1)
(a)We just cited Rebbi Ami bar Tivyumi, who invalidates worn out 'vessels' that are no longer fit for use from being used as Sechach. How does Abaye interpret this? What sort of vessels might he be referring to?
(b)How do we know that the Halachah is like him (even though we just refuted the suggested proof from our Mishnah)?
(c)What does the Beraisa say about Tana a worn-out straw or reed mat?
(d)The Tana Kama also validates a large cane mat, but invalidates a small one. What does Rebbi Eliezer say?
(e)What have we now proved from the Beraisa?
1)
(a)We just cited Rebbi Ami bar Tivyumi, who invalidates worn out 'vessels' that are no longer fit for use from being used as Sechach. According to Abaye, he is referring to - clothes of less than three square Etzba'os (finger-breadths), which is no longer fit for even a poor man to wear.
(b)We know that the Halachah is like him (even though we just refuted the suggested proof from our Mishnah) - because he is supported by a Beraisa ...
(c)... which disqualifies a straw or reed mat from being used as Sechach - even though it is worn out and now measures less than six by six Tefachim (the minimum size to be subject to Tum'as Mishkav u'Moshav).
(d)The Tana Kama also validates a large cane mat, but invalidates a small one. Rebbi Eliezer - invalidates even a small one (This Machlokes will recur later in the Perek, where it will be discussed more fully).
(e)We have now proved from the Reisha of the Beraisa - that something that was once a Kli that was subject to Tum'ah remains Pasul to be used as Sechach, even though it is no longer fit to become Tamei.
2)
(a)Our Mishnah invalidates a Sukah that is cut out of a haystack. Under which condition would such a Sukah nevertheless be Kasher?
(b)Why is this permitted?
(c)This ruling is introduced by Rav Huna. Is it Halachah?
2)
(a)Our Mishnah invalidates a Sukah that is cut out of a haystack. Rav Huna qualifies this ruling - confining it to where the haystack was initially filled in. But not if it already contained a hole of one Tefach deep measuring seven by seven Tefachim wide; in which case, the Sukah is Kasher.
(b)This is because a. seeing as the Din Ohel already exists for the entire area of the Sukah, it will be permitted to extend the walls from one Tefach to ten; and b. because the Din of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' is confined to the Sechach, and does not apply to the walls.
(c)This ruling is borne out by two Beraisos, one of which validates a Sukah that has been scratched out of a haystack, whilst the other declares it invalid. In the second Lashon, we actually query the discrepancy. Rav Huna reconciles them - by establishing the first Beraisa where a hole of one Tefach deep measuring seven by seven Tefachim had already been cut out of the haystack, and the second one, where it did not.
3)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, what is the difference between the wall of a Sukah that begins from the top but does not reach the ground, and one which begins from the ground but does not reach the Sechach.
(b)What does Rebbi Yosi say?
(c)What is the basis of the Machlokes?
3)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, the wall of a that one begins weaving from the top downwards - is Kasher provided it reaches to within at least three Tefachim from the ground (due to 'Lavud'), whereas one which is constructed from the ground - is Kasher as long as it reaches a height of ten Tefachim (even though it does not reach within three Tefachim of the Sechach).
(b)Rebbi Yosi - validates the latter wall too, even it does not reach to within three Tefachim from the ground ...
(c)... because he holds 'Mechitzah Teluyal Materes' (which is synonymous with 'Gud Achis Mechitzasah'), whilst the Chachamim concede 'Gud Asik Mechitzasah' (when starting from the bottom upwards, such as in the Reisha) not to 'Gud Achis ... ').
4)
(a)What does Rebbi Yosi say with regard to the wall of a Sukah that begins from the Sechach, extends ten Tefachim from the top, but ends more than three Tefachim from the ground?
(b)The Tana Kama in a Mishnah in Eruvin permits the residents of two adjoining courtyards (who did not make an Eruv) to draw water from a joint well, provided they made a partition, whether it extends down to the water or not, as long as it is built inside the well (Rashi, like the Mishnah in Eruvin, does not have the text 'Bein Milema'alah'). Why is the wall that divides the two courtyards eligible for this purpose?
(c)According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the above is the opinion of Beis Shamai (see Tosfos DH 'Beis Shamai'). What do Beis Hillel say?
(d)Rebbi Yehudah adopts a very lenient view. What does he hold?
4)
(a)The Tana Kama in a Mishnah in Eruvin permits the residents of two adjoining courtyards (who did not make an Eruv) to draw water from a joint well, provided they made a partition of ten Tefachim in one of two locations - either on top of the well of at the bottom.
(b)When the Tana Kama adds 'Bein b'Soch Ugno', he means - that in any event, the Mechitzah must be within the walls of the well (and not above it).
(c)According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Beis Shamai permit even a Mechitzah that is above the level of the water (see Tosfos DH 'Beis Shamai'). Beis Hillel - requires it to be at the bottom.
(d)Rebbi Yehudah is even more lenient than Beis Shamai. In his opinion - a Mechitzah between two walls of a Chatzer is Kasher even if when there is no water, and even if it was not erected specifically to serve as a Mechitzah.
