalent to the space occupied by the rods, still since there is more schach, the rods become battel. However, this explanation is faulty because there is actually no reason for the rods to become battel. Rabeinu Tam has a different girsa in the question that Rabbi Ami is coming to answer. According to Rabeinu Tam the question should be: “It is impossible to be exact”. Accordingly the answer will be that he intentionally increases the amount of space in between the rods. 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 According to Rabbi Yehuda, Beis Shammai holds there is ‘gezeiras tikrah’ in using boards as schach. According to Beis Hillel, the only issue is ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’. Rabbi Meir holds there is ‘gezeiras tikrah’ in using boards as schach. Challenge: In 12.3 the mishnah already records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir holds that there is a ‘gezeiras tikrah’ while Rabbi Yehuda disagrees. Why the repetition? Summary Resolution: This mishna is a continuation of the previous mishna. Rabbi Yehuda is telling Rabbi Meir that his position is in fact the position of Beis Shammai. Rabbi Meir responds that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel do not argue on this issue. We learned in the mishna 12.3 According to Rabbi Yehuda, boards can be used for schach and according to Rabbi Meir, they cannot. Rav explained that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about a board that is 4 tefachim wide. If the board is less than 4 tefachim wide, Rabbi Meir agrees that it is kosher. Shmuel explained that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about a board that is less than 4 tefachim wide. If the board is 4 tefachim wide, everyone agrees that it is not kosher. Challenge: According to Rav, since a wide board can be used for schach, we understand the discussion of our mishna. But according to Shmuel, wide boards can never be used for schach, so how does he explain the mishna? Resolution: Everyone agrees that there is a gezeiras tikrah. The discussion here is ‘bittul tikrah’. Here the boards do not resemble a ceiling. The discussion is about how to annul an existing ceiling. Mishna: If one covers his sukkah with iron rods or the long boards of his bed. If there is space - equal in width to that of the rods or bed boards - between them [covered with kosher schach ], it is kosher. If one hollows out a haystack to make it a sukkah , it is not a sukkah [because of ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ (10.4)]. 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 Summary Mishna: A ceiling made of boards with no plaster: Rabbi Yehuda: Beis Shammai: The boards must be loosened, and every other beam must be replaced with schach. Beis Hillel: The boards should either be loosened or every other beam replaced with schach. Rabbi Meir: Every other beam must be replaced with schach. Loosening the boards wouldn’t make a difference. 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 Summary We learned: If they [boards that are 4 tefachim wide and thus disqualified* as schach because of gezeiras tikrah] are stood up on their sides [so that they’re now narrow as sticks – regular kosher wooden rods: Rav Huna: It’s possul. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna: It’s kosher. Rav Nachman was in Sura, Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna came to visit him. They asked him what the law would be in this case, he said: It’s possul. [Since there’s a gezeiras tikrah] they’re considered as metal rods which are possul despite their narrowness. Rav Huna said to them, “Didn’t I tell you so?” They responded that Rav Nachman explained his reasoning. Rav Huna countered that they didn’t ask for his reasoning. A proof to Rav Huna: “A sukkah that does not fit ‘his head, most of his body, and his table’ or that has a breach big enough for a goat to stick his head under the wall, or that was covered by a board of 4 tefachim even though only 3 tefachim are covering the sukkah, it’s possul.” This probably means that the wide board was turned on its side, and we see that it’s possul. Refutation: Perhaps it’s dealing with a board that was placed at the entrance of the sukkah and part of it is jutting out. Schach which extends outside the sukkah is always considered part of the sukkah. Since all 4 tefachim are being used for schach, it is possul. (The sukkah would become possul because it’s only 7x7 tefachim). Click here for the shiur with Tosfos * Tosfos: According to Rav, this discussion is only relevant according to Rabbi Meir, because according to Rabbi Yehuda, such boards are kosher. But the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda when he debates Rabbi Meir. It thus seems that this discussion is based on Shmuel’s opinion. Later in the gemara Rav’s opinion on this matter is again set aside in favor of Shmuel’s opinion. It thus seems that although generally the halacha follows Rav when he argues against Shmuel in a non-monetary law, here the halacha does follow Shmuel. 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 Mishnah: Rabbi Yehuda: Boards can be used for schach. Rabbi Meir: They cannot. Rav: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about a board that is 4 tefachim wide. If the board is less than 4 tefachim wide, Rabbi Meir agrees that it is kosher. Shmuel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about a board that is less than 4 tefachim wide. If the board is 4 tefachim wide, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is not kosher. Summary Lishna Achrina [a different version of the above discussion (12.4)] Challenge: (Beraisa: “Two sheets add up. Two boards do not add up. Rabbi Meir: Boards are like sheets and they add up.”) According to Shmuel, since a board that is 4 tefachim wide is possul according to everyone, the beraisa is discussing whether the boards add up to 4 amos on the side — to disconnect the sukkah from the third wall. But according to Rav, Rabbi Yehuda holds such a board to be kosher, so what would it add up to, they’re like sticks? Resolution: According to Rabbi Yehuda they wouldn’t “add up” to anything. Only, since Rabbi Meir said that they “add up”, Rabbi Yehuda used the same wording to argue “they don’t add up”. There is a beraisa that is a proof to Rav and there’s a beraisa that is a proof to Shmuel: Beraisa for Rav: If a sukkah was covered with cedar boards that are less than 4 tefachim wide, everyone agrees that it’s kosher. If the boards are 4 tefachim wide, it is possul according to Rabbi Meir and Kosher according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda: I remember during a time of persecution we brought large boards and covered an alleyway and surreptitiously sat in that sukkah. The Chachomim said to him: A time of persecution is no proof. (Since everyone agrees that min hatorah boards are kosher, it is only a gezeiras tikrah, 12.3). Beraisa for Shmuel: 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, 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*, and those spaces are covered with schach, it is kosher (because in a case of a sukkah that is exactly 8 amos, there would be 7 or 8 tefachim of kosher schach in the middle and less than 4 amos to the walls, so that we can employ dofen akumah). Rabbi Yehuda agrees, that a board of 4 tefachim is possul [but it doesn’t disqualify the sukkah because of dofen akumah]. To listen to the shiur with Tosfos click here http://chilp.it/a39c2fe * Tosfos: One may sleep under possul schach that is less than 4 tefachim. However, if the empty space were less than the size of the boards, the kosher schach would be battel and one couldn’t sleep under the boards — even though they are less than 4 tefachim . In a case where the boards are 4 tefachim wide, and there is 8 tefachim in the center of the sukkah , only the center is kosher anyway and there can be less space with kosher schach between the boards. 