POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafSukah 14
1) YADOS (cont'd)
(a) Question: But we learned in the Mishnah that such second
thoughts do not remove the status of food from an item (and
require that one act upon them in accordance with their new
function to change their status)!?
2) ANOTHER MISHNAH REGARDING BESISAH
1. Once a vessel is completed (via an act or a
Machshavah), it can only change its status (and not be
subject to Tumah), by an act, and not through
(b) Answer: We must differentiate between vessels and the stalks
of fruit by saying that vessels (which are lasting and
therefore significant) do not lose their finished status
without an act, but not so fruit (which are only for eating,
and therefore not significant) which could become subject to
Tumah with a thought, and a thought is sufficient to remove
2. A Machshavah, however, cannot remove the effect of a
prior act *or* a prior Machshavah!
(c) Question: But this will not fit according to R. Yochanan in
the Mishnah regarding Besisah (to be explained)!?
1. R. Elazar explains the Mishnah in Uktzin (which
declares Tahor the Yados of food she'Basesan) to mean
food whose bundles they untied.
(d) Answer: The Chachamim were also speaking where, when he
decided to use the stalks for S'chach, he threshed them.
2. We see, then, a form of removing susceptibility to
Tumah through something less than an act (untying is
not really an act, and is more comparable to a
3. R. Yochanan explains that Basesan means threshing the
corn (which destroys the Yados).
4. Then we see that even handles of *food* require an
*act* to remove their eligibility to become Tamei (and
how are we to understand the reason of Chachamim
(e) Question: Then why would Acherim argue!?
(f) Answer: Acherim hold like R. Yosi who holds that even after
Besisah, the stalks still retain their status of Yados.
(g) Question: There is no comparison between the nullification
of Yados of food and the Besisah associated with changing
one's mind regarding S'chach!?
1. By Yados of food, R. Yosi holds like Resh Lakish, who
holds that the Yados after threshing still have a
function (one uses the stalks to turn over the tops of
the wheat which are themselves too short to be held in
(h) Answer: When he takes down the S'chach, the Yados will make
it easier to collect the sheaves.
2. But by grain, the Besisah should surely be a sufficient
act, and what would be the rationale of Acherim to
retain the Tumah of the Yados?
(a) (Tana Kama) Any Yados which had Besisah in the granary are
not susceptible to Tumah.
3) THE TEFILOS OF TZADIKIM ARE LIKENED TO AN ATAR
(b) (R. Yosi) They are still subject to Tumah.
(c) Question: What is Besisah?
(d) Answer (R. Yochanan): Actual threshing.
(e) Answer (R. Elazar): Untying the bundle.
(f) Question: While we understand R. Yosi's position if (as R.
Elazar says) he only untied the bundle; but what would R.
Yosi's rationale be if he actually threshed the Yados?
(g) Answer (Resh Lakish): The Yados after threshing still have a
function (to turn over the wheat which too short for a
(a) The Tefilah of a Tzadik is like a pitchfork (the word
VaYe'tar is used in connection with Yitzhok's Tefilah) in
that the Tefilah of a Tzadik, acts like a pitchfork, turning
HaShem's Din into Rachamim.
4) MISHNAH: PLANKS (NESARIM) AS S'CHACH
(a) (R. Yehudah) Planks may be used as S'chach.
5) RAV AND SHMUEL INTERPRET R. YEHUDAH AND R. MEIR
(b) (R. Meir) They are Asur.
(c) A plank of four Tefachim invalidates the Sukah if it is in
the middle of the Sukah, but not if it is adjacent to the
wall of the Sukah.
(d) One may not sleep underneath a four-Tefachim wide plank even
if it is adjacent to the wall of the Sukah.
(a) (Rav) The Machlokes over planks is when they are four
1. R. Meir prohibits lest it be confused with a roof.
(b) (Shmuel) The Machlokes is when the planks are less than four
Tefachim (see Rashi) but four Tefachim is surely Pasul.
2. R. Yehudah does not have such a Gezeirah.
1. Question: Then anything, even reeds will be Pasul!?
(c) Question: The Seifah of the Mishnah (which we assume is
consistent with both R. Meir and R. Yehudah) is a question
on Rav's interpretation of R. Yehudah!
