Change of Text: Rashi inverts the text - The text in the Mishnah reads 'Both a small one and a large one',

Change of Text (cont.): On which the Gemara asks that it ought to rather have said 'Both a large one and a small one', since it is the way of the Tana'im to first mention the one one that is obvious ...

. Proof #1: As we learned in the Mishnah in Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 29b) 'Both Yavneh and wherever else there is a Beis-Din' ...

Proof #2: And in Bava Kama (Daf 50b) 'Both someone who digs a pit and someone who digs a trench or a cave' ...

Proof #3: And in Maseches Sotah (Daf 43a) 'Both someone who builds and someone who purchases or inherits', and there are many other such cases mentioned there in connection with those who go to war,

Refutation of Proof #2 & #3: There is no proof however, from 'the pit' or from 'Someone who builds' to here - since we also learned in Sanhedrin (Daf 32a) 'Both Dinei Mamonos and Dinei Nefashos require 'Drishah and Chakirah' ...

Refutation #2 of Proof #2 & #3 (cont.): And we also learned in the Mishnah in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 41a) in connection with 'Havchanah' 'Both virgins and women who have had relations with a man' and in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto' (Ibid, Daf 53b) 'Both someone who performs the beginning of Bi'ah and one who completes it' ...

Refutation of Proof #2 & #3 (cont.): And in Perek ha'Mafkid (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 40b) the Beraisa states 'The Din of accepting froth applies to both somebody who purchases and somebody who deposits', and the Gemara explains there that 'Just as a depositor acepts the froth, so too, must the purchaser accept it'.

Conclusion: In all of these cases, it mentions the more obvious case last.

Acceptance of Proof #1: But the case of 'Yavneh' is a good proof ...

Reason: Since according to the Tana Kama who said that 'One only blows (the Shofar) in Yavneh, they answered him 'Both Yavneh and any oher town where there is a Beis-Din' ...

Precedent #1: And similarly in Yevamos, in Perek ha'Ishah (Daf 116), where Beis Hillel said 'We only heard if one came from harvesting the crops exclusively', to which they replied 'Both someone who came from harvesting the crops and someone who came from (picking) the olives'.

Precedent #2: And in our case too, the Tana Kama mentioned 'a large mat' , to which it is appropriate to answer 'Both a large one and a small one' - meaning that a small one is like the large one and it does not have a different Din.

The Seifa: In the Seifa Rebbi Dosa and the Rabanan argue over a mat of canes and one of 'Chilas' (a type of reed) - implying that they do not argue with regard to one of 'Pavil' (a kind of rush) and one of rushes.

Introduction to Question: Whereas later we explicitly find that they argue over one of rushes with regard to Medras ...

Implied Question: The reason that the Beraisa does not mention it here ...

Answer #1: Is fine according to the opinion that 'Chotzlos' are leather bags, since it is not a mat ...

Answer #2: But even according to Resh Lakish, who says that they are real mats, the Tana does not mention them here ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Because the question was only raised here in connection with what one can and what one cannot use for S'chach.

Clarification: It is talking about a small one.

Clarification: The Mishnah in the third Perek of Maseches Iduyos that 'It is subject to Tum'as Meis - which we establish by one which has a rim and which renders it a receptacle ...

Implied Question: And even though flat wooden boards that are wide, and on which one therefore place things - such as a baker's board, are subject to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabanan ...

Answer: Here, where they do not have a rim, they are intended for Sikuch.

Historical Background: He learned by Sh'mayah and Avtalyon, as the Gemara states in in Perek Eilu Devarim (Pesachim, Daf 66b).

Clarification: As a curtain in front of the entrance, an it is subject to Tum'ah ...

Source: As the Gemara in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 14b & 15a) explains 'Why did they say that a curtain is Tamei? ... '

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is to cover the barrel in which beer is manufactured.

Refutation: This cannot be however, since reeds are subject to Tum'ah only because they are compared to a sack ...

Source #1: And we learned in Maseches Keilim (6:8) in connection with leather an wooden vessels 'This is the rule - Whatever is made in the form of a bag is subject to Tum'ah, as a cover, it is Tahor'.

Source #2: And we also learned in Maseches Keilim there (26:6) 'Leather that is designated to cover vessels is Tahor'.

Implied Question: Because when they argue there with regard to weights, where the Tana Kama says Tamei and Rebbi Yossi, Tahor' ...

Answer: That is because (according to the Tana Kama) what is made to cover weights is sometimes used as a receptacle, whereas according to Rebbi Yossi it is Tahor, since it's chief function is to cover with.

Explanation #2: One is therefore force to explain that here it is sometimes used as a receptacle.

Clarification: It is made to receive dates (that one picks from the tree).

Source: As we find in Perek Na'arah (Kesuvos, Daf 50b) - 'Go and give him some dates from the Budya!'

Question: In that case, it ought to be subject to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabanan ...

Source: Like a baker's board - in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis (Bava Basra, Daf 66a) ...

Question (cont.): So how can one use it as S'chach?

Answer: A mat that has a rim is made to receive dates ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas the mat here the Gemara establishes without a rim, which is definitely made for S'chach and is Tahor.

Establishing Authorship: The Gemara establishes it like Shmuel - where it is tn Tefachim tall, because less than that is not considered an Ohel to divide.

Explanation #1: We could say that Shmuel follows his reasoning - when, in the first Perek (on Daf 10a) he declares Kasher the bottom Sukah if the top one is not ten Tefachim tall.

Explanation #1 (cont.): But according to the othe Amora'im there, who declare it Pasul even though it is not ten Tefachim tall, it would, by the same token, be considered an Ohel to divide.

Explanation #2: (On the other hand) perhaps a bed is different ...

Source: As the Gemara says 'A bed is a temporary Ohel' ...

Conclusion: In which case, they will all agree that less than ten is nothing.

Clarification: He was a righteous Eved, as th Gemara says in the second Perek of B'rachos (Daf 16b).

Support: And the Yerushalmi states that he wore Tefilin and that the Chachamim did not object.

Question: The Yerushalmi there then asks that they seem to have inverted the opinion of Raban Gamliel?' - seeing as here in the case of Sukah, the Chachamim objected to his sitting in the Sukah (See Maharsha & Maharam), since he slept under the bed?

Answer: And it answers that 'He did so in order not to squash the Chachamim who were sleping in the Sukah' ...

Question: And in answer to the Kashya why he did not then sleep outside the Sukah ...

Answer: It answers that 'He wanted to hear the words of the Chachamim'.

Source: This is a Mishnah in Ohalos (Perek 3, Mishnah 7) - 'Both a hole that the water bored ... ', and it refers to the Reisha, which speaks about a covered pipe which runs underneath the house ...

Chidush: And it comes to teach us that (it transmits Tum'ah) even though it was made by water or by rodents