(a)In the second Lashon, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permits a Kilas Chasanim even if it is ten Tefachim above the bed. Why is that?
(b)How will he now explain the Beraisa, which declares not Yotzei someone who sleeps under a Kilah in a Sukah?
(c)And how does he explain the Beraisa which forbids sleeping under Naklitei Mitah that are ten Tefachim high (despite the fact that there is no roof there either)?
(d)If Naklitei Mitah is considered fixed, then why is it any different than a four-poster bed, which is forbidden even if it less than ten Tefachim high because it is fixed?
1)
(a)In the second Lashon, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permits a Kilas Chasanim even if it is ten Tefachim above the bed - because it does not have a roof (since the top comes to a point - like Naklitei ha'Mitah).
(b)He explains that the Beraisa, which declares not Yotzei someone who sleeps under a Kilah in a Sukah - speaks about a Kilah which does have a roof, and ...
(c)... the Beraisa, which forbids Naklitei Mitah under the same circumstances, is different, he says - because they are more fixed than a Kilah.
(d)Even though Naklitei Mitah is considered fixed vis-a-vis a Kilas Chasanim, it is not as fixed as a four-poster bed, which is therefore forbidden even if it less than ten Tefachim high.
2)
(a)The most radical opinion to date is that of Rabah bar Rav Huna, who validates a Kilah even if it is more than ten Tefachim high, and has a roof (i.e. it is parallel with the ground, and not like a tent). This is because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah (regarding the Din of Ohel Arai). What does Rebbi Yehudah say? In which case is he speaking?
(b)Why then, does Rabah bar Rav Huna not just say 'Halachah k'Rebbi Yehudah'?
2)
(a)The most radical opinion to date is that of Rabah bar Rav Huna, who validates a Kilah even if it is more than ten Tefachim high, and has a roof (i.e. it is parallel with the ground, and not like a tent). This is because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah - who maintains 'that a temporary Ohel does not have the power to negate a permanent one, which is why he permits sleeping under a bed in the Sukah (even if it is higher than ten Tefachim from the ground).
(b)Had Rabah bar Rav Huna just said 'Halachah k'Rebbi Yehudah' - we would have thought that Rebbi Yehudah's reason is not because of a temporary Ohel not invalidating a permanent one, but because a bed is made to sleep on top of and not underneath.
3)
(a)Our Mishnah (already quoted above) forbids a Sukah which has a growing vine, a pumpkin or a creeper on the roof, arranged on a trellis, to form part of the Sechach. This can however, be rectified in one of two ways. What are they?
(b)Which two other categories of commodities (even if they are detached) may not be used as Sechach?
3)
(a)Our Mishnah (already quoted above) forbids a Sukah which has a growing vine, a pumpkin or a creeper on the roof, arranged on a trellis, to form part of the Sechach. This can however, be rectified - either by adding more Sechach (to form a majority) or by detaching them.
(b)The two other categories of commodities (even if they are detached) which may not be used as Sechach are - anything that can receive Tum'ah and anything that does not grow from the ground.
4)
(a)Rav Yosef quotes Rav, who says that cutting the branch that is growing on the Sechach is insufficient. Why is that?
(b)What else is therefore still required?
(c)What irked Rav Yosef when Rav Huna said that that the author of that statement was Shmuel?
(d)How did Rav Huna explain his statement? According to him, what does Rav really hold?
4)
(a)Rav Yosef quoted Rav, who said that cutting the branch that is growing on the Sechach is insufficient - because the Torah writes in Re'eh "Chag ha'Sukos Ta'aseh Lecha", from which we Darshen "Ta'aseh", 'v'Lo min he'Asuy" (meaning that one has to make the Sukah, and not use one that is already made, under which category the former falls).
(b)Therefore - one still needs to shake each branch that one cuts.
(c)Rav Huna irked Rav Yosef by saying that the author of that statement was Shmuel - because he did merely quoted Rav as the author, which does not preclude Shmuel from having said it, too.
(d)Rav Huna explained however - that what he meant was that it was Shmuel who said it and not Rav, who holds that cutting it alone will suffice (because he considers that "Ta'aseh").
5)
(a)Rav Huna learned this from an episode with Rav Amram Chasida. On what grounds did Rav Amram Chasida put Tzitzis on his wife's four- cornered garments? How did he explain the Pasuk in the third paragraph of the Shema "u'Re'isem Oso"?
(b)When he came before Rav Chiya bar Ashi, the latter quoted Rav as having said 'Mefaskan v'Hen Kesherin'. What was the problem?
