Implied Question: Even though later, in Perek ha'Yashein (Daf 22b), we say 'Chavot Rami' (We extend the face of the beam as if it has reached the ground) ...

Answer: That does not apply here (See Maharam).

Clarification: That is as far as R'shus ha'Yachid and Karm'lis is concerned, as Rashi explains ...

Clarification (cont.): And regarding the height too, we find at the beginning of 'Chalon' (Eruvin, Daf 76a) that it is considered an opening.

Explanation #1: It is written in the Teshuvah of the Ge'onim that when it says 'Peiras Alehah Sadin Mipnei ha'Chamah O Tachtehah Mipnei ha'Neshar, Pesulah' - that is specifically where, without the sheet, there is more sun than shade ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): But if there is more shade than sun, it is Kasher, and the sheet does render it Pasul ...

Precedent: This is how Tosfos explained above - that S'chach Pasul does not combine with S'chach Kasher, since without the S'chach Pasul, there is more shade than sun.

Extension #1: And similarly, Rabeinu Tam explains 'Mipnei ha'Chamah' - which dries up the S'chach, rendering it more sunshine than shade ...

Extension #2: And likewise 'Tachtehah Mipnei ha'Neshar' ...

Extension #2 (cont.): Speaks where if the leaves would fall , there would be more sunshine than shade, and it is the sheet which prevents them from falling ...

Reason: Because seeing as it the sheet that causes there to be more shade than sunshine, it is Pasul.

Explanation #2 (Question #1): But according to Rashi, why is it Pasul, simply because it protects one from the sun and the splinters? Why is it any worse than 'to adorn the Sukah' (which is Kasher)?

Explanation #2 (Question #2): Moreover, the Gemara says later in Perek ha'Yashein (Daf 27b) that when the sun reached the feet of Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Yochanan b'Rebbi Ila'i arose and spread a sheet over him'?

Question: Later in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (Daf 46b & 47a) th Gemara explains why this is different than Esrog, which is permitted on the eighth day ...

Answer: It concludes there 'Because by Sukah, in the event that he has a meal during Bein ha'Shemashos, he needs to eat it in the Sukah, and "Since it is designated for dusk, it is designated for the entire (eighth) day", whereas Esrog is not fit to take Bein ha'Shemashos, since he already took it earlier' ...

Implied Question: Even though Mah Nafshach it is Muktzah during Bein ha'Shemashos, since perhaps it is day, and it is the seventh day of Succos ...

Answer: In such a case one cannot forbid it on the eighth day 'since it was designated for Bein ha'Shemashos ...

Reason: Since it is only forbidden on account of the previous day.

Support: And this is implied in the fourth Perek (Ibid.) in connection with 'Somone who designated seven Esrogim for seven days' - where the Gemara rules that after being Yotzei each one, he may eat it the following day, and it is not forbidden since it was designated for Bein ha'Shemashos due to the Safek of the previous day.

Precedent #1: And it is for the same reason that in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 4a) where Rav says, in connection with an egg that is laid on Shabbos before Yom-Tov or vice-versa 'Noldah ba'Zeh Asurah ba'Zeh'

Precedent #1 (cont.): And the Gemara gives the reason forn that as 'Hachanah' (lack of preparation); it did not want to attribute it to 'Migu de'Iskatza'i' ...

Precedent #1 (concl.): Despite the fact that Rav holds like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds of Muktzah.

Precedent #2: Similarly, regarding a. the two days of Yom-Tov of Galus, an egg which is laid on one is permitted on the other ; and b. in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 36a) in connection with a jug that is a T'vul-Yom that one filled from a barrel of Ma'aser Tevel (from which T'rumas Ma'aser has not been taken), and he declares that it should be T'rumas Ma'aser once it becomes dark, his words stand' ...

Precedent #2 (cont.): And if he said 'Make an Eruv for me with this jug, they do not, either because the end of the day of Erev Shabbos acquires the Eruv, or because one requires a meal that can be eaten still in the day.

Precedent #2 (cont.): But if the beginning of the day would acquire the Eruv and one would not require a meal that can be eaten still in the day, thr Eruv would be valid ...

Precedent #2 (concl.): And we would not say that it is not fit for Shabbos, 'since it was Muktzah during Bein ha'Shemashos due to the previous day.

Conclusion: And all of these cases are not comparable to Sukah, which is forbidden because of a meal that one might want to eat during Bein ha'Shemashos

Question: Even though one is only Chayav to eat in it due to the fact that it is a Safek that it is the seventh day ...

Answer: Sukah is different, seeing as one is Chayav to eat in it during Bein ha'Shemashos of the eighth day whatever the case.