5)
(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah quoting Rebbi Yochanan, equates Rebbi Yehudah with Rebbi Yosi, who permits a suspended Mechitzah in our Mishnah by Sukah. Why in fact, does ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah not hold like Rebbi Yosi?
2. ... Rebbi Yosi not hold like Yehudah?
(b)Seeing as Rebbi Yosi (who does not hold of Mechitzah Teluyah by Dinei Shabbos), was the Rav of Tzipori, on what grounds did they permit a Mechitzah Teluyah there?
(c)Why did they keep the Sefer-Torah for Leining in a private house on Friday night, rather than in the Chatzer where they intended to Lein the next morning?
5)
(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah quoting Rebbi Yochanan, equates Rebbi Yehudah with Rebbi Yosi, who permits a suspended Mechitzah in our Mishnah, by Sukah. In fact though ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah does not hold like Rebbi Yosi, who only applies his lenient ruling by Eruv, which is purely mid'Rabanan (since the Torah only forbids carrying from one Reshus to a different Reshus not from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another), but not by Sukah, which requires a Mechitzah d'Oraisa.
2. ... Rebbi Yosi does not hold like Yehudah, who permits a Mechitzah Teluyah even by Shabbos, which is basically a Chiyuv Sekilah - whereas he permits it only by Sukah, which is no more than a Mitzvas Aseh.
(b)Despite the fact that Rebbi Yosi (who does not hold of Mechitzah Teluyah by Dinei Shabbos), was the Rav of Tzipori, they nevertheless permitted a Mechitzah Teluyah there - because that was in the days of Rebbi Yosi's son, Rebbi Yishmael, who disagreed with his father in this point.
(c)They kept the Sefer-Torah for Leining in a private house on Friday night, rather than in the Chatzer where they intended to Lein the next morning - because they were afraid of the gentiles, who had issued a decree, forbidding the Jews to Lein.
16b----------------------------------------16b
6)
(a)The problem in Tzipori was that they forgot to make an Eruv Chatzeros to carry the Sefer-Torah into the Chatzer, or a Shituf Mavo'os to carry it into the Mavoy. On what grounds did they then permit transporting the Sefer-Torah to wherever it was required?
(b)What do we know about the sheets under discussion?
(c)What is wrong with the original suggestion that they brought fresh sheets and hung them up?
6)
(a)The problem in Tzipori was that they forgot to make an Eruv Chatzeros to carry the Sefer-Torah into the Chatzer (or a Shituf Mavo'os to carry it into the Mavoy). They nevertheless permitted transporting the Sefer-Torah to the Chatzer (or the house) where it was required, due to a Mechitzah which cordoned off the grounds in which the house where the Torah was, from the other houses by means of a Mechitzah formed by sheets hanging over the posts (or the Chatzer was cordoned off from the other Chatzeros - and a Chatzer that comprises only one house (or a Mavoy that comprises only one Chatzer), does not require an Eruv)
(b)We know that the Mechitzah under discussion - was a Mechitzah Teluyah, which did not reach within three Tefachim from the ground.
(c)The original suggestion, that they brought fresh sheets and hung them up - is unacceptable, because, seeing as there was no Eruv, how could they carry the sheets?
7)
(a)Rav Chisda permits putting up a mat in between the Sechach of a Sukah and the floor to form the wall of a Sukah. Assuming the mat reaches all the way across the Sukah, what is the smallest size mat that one would need for a Sukah that is ten Tefachim tall?
(b)The Chidush is that we apply the principle of 'Lavud'. But do we not know that already?
(c)Then how will Rav Chisda explain the Beraisa, which gives the minimum size mat as seven Tefachim and a Mashehu?
(d)What is the Chidush of that Beraisa? Who is the author?
7)
(a)Rav Chisda permits putting up a mat in between the Sechach of a Sukah and the floor to form the wall of a Sukah. Assuming the mat reaches all the way across the Sukah, the smallest size mat that one would need for a Sukah ten Tefachim high would be - four Tefachim and a bit (enabling us to apply 'Lavud' both at the top and at the bottom).
(b)The Chidush is that we apply the principle of 'Lavud'. Sure we know 'Lavud' already - but Rav Chisda teaches us that we even apply it twice in one case.
(c)According to Rav Chisda, the Beraisa, which gives the minimum size mat as seven Tefachim and a Mashehu - is speaking about a large Sukah that is higher than ten Tefachim. One places the Mechitzah within three Tefachim of the top, in which case, using 'Lavud', we have a Mechitzah of ten Tefachim ...
(d)... which is Kasher, irrespective of the height of the wall from the floor (due to the principle of 'Mechitzah Teluyah' - like Rebbi Yosi.
8)
(a)Rebbi Asi permits placing a post of four Tefachim and a Mashehu within three Tefachim of an existing wall (and adjacent to it), to form the second wall of the Sukah. What is Rebbi Asi coming to teach us, seeing as we already know the Din of Lavud?
8)
(a)Rebbi Asi permits placing a post of four Tefachim and a Mashehu within three Tefachim of an existing wall (and adjacent to it), to form the second wall of the Sukah. Seeing as we already know the Din of Lavud, Rebbi Asi must be coming to teach us - that the minimum length of a Sukah is seven Tefachim.