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 Mishnah: Rabbi Yehuda: Boards can be used for schach. Rabbi Meir: They cannot. Rav: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about a board that is 4 tefachim wide. If the board is less than 4 tefachim wide, Rabbi Meir agrees that it is kosher. Shmuel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about a board that is less than 4 tefachim wide. If the board is 4 tefachim wide, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is not kosher. Summary Challenge We learned in the mishna: “If it is covered with a board that is 4 `mtefachimz wide, the sukkah is kosher, but one should not sleep under it.” According to Shmuel, this law fits with both opinions — since it is 4 tefachim wide, one shouldn’t sleep under it. But according to Rav, such a board is kosher according to Rabbi Yehuda; why shouldn’t one sleep under it? Resolution This part of the mishna is a continuation of Rabbi Meir’s words. (The sukkah may be kosher because it has four walls and when the strip of possul schach is removed, two 3-wall sukkahs remain). Challenge: Beraisa: “Two sheets add up. Two boards do not add up. Rabbi Meir: Boards are like sheets and they add up.” (A sukkah is disqualified if it has possul schach covering an area of 4 tefachim, 11.4. The beraisa seems to be discussing whether two boards can combine to make 4 tefachim of possul schach). According to Shmuel, since a board that is less than 4 tefachim wide can be possul , the beraisa is discussing whether the boards add up to 4 tefachim or not. But according to Rav, what are we discussing? If the board is 4 tefachim wide, it need not add up, it is possul according to Rabbi Meir! 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 — which would then separate the kosher schach from the wall because we can no longer claim ‘dofen akumah’ (3.2). 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 Rabbi Elazar: Why are the prayers of the righteous (vaye’etar) compared to a pitchfork (eter) ? A pitchfork can turn over grain and transport it to a different corner of the granary and the prayers of the righteous can ‘change the mind’ of Hakadosh Barch Hu from a ‘place’ of harshness to a ‘place’ of mercy. Mishna: Boards can be used for schach. - Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir: They cannot be used. A board that is 4 tefachim wide may be used, but one should not sleep under it. Gemara: Rav: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about a board that is 4 tefachim wide. Rabbi Meir does not allow it because of ‘gezeiras tikrag' [it looks like a roof]. Rabbi Yehuda does allow it because it fits the criterion for schach (9.3) [it grows from the ground and is not mekabel tumah]. If the board is less than 4 tefachim wide, Rabbi Meir agrees that it no longer resembles a roof and is kosher. (Acharonim say that nowadays even narrow boards are used in construction and therefore it is proper not to use any boards). Shmuel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about a board that is less than 4 tefachim wide. If the board is 4 tefachim wide, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it resembles a roof and is not kosher. Challenge: If the board is very narrow, it can be considered a stick, so why does Rabbi Meir disqualify anything less than 4 tefachim? Rav Papa: This is what Shmuel said: If the board is 4 tefachim wide, everyone agrees that it cannot be used. If it’s less than 3 tefachim wide, everyone agrees that it can be used; it’s just like sticks. They argue when it’s between 3 and 4 tefachim. Rabbi Yehuda holds that since it’s less than “a significant space” (8.2), it’s kosher. Rabbi Meir holds that since it’s more than lavud (3.2), it’s 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   The Beraisa (11.6) records a debate regarding using wheat stalks as schach. The Chachomim permit it as long as the grain is the minority. Acheirim holds that the wheat awns have the status of yados and must also be outnumbered. Challenge: Since wheat is food, why are the awns not considered yados according to the Chachomim? Summary Resolution: In the case of the beraisa the wheat has been trampled (12.1) thus rendering the awns unfit to serve as yados. Challenge: What would be the reasoning of Acheirim then? Resolution: They follow Rabbi Yosi (12.1) that even trampled wheat stalks retain tumah. Challenge: But that doesn’t make sense! Rabbi Yosi is understandable with the explanation of Reish Lakish: Since the yados make it easier to handle the wheat with a pitchfork. But since our beraisa discusses a case where the owner is using the wheat for schach, and he trampled it – demonstrating he does not need it for food; why should the yados matter?! Resolution: Once Sukkos is over, the yados can be used to assist in taking down the schach. We learned (12.1): “Yados that were ‘bissesun’ [trampled or otherwise disassembled] are no longer mekabel tumah. Rabbi Yosi: They’re still mekabel tumah.” Rabbi Yochanan: It means trampled [from the root ‘boseis’, like ‘misboseses b’damayich’]. Rabbi Elazar: It means he disassembled the bundle [from the root ‘basis’ in its opposite form]. Question: According to Rabbi Elazar, we understand Rabbi Yosi’s opinion. But according to Rabbi Yochanan, why does Rabbi Yosi insist that it retains its tumah? Reish Lakish: Since the yados make it easier to handle the wheat with a pitchfork. 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 According to Rav Menashya bar Gada: The beraisa is discussing a case in which wheat was cut for food [so it would have yados], but then repurposed as schach. Everyone agrees that wheat cut for schach does not have yados, but since here it was cut for food, Acheirim holds that it has yados. Summary Challenge: If it was originally cut for food, why do the Chachomim hold it doesn’t have yados? Is it because he changed his mind? Can one change tumah status merely by thought? We learned in a mishna: Utensils can become mekabel tumah merely by thought (if he changed his mind not to finish the utensil and use it in the unfinished state), however they cannot become tahor again by mere thought alone only by an act. An act can undo an act and a thought. A thought cannot undo; neither an act nor a thought. Suggestion: Perhaps the above applies only to utensils, but not to yados which are mere ancillaries. Since they are secondary to the utensil [or food], thought alone can change their status. 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 Abba: Twigs of grape clusters slated for the wine press are not yados [and may be used as schach]. Rav Menashya bar Gada: Wheat stalks do not become yados when cut for schach. The entire stalk may be used. Summary Suggestion: It seems that Rav Menashya’s law is a matter of debate among Tannaim: Beraisa: Branches with fruit, or stalks with grain, if there are more branches or straw than fruit or grain, it is kosher. Otherwise it is possul. Acheirim: The branches must outnumber the food and its yados. It seems that the Tanna Kamma agrees with Rav Menashya, that wheat stalks do not become yados if they are to be used as schach, and Acheirim argues. Since the Tanna Kamma is in agreement with Rav Menashya, Rabbi Abba will certainly hold that it is disputed. Rabbi Menashya: Acheirim do not argue in my case, when the wheat was cut for puse as schach. This beraisa is discussing a case of wheat which was cut for consumption and then it was repurposed for 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 Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Since food is mekabel tumah it cannot be used for schach. Rabbi Abba quoting Rav Huna: If one plucks clusters of grapes to put them in the winepress, the twig is not considered a ‘yad’ [handle]. (Generally, the ‘handle’ of food becomes tamei just like the food it serves. Here, since the grapes were only picked for pressing, the twig is not necessary as a ‘handle’ and does not become tamei). Rav Menashya bar Gada quoting Rav Huna: If one cut wheat stalks to use asl schach, the stalks are not considered a ‘yad’. (The bits of grain at the edges of the stalks are battel b’rov (7.4) and do not disqualify the schach). Rav Menashya surely agrees with the law of Rabbi Abba; since the twigs would absorb the wine he wants to make, they are less desirable than the wheat kernels. Rabbi Abba would not necessarily agree with the law of Rav Menashya. The wheat kernels are beneficial since their presence weighs down the stalks and keeps it in place atop the 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 by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Rabbi Abba quoting Shmuel: Wide leaves from the vegetables that can be used for Marror convey tumah (8.2) but do not stop tumah.