(c)What does Rav Chiya bar Ashi's answer prove?
5)
(a)And he learned this from an episode with Rav Amram Chasida, who attached Tzitzis on his wife's four cornered garments - because he Darshened the Pasuk "u'Re'isem Oso" to exempt the garment of a blind man, rather than a night-garment. Consequently, Tzitzis is a Mitzvah that is not time-related, and women are subject just like men.
(b)When he came before Rav Chiya bar Ashi, the latter quoted Rav as having said 'Mefaskan v'Hen Kesheirin'. The problem was - that he forgot to cut the threads before attaching them to the corners.
(c)Rav Chiya bar Ashi's answer proves - that according to Rav, cutting something or cutting it off, is sufficient - to remove the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' (not like Rav Yosef's original contention).
6)
(a)Shmuel quotes a Beraisa in the name of Rebbi Chiya, which states that if one threads the Tzitzis into two corners (one end into one and the other end, into the other) before cutting them, they are Kasher. How do we initially interpret this statement? How does this create a discrepancy in Shmuel, as quoted by Rav Huna earlier?
(b)How do we establish the Beraisa, to resolve this problem?
(c)If Shmuel is speaking when he cut them first and tied them only afterwards, what is the Chidush? Why might we have otherwise thought that the Tzitzis are not Kasher?
6)
(a)Shmuel quoted a Beraisa in the name of Rebbi Chiya, which says that if one threaded the Tzitzis into two corners (one end into one and the other end, into the other) before cutting them, they are Kasher. We interpret this to refer to a case where one threaded the Tzitzis first and then cut them, from which we see that cutting the Tzitzis is sufficient to remove 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' (a Kashya on Rav Huna, who said in Shmuel's name that it is not!?).
(b)We resolve this problem - by establishing the Beraisa when he cut them first and then made the Tzitzis (thereby removing the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy').
(c)We might otherwise have thought that the Tzitzis are not Kasher - because when he cut the threads, he arranged two corners in one go, when in fact, one must arrange one corner at a time.
11b----------------------------------------11b
7)
(a)We concluded that, according to Rav, cutting the threads is considered an act that renders the Tzitzis Kasher. How will he explain the Beraisa, which invalidates the Tzitzis that one attached before cutting them?
(b)Levi explains 'Pasul' like Rav. How will Shmuel explain it?
(c)In the first Lashon, Rav Masna cites Shmuel as saying 'Pesulin l'Olam'. In the second Lashon, he actually came before Shmuel with the very same She'eilah. What did Shmuel rule?
7)
(a)We concluded that, according to Rav, cutting the threads is considered an act which renders the Tzitzis Kasher. According to him - when the Beraisa invalidates the Tzitzis that one suspends before cutting them, it means only until they are cut, but not permanently.
(b)Levi explains 'Pasul' like Rav. Shmuel explains - 'Pasul Le'olam'.
(c)In the first Lashon, Rav Masna cites Shmuel as saying 'P'sulin l'Olam'. In the second Lashon, he actually came with the very same She'eilah before Shmuel, who ruled - 'Pasul Le'olam'.
8)
(a)We query Rav from a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say about a case where someone attached the threads and cut them only afterwards?
(b)And under which category does another Beraisa place a Sukah which is covered by a growing vine, a pumpkin or a creeper on the roof of the Sukah, that is arranged on a trellis to form part of the Sechach?
(c)Why could Rav not establish the latter Beraisa where he did not cut them at all?
(d)How do we resolve it according to Rav? What does 'Shalfinhu Shelufi' mean?
(e)What about the Kashya from the first Beraisa (regarding where the threads were cut only afterwards)?
8)
(a)We query Rav from a Beraisa, which states that if someone attached the threads and cut them only afterwards - they are Pasul.
(b)Whereas another Beraisa places a Sukah which is covered by a growing vine, a pumpkin or a creeper on the roof of the Sukah, that is arranged on a trellis to form part of the Sechach under the category of - 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy'.
(c)Rav could not establish the latter Beraisa where he did not cut them at all - because then the Tana should have given the Pesul as the fact that is attached (and not because of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy').
(d)We resolve it according to Rav, by establishing it b'de'Shalfinhu Shelufi' - meaning that he cut them whilst they already lying on top of the Sukah, in which case what he did is not clearly discernable and is not therefore considered an act. Consequently, it remains a matter of Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy, even according to him.