2. Answer (R. Papa, interpreting Shmuel): Less than three
is surely Kosher; more than four is surely Pasul, and
the Machlokes is from three till four Tefachim.
i. R. Yehudah holds that less than the Shiur of a
place (a Reshus, four Tefachim) is not subject to
the Gezeirah (of being confused with a ceiling).
ii. R. Meir holds that any area which could not be
covered by Lavud (from three Tefachim) is subject
to the Gezeirah.
1. The Seifah says that a four Tefachim board may be used
(the Sukah is Kosher) but one may not sleep under it.
(d) Answer: The Seifah is not all opinions (as we thought) but
it is the opinion of R. Meir.
(e) Question: The Beraisa is a question on Rav (first version).
2. Shmuel understands why, according to all opinions, one
may not sleep under a four Tefach board.
3. However, according to Rav, why should R. Yehudah
prohibit sleeping under such a board?!
1. (Tana Kama) Two cloths combine to four Tefachim of
S'chach Pasul, but two planks do not.
6) TURNING THE PLANKS ON THEIR SIDES
2. (R. Meir) Planks are like cloth (presumably to combine
to four Tefachim of S'chach Pasul to invalidate the
(f) Answer: The planks in the Beraisa are four Tefachim wide,
and we are speaking of combining to four *Amos* at the side
of the Sukah (invalidating the Sukah because they are beyond
the limits of Dofen Akumah).
3. Shmuel understands why two planks of three Tefachim
would combine to invalidate the Sukah.
4. But when, according to Rav, would planks combine to
invalidate a Sukah!?
i. A four Tefach plank invalidates without any need
for combining it with another.
ii. Planks of less than four Tefachim are fine (like
reeds) no matter how many!
(g) Question: The Beraisa is a question on Rav (second version).
1. Shmuel understands that the combining of the Beraisa
involves planks of three Tefachim combining to four
Amos, and invalidating the Sukah.
(h) Answer: The language (boards do not combine) used by the
Tana Kama of the Beraisa is meant to parallel the language
used by R. Meir (they combine), but not to imply that there
is anything wrong with such four-Tefach boards.
2. Rav can understand R. Meir similarly with boards of
four Tefachim (combining on the side of the Sukah to
3. However, R. Yehudah (who accepts boards of four
Tefachim), why would the Mishnah say that they do not
combine (implying that we accept that they are Pasul,
but we reject the principle of combination)!?
(i) There is a Beraisa to support each, Rav and Shmuel.
1. (In support of Rav) All agree that planks of less than
four are Kosher, R. Meir holds that planks of four
Tefachim are Pasul and R. Yehudah holds that they are
Kosher. (R. Yehudah attempts to support himself there
from an incident during a time of danger, a support
which is disputed by the Chachamim).
2. (In support of Shmuel) Four Tefachim planks are surely
Pasul, while planks of less than four Tefachim are
permitted by R. Yehudah while R. Meir allows their use
only if space equal to the size of the plank is left
between the planks (R. Yehudah there allows a plank of
four Tefachim at the side of the Sukah to be used, but
not slept under).
(a) (R. Huna) If planks four Tefachim wide but less than four
Tefachim thick are placed on their sides, they still are
(b) (R. Chisda and Rabah. b.R. Huna) They are Kosher.
(c) R. Nachman ruled that they are Pasul since they are like
metal, meaning these boards bear the label of S'chach Pasul.
(d) R. Huna asserted that this is how he had previously taught.
(e) R. Chisda and Rabah b.R. Huna responded that R Huna had
never provided a rationale, the way R. Nachman did.
(f) R. Huna responded that they had never *asked* for a reason!
(g) Question: Shall the following Beraisa be used in support of
Rav Huna's rule (to invalidate the board on its side)?
1. After mentioning the Pesulim of a small Sukah and one
with an opening at the bottom of the wall, the Beraisa
invalidates a Sukah which has a plank that is four
Tefachim wide, but which only takes up three Tefachim
in the Sukah.
(h) Answer: No, the Beraisa is speaking of special Halachah
called Pesel haYotze min haSukah.
2. This appears to be the case of a four-Tefach board
which has been turned on its side, giving us the Din of
1. A plank of four Tefachim is placed across the Sukah at
the end where there is no wall, with three Tefachim
within the line created by the opposite walls and one
Tefach protruding beyond the Sukah line.
2. That additional Tefach is considered a legitimate part
of the Sukah, and could be used as Sukah (Pesel haYotze
- S'chach protruding onto an open side of the Sukah).
3. As such, the four-Tefach board invalidates the Sukah,
since its entire area is considered part of the Sukah.