* These leaves are considered empty space when used for schach. (A sukkah is disqualified if it has possul schach covering an area of 4 tefachim. Empty space disqualifies a sukkah even if only 3 tefachim are uncovered. If 3 tefachim are covered with these leaves, the sukkah is disqualified). Question: Why is it considered empty space? Answer: Since over seven days it will become brittle and fall, it’s as if it’s not there. The following gemara will be repeated tomorrow with more explanation. Rabbi Abba quoting Rav Huna: If one plucks clusters of grapes to put them in the winepress, the twig is not considered a ‘yad’ [handle]. (Since the grapes were only picked for pressing, the twig is not necessary as a ‘handle’ and does not become tamei). Click here for the recording with Tosfos http://chilp.it/2a75e3d * Rashi: Actually, since it’s not mekabel tumah [it is an animal food, not a human food], it would be a full ohel and stop tumah just as it conveys tumah, but there is a gezeirah d’rabbanan that one might rely on the leaf as an ohel even after it turns brittle. Tosfos: If these leaves wouldn’t be human food they wouldn’t be kosher to use for Marror?! Those words were added in to Rashi by a talmid. The real reason these leaves are not mekabel tumah is because they were never wetted [and thus not ‘huchshar’ – capable of receiving tumah]. Rashash: We thus learn a chiddush that mid’orayso a food can be used for schach if it wasn’t huchshar , but it’s possul 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 Rabbi Yosi insists on three stalks of Eizov to start with. When the Chachomim required three, it was only for an optimal mitzvah. Summary A Proof: “A bundle of Eizov that starts out with two stalks and ends with one is kosher. It is only possul if it begins and ends with one.” Challenge: There seems to be a contradiction; is it kosher if it ends with one, or possul if it ends with one? Resolution: The text should be amended to read “It is only possul if it begins as it may end; with one.” A derasha by Mereimar: The bundles of reeds that are sold in Sura may be used for schach, they are only tied together for the count and are not considered “bundles”. Rabbi Abba: Reed-domes [used by bird hunters] may be used for schach if they’re untied at the top. Challenge: But they’re tied together at the bottom? Rav Papa: Indeed. The bottom must be untied as well (although the rope remains woven around the reeds, it is kosher schach). Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua: Since it is not a bundle that can be carried around [once the top know was untied], it is not considered a bundle. 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 lizchus Refuah Sheleimah Naftali ben Devorah Esther b'soch shar cholei Yisroel Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rav Chisda quoting Ravina bar Shila: The marror that grows in the swamps [meririsa d’agma] can be used on Pesach for marror. Summary Challenge: “‘Eizov’ mentioned in the Torah excludes ‘Eizov-Yavan’, ‘Eizov-Kuchli’, ‘Eizov-Midbari’, ‘Eizov-Romi’, or any Eizov with a hyphenated name.” (Meririsa-d’agma should thus be disqualified as Marror). Abayye: A hyphenated name must have been hyphenated at the time the Torah was given. Rava: ‘Meririsa D’agma’ is not an added name at all, it is merely a description of where it grows [in swamps]. Rav Chisda: One object is not considered a bundle* (11.1), three objects tied together are considered a bundle. Two objects is a debate between Rabbi Yosi and the Chachomim. Mishna: For the mitzvah of “a bundle of Eizov”: Three stalks with three branches (each stalk requires only one branch). Rabbi Yosi: The mitzvah requires three stalks but if two remain, it’s good enough. The remnants (in case it breaks) are kosher at any size. It seems that according to Rabbi Yosi two are considered a bundle, only that there is an optimal mitzvah to use three, while the Chachomim require three for it to be considered a bundle. Challenge: “Rabbi Yosi: If one started with two stalks and finished with one, it’s possul. It is only kosher if he begins with three and ends with two”. Resolution: Indeed, Rabbi Yosi insists on three to start with. When the Chachomim required three, it was only for an optimal mitzvah. * See ‘Bonus Discussion’ for the debate between the Rambam and the Raavad regarding the relevancy of this statement and the ensuing sugya. 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 Yehuda: Shushi and Shutzri [different plants with wide and strong leaves that don’t wither quickly] are kosher schach [although they’re used for animal feed, they’re not considered human food and are not mkabvel tumah]. Abayye: Shutzri should not be used because it has a rotten smell which would cause people to leave the sukkah (a sukkah must be ‘teishvu k’ein taduru’ it must be similar to a home that one would live in). Rav Chanan bar Rava: Hizmi and Higgi [thorns and brambles] are kosher for schach. Abayye: Higgi should not be used since leaves fall from it and it can cause people to leave the sukkah. We learned (10.4) that bundles of twigs or stalks should not be used for schach. Rav Gidal quoting Rav: The clumps of sticks that grow at the bottom of palm trees are kosher for schach, ‘A bundle made by heaven is not considered a bundle’. Even if a human ties it together, it is still not considered a bundle, it’s one object. Rav Chisda quoting Ravina bar Shila: Spears of reeds [they grow together from one root, as in the previous case] are kosher for schach. Although they are bundled together, ‘A bundle made by heaven is not considered a bundle’. Even if a human ties it together, it is still not considered a bundle, it’s one object. We learned a beraisa also thus: “Sticks and reeds although they grow from one root, can be used for schach.” Rav Chisda quoting Ravina bar Shila: The marror that grows in the swamps [ meririsa d’agma ] can be used on Pesach for marror. 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 my dear wife who takes care of the kids so that I can learn and review the kevius! - with appreciation, Y.Z. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Schach may not be made of something that is mekabel tumah. Summary ‘Simple wooden utensils’ are not mekabel tumah. If the utensils have a beis kibul - a receptacle - then they are mekabel tumah. A wooden arrow is made up of two ‘simple wooden utensils’, the male part - the arrow head, and the female part, the shaft which has a receptacle for inserting the arrow head. Rabbi Yehuda amar Rav: If one used ‘male arrows’ as schach, the sukkah is kosher. If he used ‘female arrows’, it is possul. Question: Isn’t the law that male arrows are kosher, obvious? Answer: The law teaches that we’re not concerned that one might confuse male and female arrows. Question: Isn’t the law that female arrows are possul, obvious? Answer: One might think that since these receptacles are meant to be filled, they’re not considered ‘beis kibul’. (There’s a machlokess elsewhere about this). Flax stalks are soaked, then pounded then combed to make linen. Rabbah bar bar Chana quoting Rabbi Yochanan: Schach from balls of untwisted linen threads (anitzei) is possul (although it is not yet completed linen, since it is mekabel tumah in a case of a nega, it is considered a mekabel tumah and is possul). Schach of flax stalks (hutznei) is kosher. I’m not sure about schach of flax ‘hushnei’ though. In fact, I’m not even sure what hushnei is, whether it’s soaked and pounded or only soaked. 