(e)The Kashya from the first Beraisa (regarding where the threads were cut only afterwards) - remains a Kashya on Rav, for which we have no answer.
9)
(a)A Hadas with more berries than leaves is Pasul. May one remove them on Yom-Tov?
(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak in a Beraisa disqualifies the Hadas if one did. What do the Chachamim say?
(c)Assuming that both Tana'im hold 'Lulav Tzarich Eged', what do we suggest we learn from the Mitzvah of Sukah that makes this statement significant?
(d)How do we now attempt to explain their Machlokes?
9)
(a)A Hadas with more berries than leaves is Pasul - and may not be rectified on Yom-Tov (because of Tikun Mana).
(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak in a Beraisa disqualifies the Hadas if one removed them on Yom-Tov. According to the Chachamim - it is Kasher.
(c)Assuming that both Tana'im agree that 'Lulav Tzarich Eged', we extend the principle of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' from Sukah to Lulav ...
(d)... and go on to suggest that the basis of the Machlokes is whether cutting the attached branches is considered an act by Sukah (the Chachamim [like Rav]) or not (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak [like Shmuel]), and the same will apply to the removal of the berries by a Lulav.
10)
(a)We refute this suggestion however, by supposing that both opinions agree that cutting the Sechach is not considered an act by Sukah. What might then be the basis of their Machlokes, even assuming that, on principle, they both learn Lulav from Sukah?
(b)Alternatively, both Tana'im might learn Lulav from Sukah. What will then be the basis of their argument?
(c)This Machlokes is identical with a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan. From where does Rebbi . Yehudah learn that the three species need to be tied?
(d)The Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah. How can the Rabanan dispute a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?
10)
(a)We refute this suggestion however, by supposing that both opinions agree that cutting the Sechach is not considered an act by Sukah and that the basis of their Machlokes is - whether we learn Lulav from Sukah (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak) or not (the Chachamim).
(b)Alternatively, both Tana'im might learn Lulav from Sukah, in which case they will be arguing over - whether the three species (the Lulav, the Hadasim and the Aravos) need to be tied (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak) - or not.
(c)This Machlokes is identical with a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan in a Beraisa. The latter learns the obligation to tie the three species, from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of 'Lekichah' 'Lekichah' (from Agudas Eizov [a bundle of hyssop in connection with the Korban Pesach]) that the three species need to be tied.
(d)The Rabanan disagree - because they did not receive this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from their Rebbes, and a 'Gezeirah Shavah' is only valid if it has been handed down from Rebbe to Talmid.
11)
(a)Who is the author of the Beraisa, which states that, although it is a Mitzvah to tie the Lulav, one is nevertheless Yotzei the Mitzvah of Lulav, even if one did not?
(b)Based on what principle do the Rabanan require the three species to be tied l'Chatchilah?
(c)What is the source for this?
11)
(a)The author of the Beraisa, which states that, although it is a Mitzvah to tie the Lulav, one is nevertheless Yotzei the Mitzvah of Lulav, even if one did not - is the Rabanan ...
(b)... who require the three species to be tied together based on the principle of 'Hidur Mitzvah' ...
(c)... which is derived from the Pasuk (in the Shirah) "Zeh Keili v'Anveihu".
12)
(a)What do we try to learn from the Pasuk in Bereishis "v'Eid Ya'aleh min ha'Aretz"?
(b)Why is this Derashah only valid according to Rebbi Eliezer, but not according to Rebbi Akiva?
(c)So Rebbi Yochanan learns the specifications of Sechach from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Chag ha'Sukos Ta'aseh Lecha". How does he learn them from there?
(d)What is the problem with that?
12)
(a)We try to learn from the Pasuk in Bereishis "v'Eid Ya'aleh min ha'Aretz" - that whatever is used as Sechach must be subject to Tum'ah and must grow from the ground (like a cloud, which we see is also considered as having grown from the ground).
(b)This follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer [later in the Perek]), who learns that the Sukos in the desert comprised the Ananei Kavod (the Clouds of Glory), but not according to Rebbi Akiva, in whose opinion the Sukos in the desert were regular huts.
(c)Rebbi Yochanan therefore learns the specifications of Sechach from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Chag ha'Sukos Ta'aseh Lecha" - which compares the Sukah to the Korban Chagigah (which is not subject to Tum'ah and (like all animals) is considered as having grown from the ground.
(d)The problem with that is - that if we learn Sukah from the Chagigah, then the Sechach, like a Chagigah, would have to comprise animal hides.
