Implied Question: Even though one has a roof and the other doesn't ...

Implied Question (cont.): And each one has one minus factor - 'Naklitin' has no roof but it is ten Tefachim high, whereas 'Kinofos' has a roof but is not ten Tefachim high ...

Answer: Nevertheless, it is not considered a roof, since it is not ten Tefachim high.

Halachah: The Halachah is not like this ...

Proof #1: Seeing as the Gemara. at the end of the Perek (19b) cites Abaye who, when he saw Rav Yosef sitting in a KIlas Chasanim in the Sukah, remarked 'Like whom; lik Rebbi Eliezer?', implying that it is only permitted if it has no roof.

Proof #2: And in Perek ha'Yashen (Daf 26a), the Gemara cites Rav, who permitted Rav Acha Bard'la to sleep ina Kilas Chasanim inside a Sukah because of the flies - since 'Someone who is Mitzta'er is Patur from Sukah ...

Proof #2 (cont.): Implying that otherwise, it would have been Asur ...

Reason: Either because it has a roof or, according to the second Lashon of Shmuel, if it is ten Tefachim high, even if it does not.

Support: And this is also what Rav Yehudah did in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 43a) ...

Reason: Because they hold that 'Night-time is subject to Tzitzis, and it is not therefore a 'Mitzvas Asei that is bound by time', in which case women are Chayav ...

Source: Like the Rabanan in Perek ha'Techeiles (Ibid.), who say 'Everyone is Chayav Tzitzis, even women and Avadim'.

Halachah: But Rebbi Shimon exempts them, and we Pasken like him ...

Proof #1: Since the Gemara at the beginning of the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 18b) pushes to establish all the Tana'im there like Rebbi Shimon, who precludes a night-garment and includes a garment belonging to a blind man.

Proof #2: And the incident with Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 25b & 26a) where his Talmidim hid from him the corners of their garments, because they held that it (not to wear a linen garment with Tzitzis) is a Gezeirah on account of a night-garment ...

Proof #2 (cont.): Even though the Gemara in 'ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 40b) gives another reason for that. So since the Gemara there mentions that reason, it must be the one that is Halachah.

Proof #3: Furthermore the Gemara in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 27b), in connection with the question 'Just as the Gemara includes other garments (besides those of wool and linen) regarding Tum'ah, let it also include other garments regarding Tzitzis from 'asher Techaseh bah" ' ...

Proof #3 (cont.): To which it replies that that Pasuk is needed to include a night-garment, and it cites the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon, proves that it is Halachah.

Proof #4: Also the S'tam Beraisa that the Gemara cites in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 34b & 35a) in connection with 'Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama, includes Tzitzis.

Proof #5: Moreover, in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 43b) the Rabanan of Rebbi Shimon establish the Pasuk "u'Re'isem oso" like the Beraisa "u'Re'isem" "u'Zechartem" - 'See this Mitzvah and remember another Mitzvah that is connected to it. Which Mitzvah? That of 'Keri'as Sh'ma' ...

Proof #5: So we see that (according to them) "Keri'as Sh'ma' is d'Oraysa, whereas in Perek Mi she'Meiso (B'rachos, Daf 21a) we Pasken that it is only de'Rabanan.

Refutation: Though from there there is no proof, since Rav Yehudah who says that "Keri'as Sh'ma is de'Rabanan, yet in Perek ha'Techeiles, he placed Tzitzis on his wife's garments.

Refutation (cont.): Because he Darshened like the other Tana, who learned 'Remember another Mitzvah that is connected to it. Which Mitzvah? That of Kil'ayim.

Proof #6: And there is yet another proof from the second Perek of B'rachos (Daf 14b), where Rav Yosef says 'How correct is the statement that 'In Eretz Yisrael they did not mention the Mitzvah of Tzitzis by night' ...

Proof #6 (cont.): And the Gemara concludes that they began to recite the Parshah, and once they began, they concluded it' ...

Proof #6 (concl.): Implying that 'Night-time is not subject to Tzitzis'.

Implied Question: It is worse in a one makes it out of thorns or fringes of wool (mentioned above, Daf 9a), because there, even if one subsequently makes the Tzitzis completely, it is not considered that he made them ...

Answer: Since they must be suspended from the garment for the sake of the Mitzvah.

Clarification: All the Amora'im and all the opinions concur with Shmuel - that we don't say 'Cutting them is considered making them.

Clarification (cont.): And by Sukah one needs to shake it.

Question: The Beraisa attributes it to the D'rashah "Ta'aseh", 've'Lo min he'Asuy'.

Answer #1: That is merely an Asmachta.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks here where it has been cut from the tree, but it is still attached to the bark, and one is unable to revive it ...

Support: Like the case in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, Daf 127b) ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Because, even though it is considered as if it is detached, seeing as is not totally severed, we do not say that that is its making.

Identification: He was a Tana, perhaps the one who is quoted by Rebbi Yochanan in many places in Shas.

Identification (cont.): However, he cannot be the one, in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin, Daf 26a) to whom Resh Lakish referred to him as 'a cowboy' ...

Reason: And Rebbi Yochanan said to them (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak & Rebbi Chiya bar Zarnuki) 'And if he were to refer to you as shepherds, what could I do for you?' ...

Reason (cont.): Because Rebbi Yochanan would not have answered them like that - he would have protested out of Kavod for his Rebbe.

Implied Question: The reason that they argue where 'he transgressed and picked them' and not where he picked them on Erev Yom-Tov is ...

Answer #1: The Gemara wants to teach us the principle 'Ein Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos', as the Gemara explains in Perek 'Lulav ha'Gazul' (later on Daf 33a).

Answer #2: Alternatively, because on Erev Yom-Tov, he is still able to put it right Lechatchilah by untying the Igud and retying it.

Answer #3: Or, as Rashi excplains later, that 'It mentions their Machlokes on Yom-Tov itself - to teach us that they are arguing where it has already been tied ...

Answer #3 (cont.): Since, on Yom-Tov, he cnnot have tied it.

The Sugya in Kidushin: At the beginning of Kidushin (Daf 2a) it learned the Gezeirah Shavah 'Kichah' 'Kichah' from "the field oF Efron" ...

The Current Sugya: Whereas here it does not learn a Gezeirah Shavah regarding 'Lekichah'.

The Current Sugya: The Gemara here quotes the Pasuk (in Re'ei) "Chag ha'Sukos Ta'aseh l'cha" ...

The Sugya earlier: Whereas above (on Daf 9a), when it forbids the wood of the Sukah because it compares it to the Chagigah, it quotes that of "Chag ha'Sukos, seven days for Hash-m" (In Emor).

Question: At the beginning of 'ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 27b) in connection with Ma'aser Sheini, by which the Torah writes "ve'Nasatah ha'Kesef ba'Bakar u'va'Tzon", the Gemara classifies animals as 'growing from the ground' ...

Question (cont.): Whereas in Perek 'ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 17a) in connection with 'Dayish' (an animal threshing) and in the dirst Perek of Kidushin, in connection with 'Ha'anakah' (providing an Eved Ivri when he leaves) it does not ...

Answer: This is because with regard to something which actually comes out of the ground such as 'Dayish' and 'what grows from ... ', they do not grow from the ground, only that they are nourished from the ground (See Mesores ha'Shas).