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 (ad below) Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU One way of explaining the debate between Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak and the Chachomim is whether or not a lulav must be bound with the hadassim and aravos. This is called “tzarich agad”. Summary The debate about lulav tzarich agad: Beraisa: “A lulav is kosher whether it’s bound or not. Rabbi Yehuda: A lulav is kosher if it’s bound and possul if unbound”. Rabbi Yehuda learns a gezeirah shaveh; The word ‘lekicha’ is used regarding lulav and regarding the hyssop bundle [used in the preparation of the korban pesach in Mitzrayim]. The Chachomim do not learn the gezeirah shaveh. Question: Whose opinion does this beraisa follow? “A lulav should be bound, but is kosher even if it remains unbound”? Answer: It follows the Chachomim. Binding is not a requirement but it’s recommended so as to beautify Hashem’s mitzvos. We learned in the mishna (9.3) “Anything that is mekabel tumah (capable of contracting ritual impurity) or doesn’t grow from the ground is possul for schach”. Question: What is the source of this law? Reish Lakish: [When we left Mitzrayim Hashem ‘caused us to dwell in sukkos’ - the clouds of glory (3.6). *Clouds are not mekabel tumah and they come from the earth]* As the possuk states “A cloud rose from the earth”. Challenge: This is only in accordance with the opinion that ‘caused us to dwell in sukkos’ refers to the ananei hakavod. What about the opinion that it refers to actual sukkos? Beraisa: “I caused them to dwell in sukkos”. This refers to the ananei kavod according to Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva: it refers to actual sukkos. The explanation of Reish Lakish works according to Rabbi Eliezer, but how would he explain this law according to Rabbi Akiva? 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 (See ad below) Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU The source for the laws that schach may only be made of something that is not mekabel tumah and grows from the ground is from the possuk “Make yourself a chag of sukkos when you gather in from your grain pile and from your winepress”. Those twigs and straw grow from the ground and are not mekabel tumah. Challenge: Perhaps the possuk refers not to the straw and twigs but to the grain and wine which are mekabel tumah. Resolution: Wine cannot be used for schach. Summary Rabbi Yirmiyah: The wine from Mount Snir is dried like cakes of pressed figs; it can be used for schach? Rabbi Zeira: We thought we had this matter sorted out until Rabbi Yirmiyah came along and threw a monkey wrench into it. Rav Ashi: The possuk says “when you gather in from your grain pile and from your winepress”. The possuk is not referring to the actual grain or wine but to what comes off of them – the straw or twigs. Rav Chisda: (Rav Chisda has an open possuk, only it’s not in Chumash, it is in Sefer Nechemiah) The possuk states: “Go out to the mountain and bring leaves of olive trees, oil trees, myrtle, date palms and leaves of eitz avos” [all of these things grow from the ground and are not mekabel tumah]. Question: Eitz avos refers to myrtle branches? (In the possuk about the arba minim, the myrtle branches are called eitz avos, because they’re braided). Rav Chisda: The possuk is saying they should take unbraided myrtle branches for schach and the braided branches for the arba minim. 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 (See ad below) Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU What is the source for the laws that schach may only be made of something that is not mekabel tumah and grows from the ground? Summary When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisroel, he quoted Rabbi Yochanan: The possuk says: “Make yourself a chag of sukkos”. We understand that chag refers to the korban chagigah (7.2). The juxtaposition compares sukkos to the korban. Just as an animal is not mekabel tumah [since it is a living being] and it ‘grows from the ground’ [since it grows by eating grass], the schach should be the same. Challenge: Would you say that a live animal can be used for schach? It can be used for a korban! (We find many times in the gemara that Rav Dimi brought a report from Eretz Yisroel, but later Ravin brought an updated report. This teaches us patience. Don’t leave before the issue has been thoroughly fleshed out…) When Ravin came from Eretz Yisroel, he quoted Rabbi Yochanan: The possuk says: “Make yourself a chag of sukkos when you gather in from your grain pile and from your winepress”. It means you should make the schach from what is taken out of the grain pile (stalks, straw) and winepress (tendrils, twigs). (When we garland the roofs of our sukkah with the harvest’s bounty, it adds a practical reason for us to rejoice in Hashem). Challenge: Perhaps the grain itself (which is mekabel tumah) should be used for schach? Resolution: But wine itself surely can’t be used for 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 (ad below) Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU One way of explaining the debate between Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak and the Chachomim is whether or not a lulav must be bound with the hadassim and aravos. This is called “tzarich agad”. Summary The debate about lulav tzarich agad: Beraisa: “A lulav is kosher whether it’s bound or not. Rabbi Yehuda: A lulav is kosher if it’s bound and possul if unbound”. Rabbi Yehuda learns a gezeirah shaveh; The word ‘lekicha’ is used regarding lulav and regarding the hyssop bundle [used in the preparation of the korban pesach in Mitzrayim]. The Chachomim do not learn the gezeirah shaveh. Question: Whose opinion does this beraisa follow? “A lulav should be bound, but is kosher even if it remains unbound”? Answer: It follows the Chachomim. Binding is not a requirement but it’s recommended so as to beautify Hashem’s mitzvos. We learned in the mishna (9.3) “Anything that is mekabel tumah (capable of contracting ritual impurity) or doesn’t grow from the ground is possul for schach”. Question: What is the source of this law? Reish Lakish: [When we left Mitzrayim Hashem ‘caused us to dwell in sukkos’ - the clouds of glory (3.6). *Clouds are not mekabel tumah and they come from the earth]* As the possuk states “A cloud rose from the earth”. Challenge: This is only in accordance with the opinion that ‘caused us to dwell in sukkos’ refers to the ananei hakavod. What about the opinion that it refers to actual sukkos? Beraisa: “I caused them to dwell in sukkos”. This refers to the ananei kavod according to Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva: it refers to actual sukkos. The explanation of Reish Lakish works according to Rabbi Eliezer, but how would he explain this law according to Rabbi Akiva? 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 Rav and Shmuel differ with regard to ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’. Rav holds that by making something kosher one ‘makes’ it. Shmuel holds that once something is ‘made’ it cannot be ‘koshered’. Summary Suggestion: Perhaps this is already debated by these Tannaim: “Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak: If one transgresses the laws of Yom Tov* to remove the black berries that grew on his hadassim, it is possul. Chachomim: It is kosher.” Since ‘lulav tzarich agad’ [the lulav must be ‘made’ by tying it together with the hadassim and aravos], and since lulav is a mitzvah of sukkos [so the ‘taaseh’ of sukkos applies to lulav as well], it would seem that the Chachomim hold like Rav: one can pluck the berries after the hadassim have been tied to the lulav, and one can cut vines for schach after they’ve covered a sukkah. (If it’s a debate among Tannaim, it would give Rav some backing). Response 1: No. The debate is whether we apply the ‘taaseh’ of sukkos to lulav. Since there is no Torah instruction to ‘make’ a lulav, there is no principle of ‘koshering it after it’s been made’. Response 2: No. The debate is whether lulav tzarich agad. According to the Chachomim a lulav does not need to be ‘made’, so it can always be ‘koshered’. * See ‘Bonus Discussion’ 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 If tzitzis are threaded and knotted while the ends are still connected. Rav says it’s kosher, Shmuel says it’s possul. Summary Challenge: “If tzitzis are placed without cutting their ends, they’re possul”. This is a challenge to Rav? Rav: They’re possul until the ends are cut. But Shmuel’s opinion is that it is possul even if the ends are cut*. This was also taught by Levi. This was also taught by Rav Masnah quoting Shmuel. Ikka D’omri (a different version): Rav Masnah: I had this question myself and I asked Shmuel. He told me that it is possul even if the ends are cut. Challenge: “If tzitzis are placed and their ends are only cut later, they’re possul”. Additionally, we learned regarding sukkah: “The Torah says ‘You should make it’ this teaches that a mitzvah can't be ‘koshered’ after it was already ‘made’. This is why if one trained vines to cover a sukkah , it is possul.” What’s the case? If the vine is still connected, it’s possul because it’s connected to the ground, not because of ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’. The vine must have already been cut off, but it’s still possul because of ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’! So it’s a refutation of Rav. Rav can say: It may have been detached in a way that is not noticeable. But if it would be cut in a noticeable manner it would be kosher. (It is ossur because of mar’is ayin). Challenge: But the first part of the quote, about tzitzis, remains a challenge to Rav?Indeed. * Tosfos: The halacha follows this opinion. The principle of ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ is also followed with regard to sukkos. 