Rashi: And the opinion there that forbids an Esrog even on the eighth day, and Rashi explains there that 'Since it is forbidden during Bein ha'Shemashos of the eighth day due to the Safek that it is the seventh, it is forbidden the entire day ...

Rashi (cont.): From which we see that we do forbid the eighth day because of 'Migu de'Isketza'i' from the previous day ...

Refutation: This is not correct, since even Rav Asi in the first Perek of Bitzah (Daf 4b) who forbids an egg on the two days of Yom-Tov of Galus, does so because he is in doubt as to whether they are one Kedushah or not?

Authentic Reason: The reason must therefore be because he decrees Esrog on account of Sukah.

Refutation: There is no proof from Rav Asi however, according to the text of the Gemara later in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (Daf 46b), where he says that 'If someone separated seven Esrogim for the seven days, he is Yotzei with each one and eats it the following day' ...

Refutation (cont.): Because he holds that it is designated for the one day and no more; that is why he may eat it the next day, and he does not forbid it on account of 'Migu de'Isketza'i' ...

Refutation (concl.): Which is why the Gemara pushes to give the reason by an egg because he is in a Safek.

Introduction to Question: Whereas according to Rav in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (Ibid.), someone who designates seven Esrogim for seven days, after he has been Yotzei, he may eat it immediately ...

Question: He does not forbid eating it on the same day due to 'Migu de'Isketza'i', even though he holds like Rebbi Yehudah (regarding Muktzah) ...

Answer: Because the owner only designated it for its Mitzvah and no more.

Minhag: And in a case where Shabbos falls on the day after the last day of Succos, the Minhag is to not to benefit from the ornaments of the Sukah until Motza'ei Shabbos.

Question: But it ought to be permitted - since what are the grounds to forbid it?

Question (cont.): If it is because Shabbos and Yom-Tov are one Kedushah - did Rav not, in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 4a) no rule like the four Elders according to Rebb Eliezer`, who said that they are in fact, two Kedushos?

Question (concl.): And if it is because of 'Hachanah', how is 'Hachanah' applicable here?

Clarification: Hangings that are spread on top to adorn the Sukah do not detract from the twenty Amos height to render it Kasher ...

Reason: Seeing as they are not of the species of S'chach ...

Reason (cont.): Because, if they were, they would render it Pasul due to the fact that they are subject to Tum'ah.

Clarification (cont.): Nor do they render it Pasul because of less than ten Tefachim high (So Rashi explains.)

Implied Question: They are not comparable to strands of foliage that descend into the Sukah, which render it Pasul (above, Daf 4a), because it is 'a smelly dwelling' ...

Answer: Since here they are placed there to adorn.

Clarification: It speaks where they would miss out on the Mitzvah (with which they are occupied) if they would go searching for a Sukah (the word 'Acheres' appears to be a printing error).

Clarification: Strictly speaking, even if it is ten Tefachim tall it is permitted ...

Reason: Because, since the roof is not a Tefach wide, it is not considered an Ohel to interrupt.

Source: Since, later in the Perek (on Daf 19b) the Gemara concludes that 'A Sukah that is shaped like a cone is Pasul, since it does not have a roof, because 'sloping Ohalim' are not considered Ohalim ...

Source: (cont.): From which Rav Yosef in the Gemara extrapolates that one is permitted to sleep in a canopy-bed in the Sukah.

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara here forbids when they are ten Tefachim high mi'de'Rabanan ...

Clarification (cont.): And that is only if the Naklitin (poles) are permanently fixed; but a Kilas Chasanim, where they are not, is permitted even if they are ten Tefachim high ...

Source: In the same way as they were stingent regarding a curtained couch - to forbid even if it less than ten Tefachim high, because it is fixed ...

Clarification (concl.): Whereas a Kilas Chasanim, which is not fixed is permitted even if it has a roof (See Chidushei Maharshal).

Proof: As the Gemara says in the other Lashon - that 'Naklitin as opposed to a Kilah are fixed'.

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, that is what the two Leshonos are arguing about.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): In fact, that it must be this that they are arguing about (where it is ten Tefachim high) ...

Proof: They cannot be arguing over where it has a roof but is not ten Tefachim high, and that is what is asur according to the second Lashon ...

Proof (cont.): Since the Gemara explicitly establishes the Mishnah by a wall that is ten Tefachim, according to Shmuel.

Clarification: Shmuel is not concerned about 'Libo Ro'eh es ha'Ervah', like the Tana Kama in B'rachos (Daf 24b & 25b).