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 24
SUKAH 21-25 - my brother Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored one month of
Dafyomi publications for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
1) VIEWING DEATH AS (IM)PROBABLE (cont'd)
(a) Question: But that creates a contradiction between R.
Meir's position regarding the animal (suspecting that
it will die) and his position regarding the barrel
(where he does not suspect that it may break)!?
2) AN ANIMAL AS A MECHITZAH
(b) Answer: Death is more likely (and out of one's control)
(c) Question: But we have created a contradiction in the
positions of R. Yehudah who permits using the animal
but forbids relying on the barrel!?
(d) Answer: R. Yehudah forbids the case of the barrel
because he does not hold of Bereirah, not because of
concern for the barrel's breaking.
(e) Question: But we have an indication from the Seifa of
the barrel Beraisa that R. Yehudah *is* concerned about
the breaking of the barrel!?
1. They (including R. Yehudah) challenged R. Meir by
asking if he is not concerned about the barrel
breaking (leaving the person having drunk Tevel)!
(f) Answer: R. Yehudah was asking R. Meir only according to
R. Meir's position, holding of Bereirah (R. Yehudah
himself would not be bothered by the question since the
option of designating future barrels does not exist).
2. R. Meir responded with lack of concern.
3. Clearly, then, R. Yehudah *is* concerned about its
(g) Question: But we find R. Yehudah concerned about death
(as R. Yehudah teaches that we designate a replacement
for the wife of the Kohen Gadol, lest his wife die)!?
(h) Answer: We were already taught regarding that Mishnah
that extra measures were taken to insure the Kaparah of
(a) Regardless of which concern we adopt, it is clear that
the prohibition of using an animal is mi'd'Rabanan, and
that, mi'd'Oreisa, an animal could be a Mechitzah.
(b) Question: If so, then is there a Machlokes whether an
animal receives Tumah when it serves as a grave cover?
(c) Answer: We reject the explanations given by Abaye and
R. Zeira (see 23a Para. 3.c and d.) and provide new
explanations (by R. Acha b. Yakov) for the position of
R. Meir forbidding he use of an animal as a Mechitzah.
1. R. Meir holds that any Mechitzah which depends on
air is not a Mechitzah.
2. Alternately, R. Meir holds that anything which is
not man-made cannot serve as a Mechitzah.
3. Question: When will these explanations differ?
4. Answer: In the case of a wall supported by a
i. The first explanation would invalidate such a
Mechitzah since it is supported with air.
ii. It is, however, man-made.
3) WRITING GITTIN ON AN ANIMAL
(a) Question: What is the rationale for R. Yosi HaGelili
who taught (above 23a para. 3.a.2.) that Gitin may not
be written on an animal?
4) MISHNAH: USING TREES AS MECHITZOS
(b) Answer: The Beraisa derives it from the requirement of
Sefer, which is inanimate.
(c) Question: What is the rationale of the Rabanan who
argue with R. Yosi HaGelili on this matter?
(d) Answer: Sefer refers to the nature of the thing
written, not to the material written upon (which would
have been implied by *Ba*Sefer).
(e) Question: Then how do the Rabanan, who do not need
VeChasav to teach that other things (wood, leaves, etc)
may be used (since Sefer does not limit the materials
used), interpret VeChasav!?
(f) Answer: They learn from it that a woman may only be
divorced with the writ, not with money (we might have
derived this from Kidushin).
(g) Question: Whence will R. Yosi HaGelili learn this
(h) Answer: From the words Sefer Kerisus, teaching that
only a Sefer, and not anything else (including money)
may effect a divorce.
(i) Question: Why didn't the Rabanan learn this from Sefer
Kerisus, as opposed to learning it from VeChasav?
(j) Answer: Sefer Kerisus is needed to proscribe the use of
conditions in a Get which would permanently bind the
wife in the future (as taught in the Beraisa that a
permanent [as opposed to a temporary] condition would
invalidate the Get).
(k) Question: Whence will R. Yosi HaGelili derive this Din?
(l) Answer: From the expansion of the sufficient word Kares
to the word Kerisus.
(m) Question: What will the Rabanan do with this expansion?
(n) Answer: They do not use the difference between Kares
and Kerisus for this Derashah.
(a) It is permitted to use trees as the Mechitzos of a
Sukah (where the S'chach does not rest on them).
5) SWAYING OF THE TREES
(a) (R. Acha b. Yakov) A Mechitzah must be able to
withstand a normal wind.
(b) Question: But what of the swaying of the trees in our
(c) Answer: Our Mishnah speaks of firm trees.
(d) Question: But the branches and leaves (which fill in
the spaces of the walls) are subject to the wind?
(e) Answer: The branches must be secured.
(f) Question: If so, what is the news of our Mishnah which
permits the use of trees as Mechitzos?
(g) Answer: We might have prohibited such a Sukah lest the
person come to make use of the trees during Sukos.
(h) Question: But we find that a tree may serve as a
Mechitzah when we are looking for a corner Deyumad
around a public well!?
(i) Answer: There, too, its branches are secured.
(j) Question: If a tree is a secured Mechitzah, then why,
regarding the Halachos of Eiruvin, does it only permit
the area of a Beis Sasayim (the underside of the tree
should constitute an area which has been intentionally
closed off for residence, which can be up to any size)?
(k) Answer: It is not designed to be a Mechitzah for the
purpose of the area underneath it, rather it is a
Mechitzah for the field which lies beyond it (which
makes it an area closed off for non-residence which
only permits a Beis Sasayim).