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 Isaac Shalom Bhatzlacha for siyata dshmaya for serving Hashem properly Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rav Yosef quoted Rav as teaching the halacha of ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ in the presence of Rav Huna. Summary Rav Huna: This was taught by Shmuel. Rav Yosef: That may be, but I’m quoting Rav as saying it. That doesn’t preclude it from having been taught by Shmuel as well. Rav Huna: No. It was taught only by Shmuel, Rav does not hold this principle. Rav Amram Chasida put tzitzis on the garments of his whole family, including the women (he held that tzitzis is not a mitzvah that hinges on time). He threaded, folded and knotted a long tzitzis thread but he forgot to cut the end. He asked Rav Chiya bar Ashi what to do. Rav Chiya bar Ashi quoted Rav: Cut off the ends and it’s kosher. So we see Rav holds that when a mitzvah is ‘koshered’, that’s when it’s ‘done’. So it’s not a problem to ‘do a mitzvah and then kosher it’ (‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’). Challenge: Shmuel doesn't hold ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ either. Shmuel from Rabbi Chiya: If one threaded two tzitzis holes and then cut the fringes loose, it is kosher. So we see that a mitzvah can be ‘koshered’ after it’s ‘done’. He made all the knots and then cut the fringes loose. Resolution: Shmuel is referring to one who cuts them loose before twisting and knotting the fringes. Challenge: So what novel law is Shmuel teaching? Resolution: Shmuel is teaching that inserting the thread is not what makes the mitzvah ‘done’. 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: If one trained vines (the branches) to cover a sukkah, it is possul. If there was more schach than vine, it is kosher. If the vines are cut loose from the ground, they are kosher schach. This is the general rule: Anything that is mekabel tumah (capable of contracting ritual impurity) or doesn’t grow from the ground is possul. Anything that is not mekabel tumah and grows from the ground (the mishna leaves out the point taught by our mishna — it must also be cut loose from the ground) is kosher. Gemara: Rav Yosef was seated in the presence of his rebbi Rav Huna. He repeated the mishna “If the vines are cut loose from the ground, they are kosher” and he added “but Rav said: They must be lifted up”. This is the principle of ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’. A mitzvah must be made in a kosher way, it cannot be koshered once it was already set up. The sukkah must be built with kosher schach, it cannot be built with schach connected to the ground and then cut. Therefore it should be lifted after it was cut, and when it gets put down the second time, it was put down as 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 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: One may sleep in a Killas-Chassanim canopy bed in the sukkah. It is permitted even if the canopy is more than 10 tefachim above the bed because it does not have a flat roof. Summary Challenge (see 8.5): Beraisa: “If a sheet is spread over a Kinofess-canopy-bed like a flat roof, it is possul. One may spread a sheet over his bed-posts (which would not make a flat roof) if they are less than 10 tefachim high.” (But Shmuel says that a killas chassanim may be higher than 10 tefachim since it is not flat roofed). Resolution: Bedposts create a more permanent roof. Challenge: If bed posts are permanent, even less than 10 tefachim should be possul (just as kinofess is; 8.5). Resolution: Bed posts are somewhat permanent, but not like Kinofess. A derasha by Rabbah bar Rav Huna: One may sleep in a Killah canopy-bed in the sukkah. Even if it is flat roofed and 10 tefachim high. This is in keeping with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, “A temporary ohel cannot nullify a permanent ohel” [although we consider a sukkah evanescent and temporary, Rabbi Yehuda requires a “permanent” sukkah (6.2),, thus a killah which is a temporary arrangement cannot detract from the fact that one is inside a permanent sukkah]. This is as we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda: We would sleep under the beds in the presence of the elders (since the beds were temporary, they did not detract from the permanent sukkah overhead). Question: Why didn’t Rabbah bar Rav Huna just say “The halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda”? Response: We may have thought that sleeping under a bed is a makeshift arrangement and a killah which one sleeps in cannot be compared to 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 Shmuel said that one may sleep in a canopy-bed in the sukkah, even though the bed has a ceiling, as long as the canopy is less than 10 tefachim above the bed. The beraisa teaches that one may not sleep under a canopy even if it’s less than 10 tefachim. The gemara explained that Shmuel was referring to a Killah canopy which has a flimsy covering. The beraisa refers to a Kinofess canopy whose covering is more permanent, it is thus possul even below 10 tefachim. Summary Challenge: Shmuel taught (8.2) regarding the case of “a sukkah under a sukkah”, that if the upper level is less than 10 tefachim, the lower level is kosher. But it has a permanent roof, and should be compared to a Kinofess?! Resolution: In the sugya above (8.2) Shmuel was discussing what qualifies for “a sukkah under a sukkah”; if the upper level is not 10 tefachim then it’s not considered a sukkah! Here we’re discussing what qualifies as a ceiling. A Kinofess is considered a ceiling even below 10 tefachim. 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: Ornaments do not reduce the size of a sukkah (It doesn’t make a sukkah possul if ornaments hang down below 10 tefachim. It also doesn’t make the sukkah kosher if ornaments hang down below 20 amos). Rav Ashi: Ornaments do not reduce the height of the sukkah but they reduce if they’re on the sides (if the ornaments cause the sukkah to be less than 7x7 tefachim, it becomes possul). Rav Ashi’s slave, Minyamin, hung his wet shirt to dry over the sukkah. Rav Ashi said to him, “Take it off so that they don’t say ‘things that are mekabel tumah can be used for schach’.” Challenge: But everyone could see that it’s wet and was only placed there to dry? Resolution: Rav Ashi was saying that it should be removed as soon as it dries. (While the shirt is wet, the sukkah is not possul. This indicates that a kosher sukkah with kosher schach is not disqualified by possul schach which is placed above it). We Learned: Ornaments that are hanging 4 tefachim below the schach: Rav Nachman: It is kosher. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna: It is possul. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna once stayed at the home of the Reish Galusa. Rav Nachman set them up to sleep in such a sukkah, they accepted it. Rav Nachman asked them if they retracted their above position. They replied in the negative, the reason they slept in this sukkah was because they were busy with the mitzvah* of visiting the Reish Galusa and were absolved from the mitzvah of sukkah. * Tosfos explains that if they were to seek a sukkah they wouldn’t be able to visit the Reish Galusa. One who is busy with a mitzvah is absolved of other mitzvos only if the first mitzvah precludes him from accomplishing the second mitzvah. 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 Yisroel Knopfler in honor of Rabbi Moshe Horowitz Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU A double decker sukkah is possul. There are three opinions as to how much space there must be between the upper and lower levels to qualify as a double decker sukkah. Rav Huna, 1 tefach. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna, 4 tefachim. Shmuel, 10 tefachim. Shmuel was challenged from our mishna where Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is quoted: “If the upper sukkah has no inhabitants [we understand that to mean it is less than 10 tefachim and is uninhabitable], the lower sukkah is kosher”, this seems to indicate that the Chachomim hold the lower sukkah to be possul even when there’s less than 10 tefachim. Summary When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisroel, they explained the mishna differently there: “The upper sukkah has no inhabitants” means the floor is not sturdy enough to hold inhabitants. Challenge: Why would the Chachomim consider the upper level a kosher sukkah if the floor is so flimsy? Resolution: The floor is somewhat sturdy. Mishna: If a sheet is spread over the schach to provide shade, or under the schach to catch falling pieces, or if it is spread over his bed like a ceiling, it is possul.* One may spread a sheet over his bed posts if it’s pointed like a wigwam unlike a flat ceiling. Gemara: Rav Chisda: A sheet under schach is only possul if it was placed there to catch falling pieces. If it was placed there to beautify the sukkah it is kosher (since it’s an accessory to the schach it is considered part of the schach and not a separate covering). Challenge: Isn’t that obvious? The mishna says “to catch falling pieces” so we understand that for another reason it is permissible. Resolution: We might have thought “to catch falling pieces” is merely an example. A possible proof: Beraisa: If the schach was made properly and decorated with drapes and tapestries, or nuts, almonds, persimmons, pomegranates, clusters of grapes, tassles of grain, bottle of wine oil and flour. One is forbidden to use these decorations until after Yom Tov unless he made a condition. So we see that things hung for decoration do not disqualify the schach. Response: It is no proof because it is possible that these decorations were hung around the sukkah not directly under the schach. Click here for the recording with Tosfos: http://chilp.it/958b4e1 * Tosfos explains that it is only possul if the schach wouldn’t provide enough shade without the sheet. Rabeinu Tam explains that the sheet protects the schach from becoming shriveled in the sun [which would then render the sukkah a mostly shadeless]. 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 ‘sukkah that is under a sukkah’, a double decker sukkah is possul. Summary Question: How much space must there be between the two levels to constitute ‘a sukkah under a sukkah’? Rav Huna: 1 tefach — as we find with regard to ohel. Beraisa: A cubic tefach creates an ohel and brings tumah [to anything under the same ‘roof’ (which is one tefach high)] and stops tumah anything over the ‘roof’ does not become tamei]. Less than a tefach cannot bring tumah or stop tumah. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna: 4 tefachim which is always considered a “significant space”. Shmuel: 10 tefachim which is the size necessary to create a kosher sukkah. Challenge: Mishna (7.3): Rabbi Yehuda: If there are no inhabitants on the upper level the bottom level is kosher. It means if the upper level is not designed to fit inhabitants - which means its schach is below 10 tefachim. So it seems that the Chachomim of the mishna render the bottom level possul even if the upper level is less than 10 tefachim away from the lower level?! 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 Rabbi Yirmiyah: A double decker sukkah: Sometimes the lower level is kosher and the upper level is possul [when the schach of the lower level levels provides ‘more shade than sun’ and the schach of the upper level is sparse and within 20 amos]. Summary Challenge: What is Rabbi Yirmiyah teaching that we didn’t know before? Resolution: There is novelty in his [third] teaching about a sukkah whose lower level is kosher and the upper level is possul. We might think the lower level would also be possul because of a gezeirah about a case where the upper level schach is higher than 20 amos (thus disqualifying the lower level schach as well*, 7.4). Rabbi Yirmiyah is teaching that there is no such gezeirah. * According to Tosfos (7.6), the gezeirah is about a case where the lower level schach doesn’t actually provide more shade than sunlight. It is only with the upper level’s scant covering that the lower level is thoroughly shaded. In case the upper level’s schach is above 20 amos, that would disqualify the lower level as well. 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 (7.3): A double-decker sukkah; the bottom level sukkah is possul, while the upper level is kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: If the upper level is uninhabitable, the bottom level is kosher. Summary Beraisa: The possuk states: “Live in Sukkos” this teaches: but not in sukkos that are under other sukkos, nor in sukkos that are under trees, or sukkos that are in houses. Challenge: Perhaps the possuk teaches that a double decker sukkah is kosher, since it uses the plural ‘ sukkos ’? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok: Although it is read in plural, the word is actually written in singular form (4.6). Rabbi Yirmiyah: A double decker sukkah: Sometimes they’re both kosher [when the schach of the lower level is sparse and the upper level is within 20 amos]. Sometimes they’re both possul [when the schach of both levels provides ‘more shade than sun’ and the upper level is higher than 20 amos (it is thus possul, but it has enough schach to be considered a sukkah and invalidate the lower sukkah)]. Sometimes the lower level is kosher and the upper level is possul [when the schach of the lower level provides ‘more shade than sun’ and the schach of the upper level is sparse and within 20 amos*]. Sometimes the upper level is kosher and the lower level is possul [when the schach of both levels provides ‘more shade than sun’ and the schach of the upper level is within 20 amos. The lower level is possul since it is a “[valid] sukkah under a [valid] sukkah”]. * Tosfos says that this last condition is irrelevant and the wording of the gemara must be amended to omit it. Rashi explains that if the schach was above 20 amos it would be considered possul schach which disqualifies what’s underneath it (7.4). 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 Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rava: If a tree is above a sukkah but its foliage is scanty and allows ‘more sunlight than shade’, it is kosher. After the gemara challenged this statement, it was resolved by explaining that we’re discussing a case where the branches are lowered and mixed in with the schach. Summary Challenge: If the branches were mixed in with the schach it’s superfluous to tell us that it’s kosher? Resolution: You might think there would be a gezeirah forbidding a case of mixed branches lest one come to permit cases of unmixed branches as well. Rava tells us it’s permissible and there is no gezeirah. Challenge: There is already a mishna that teaches this: “If one trained vines to cover a sukkah, even if he covers it with schach, it is possul. If there was more schach than vine, it is kosher. If the vines are cut loose from the ground, they are kosher schach”. This mishna must be discussing a case where the vine is mixed in with the schach (7.4), so why is Rava’s teaching necessary? Resolution: From the wording of the mishna it might seem that such an arrangement is only kosher b’dieved, once it was done. Rava teaches that such schach is l’katchila , there is no problem to lower a small amount of branches and mix them in 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 in honor of Yitzy Singer Happy Birthday! “Amar Abayye...”, Keep Shteiging! Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU* Rava: A sukkah built under a tree is only disqualified if it has thick foliage and ‘more shade than sunlight’. But if the tree is sparse and allows ‘more sunlight than shade’, it is kosher. Summary Challenge: *What is accomplished by the tree allowing more sunlight than shade? Since the tree’s possul shade covers part of the kosher schach, those areas are disqualified as well. Although the kosher schach consists of ‘more shade than sunlight’, since part of it is disqualified, it may provide less kosher shade than sunlight. Resolution: The branches are lowered and mixed in with the kosher schach, they are thus battel b’rov [nullified, by the majority of kosher schach]. * The question is presented differently than explained by Rashi and 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 by Yaakov Dwek For the Refouah Shelema of Nethanel Shlomo Ben Rachel Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Beraisa: A sukkah of goyim, women, animals, or samaritans ( Ganbach is an acronym for these four sukkos); any kind of sukkah is kosher as long as its schach was placed correctly. Question: What is meant by schach that is placed correctly? Rav Chisda: It means that the schach was placed there as a covering, for shade. If it was placed there to dry in the sun, the sukkah would not be kosher. Question: What is the beraisa’s intention with the extra words “any kind of sukkah ”? Response: Any kind includes another four sukkos, alluded to by the acronym Rakbash, as taught in a Beraisa: The sukkah of shepherds, reapers, guards, or watchmen ( Rakbash is an acronym for these four sukkos); any kind of sukkah is kosher as long as its schach was placed correctly. Question: What is meant by schach that is placed correctly? Rav Chisda: It means that the schach was placed there as a covering, for shade. If it was placed there to dry in the sun, the sukkah would not be kosher. Question: What is the beraisa’s intention with the extra words “any kind of sukkah ”? Response: Any kind includes another four sukkos, alluded to by the acronym Ganbach, as taught in the first Beraisa. The first beraisa intimates that ganbach is certainly kosher while rakbash is a chiddush, because ganbach are sturdier booths. The second beraisa intimates that rakbash is certainly kosher while ganbach is a chiddush, because rakbash was built by males who are obligated in sukkah. Mishna: An old sukkah is possul according to Beis Shammai and kosher¤ according to Beis Hillel. An old sukkah means one that was made more than 30 days before yom tov. However if the sukkah was built specifically for sukkos it is always 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

This week’s learning sponsored Anonymously In honor of the Ten Minute Kevius and what it has accomplished for me and so many others Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rabbi Yochanan: A round sukkah is kosher if there is space for 24 people to sit around in the circle. The gemara explains that this means 24 amos. The circle needs to have a circumference of 24 amos in order to fit a 4x4 square sukkah [with a circumference of 16 amos] inside. Summary Rabbanan of Caesari, some say The Dayanim of Caesari (not all the learners, only the dayanim): The circumference of a circle within a square, is 25% less than the outer square’s circumference. The circumference of a square within a circle is a third of the outer circle’s circumference [half of the circumference of the square is (8) is subtracted from the circumference of the outer circle (24) which gives us the square’s circumference (16)]. However, their calculations are not accurate because the actual circumference of a circle that surrounds a 4x4 square is only 16 and ⅘ (6.5). Rabbi Levi quoting Rabbi Meir: A potter who has an inner sukkah in which he lives and works and an outer sukkah surrounding it; his dwelling cannot be used as a sukkah and it requires a mezuzah. The outer sukkah is kosher as a sukkah and does not require a mezuzah. Question: Why doesn’t the outer sukkah require a mezuzah? The vestibule of a residence requires a mezuzah. Response: Here, the residence itself is not so permanent. 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

6.5 - Sukkah Daf 08 A (6 lines Dn) This week’s learning sponsored Anonymously In honor of the Ten Minute Kevius and what it has accomplished for me and so many others Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Rabbi Yochanan: A round sukkah is kosher if there is space for 24 people to sit around in the circle. This follows the opinion that a sukkah’s area must be 4x4 amos. Since a person’s seat is an amah, Rabbi Yochanan requires a circumference of 24 amos. The diameter of a circle is a third of its circumference, so this round sukkah - which requires a diameter of 4 amos - should have a circumference of 12. But the circumference of a square is 25% more than that of a circle. Since our circle has a circumference of 12, the square needs a circumference of 16 amos. The reason we require a circumference of 24 amos is because we need a circle that contains a square with a 16 amah circumference. Apparently, such a circle needs a circumference of 24 amos. Summary Challenge: The diagonal of a square is 1 and ⅖ of its side. Thus the diagonal of our 4 amah square would be 5 and ⅗ — that would also be the diameter of our circle. If we multiply the diameter by 3 to get our circumference, it is 16 and ⅘ amos, not 24?! Resolution: Rabbi Yochanan’s measurement [24] was not precise; it was an estimate. Challenge: Why would his estimate be so off? Mar Keshisha son of Rav Chisda to Rav Ashi: A person’s seat is not an amah. Three people can sit in two amos. “Space to seat 24 people” means 16 amos. Although according to our calculations, the circle’s circumference requires a bit more space [⅘ of an amah], Rabbi Yochanan’s measurement was not precise. Challenge: You can’t be imprecise and round off to a lower number! The sukkah is not kosher if it’s circumference is less than 16 and ⅘ amos! Rav Asi to Rav Ashi: Actually it is correct to say that a man’s seat is an amah. When Rabbi Yochanan said the sukkah needs to seat 24, he meant 24 seated people should surround it. Instead of a 24 amah circle with a diameter of 8 (⅓), we’re now looking at a circle with a diameter of 6 [sans one amah (the seat of a person) from each side]. This would then give us a circumference of 18, which is closer to the actual circumference of 16 and ⅘. Now the numbers are close enough so we can say that Rabbi Yochanan merely gave an imprecise estimate. 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

This week’s learning sponsored Anonymously In honor of the Ten Minute Kevius and what it has accomplished for me and so many others Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Rabbi Yochanan: A round sukkah [made “like a furnace”] is kosher if there is space for 24 people to sit around in the circle. This must follow the opinion of Rebbi (2.1, 6.2) that a sukkah’s area must be 4x4 amos. Challenge: Since a person’s seat is an amah, Rabbi Yochanan requires a circumference of 24 amos. Since the diameter of a circle is a third of its circumference, this round sukkah - which requires a diameter of 4 amos - should only have to seat 12?! Resolution: Rebbi requires a square of 4x4 amos. Its area exceeds that of a circle with a 4 amah diameter. Challenge: The circumference of a square is 25% more than that of a circle. Since our circle has a circumference of 12, the square needs only a circumference of 16 amos, not 24?! Resolution: We need a circle that contains a square with a 16 amah circumference. Not a square that contains a 12 amah circle. Apparently, such a circle needs a circumference of 24 amos. 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

This week’s learning sponsored Anonymously In honor of the Ten Minute Kevius and what it has accomplished for me and so many others Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Abayye: Rebbi, Rabbi Yoshiya, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, Rabban Gamliel, Beis Shammai, Rabbi Eliezer and Acheirim all are of the opinion that a sukkah must be a diras keva. Summary Rabbi Shimon - Beraisa (4.6): Rabbi Shimon: A sukkah requires three proper walls. We thus see that a sukkah must be somewhat like a house. Rabban Gamliel - Beraisa: Rabban Gamliel: A sukkah on a wagon (which is moving and not stationary like a house) or a ship (which travels in very windy areas) is possul. Rabbi Akiva: It is kosher. Beis Shammai - Mishna: If one’s head and most of his body is in the sukkah, while his table is in his house; Beis Shammai disqualify it while Beis Hillel permit it. Rabbi Eliezer - Mishna: A sukkah made like a wigwam or a lean-to; Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies it since it does not have a roof. The Chachomim permit it. Acheirim - Beraisa: Acheirim: A round sukkah is disqualified (because it looks like a dovecote not a house). This is the end of Abayye’s statement, we do not follow all of these opinions, they’re merely quoted together here to emphasize their unifying underlying theme. 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

This week’s learning sponsored Anonymously In honor of the Ten Minute Kevius and what it has accomplished for me and so many others Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU 1.1: A Sukkah whose schach lets in more sunshine than shade, is possul. Summary Beraisa: Only sunshine due to sparse schach disqualifies a sukkah. Sunshine allowed in by the walls do not disqualify the sukkah. Rabbi Yoshiya: Sunshine that enters through the walls also disqualifies a sukkah. Rav Yeimar bar Shlamya quoting Abayye: Rav Yoshiya’s opinion is based on the possuk: “The paroches shall be a schach for the aron”. Although the paroches was a wall perpendicular to the aron, it is referred to as schach. The Chachomim explain that the paroches curved a bit over the aron and that’s why it is called schach. (One of Abayye’s specialties was collating a number of Tannaim who agreed on certain principles, here is an example). Abayye: Rebbi, Rabbi Yoshiya, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, Rabban Gamliel, Beis Shammai, Rabbi Eliezer and Acheirim all are of the opinion that a sukkah must be a diras keva - a permanent dwelling (they don’t necessarily agree in the particulars of the laws seen below, but they agree in the general principle that a sukkah must be built like a house). Rebbi - Beraisa: Rebbi: A sukkah must be 4x4 amos (2.1). We thus see that a sukkah must be more than a tiny hut. Rabbi Yoshiya - as learned above; a sukkah must have proper walls. Rabbi Yehuda - Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda: A sukkah whose schach is higher than 20 amos, is kosher (1.1; Rava, 1.3). 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

This week’s learning sponsored Anonymously In honor of the Ten Minute Kevius and what it has accomplished for me and so many others Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU 5.4: Rabbah: One is allowed to carry within a two walled kosher sukkah on Shabbos based on the principle of “migo” - since the tefach creates a third wall for sukkos, it is also considered a walled-in area with regard to Shabbos. Rabbah: If a lechi was made in order to permit carrying in a mavuy on Shabbos, one can place schach on it and use it as a sukkah. Summary Rabbah: If schach was placed above pasei bira’os (see 3.4 for explanation), it is a kosher sukkah. [In keeping with the principle of migo* (5.4)]. Rabbah taught all three cases because we wouldn’t be able to derive one from the other. Had he taught this principle only with regard to lechi: We would say that it’s a unique case because there are two complete walls unlike pasei bira’os which have no complete walls. Had he taught this principle only with regard to pasei bira’os: We would say that it’s a unique case because there are four walls unlike lechi which does not have the necessary amount of walls. Had he taught this principle with regard to both pasei bira’os and lechi: We still would not derive a leniency from sukkah which is only an asei to Shabbos which is more stringent (5.5). *Tosfos: Pasei bira’os was only permitted in certain circumstances for Shabbos, so how is it extended to sukkos? The limitations on pasei bira’os are only d’rabanan in nature, in order to perform the mitzvah of sukkah no limitations were applied with regard to sukkos. However the Rema does place certain limitations on a sukkah made of pasei bira’os. 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 Rabbah: Since the tefach creates a third wall for sukkos, it is also considered a walled-in area with regard to Shabbos. Abayye challenged him from a beraisa: “Sukkah walls are like Shabbos walls, but Shabbos has a limitation that sukkah does not: A Shabbos wall must have more area of standing wall than open area.” Resolution: The limitation is only for Shabbos during the year. On sukkos, since it’s a valid wall for sukkah it’s valid for Shabbos as well. Summary Abayye originally understood the quoted beraisa as being in opposition to the principle of migo. However Rabbah had explained that the beraisa agrees with migo, and we can apply the leniencies of sukkah to Shabbos. Challenge: If the beraisa agrees with migo then we can surely apply the leniencies of Shabbos to sukkah as well. So why doesn’t the beraisa mention the leniency of Rabbah: If a lechi was made in order to permit carrying in a mavuy on Shabbos, one can place schach on it and use it as a sukkah (even though its third wall does not have a tefach)? Resolution: Once the beraisa teaches that migo applies and laws of sukkah which is only an asei can thus be applied to the more stringent Shabbos, it is no longer necessary to teach that laws of Shabbos can be applied to the more lenient sukkah. Rabbi Miller: “If you don’t understand today’s gemara, you don’t need to have an inferiority complex. If you do understand it, you deserve a compliment!” 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 לעי"נ הרה"ג ר' יהושע העשיל ב"ר חיים שמואל מאיר ז"ל Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Rabbah: One is allowed to carry within a two walled kosher sukkah on Shabbos based on the principle of “migo” - since the tefach creates a third wall for sukkos, it is also considered a walled-in area with regard to Shabbos. Abayye challenged him [‘Do we say migo from one halacha to the other?”] from a beraisa: “Sukkah walls are like Shabbos walls [There’s lavud and a picket fence is considered a wall as long there is less than 3 tefachim between the pickets]. Shabbos has a limitation that sukkah does not: A Shabbos wall must have more area of standing wall than open area.” It would seem that this limitation also applies to Shabbos during sukkos so we see that we do not follow the principle of migo! Resolution: The limitation is only for Shabbos during the year. On sukkos, since it’s a valid wall for sukkah it’s valid for Shabbos as well. 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 Rava: The third wall needs a tzuras hapesach [the look of a doorway]. (The tefach-board is split into two half tefachim which are placed at the two edges of the wall and they are topped with another board or a string). Ikka D’omri [a second version of Rava’s words]: The third wall can also use a tzuras hapesach. (Either do as Rabbi Simon [5.1], or create a doorway in place of the third wall). Summary Ikka D’omri [a third version of Rava’s words]: The third wall also requires a tzuras hapesach [in addition to the tefach, there should be a tzuras hapesach]. Rav Ashi saw [his rebbi,] Rav Kahana making a tzuras hapesach in addition to a tefach*.. * He asked him, “don’t you hold like Rava [first Ikka D’omri] that one can use a tzuras hapesach for the third wall but it does not require one?” Rav Kahana: I am following the third version of Rava’s words. * There is a discussion as to what the Gra’s opinion was whether this tefach was near the wall or in accordance with Rabbi Simon. 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 Rabbi Pinchas Wolhendler In Honor of the Lax Family Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Rav Yehuda: A sukkah of two parallel walls with one tefach board is kosher. The tefach can be attached to any of the four ends of the walls Rabbi Simon or Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: A board is made that is a bit wider than 4 tefachim, and it is placed somewhat within three tefachim of the wall. Following the principle of lavud, this then creates a full 7 tefach wall. Challenge: Why did a 4 tefach wall suffice in 5.1? Resolution: There the two walls are adjacent to each other, so the third can be easily added. Here the two walls are separated. Rava: The third wall needs a tzuras hapesach [the look of a doorway]. (The tefach-board is split into two half tefachim which are placed at the two edges of the wall and they are topped with another board or a string). Ikka D’omri [a second version of Rava’s words]: The third wall can also use a tzuras hapesach. (Either do as Rabbi Simon [5.1], or create a doorway in place of the third 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