ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 7
(a) Rebbi Simon (or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) agree with Rav - i.e. that the
third Tefach-wall should be placed at ninety degrees to one of the other two
(b) A regular Tefach comprises four Etzba'os which touch whilst measuring;
*this* Tefach-wall is measured - with fingers not touching, to create a
slightly larger Tefach than usual.
(c) The Tefach-wall is placed within three Tefachim of one of the existing
walls, giving us (by means of 'Levud') the majority of a full wall.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, the same Din of a third Tefach-wall will apply
if one has two existing *parallel* walls, and one places it in exactly the
same way as in the previous case - i.e. within three Tefachim of any of the
(b) According to Rebbi Simon (or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) - a third wall of
one Tefach will not suffice in this case; a board of *four* Tefachim is
required, which one then places within three Tefachim of any of the corners
(making a complete third wall - by means of 'Levud', and not just the
majority of it).
(c) According to Rebbi Simon, the Din by parallel walls is more stringent
than by adjacent ones - because, unlike by adjacent walls, one does not have
two Kosher walls that already form part of a constructed Sukah, only two
(a) Rava requires a Tzuras ha'Pesach - two side-posts with a cross-bar on
(b) According to the first interpretation, the Tzuras ha'Pesach replaces the
Tefach post of which we spoke earlier - stretching across the entire length
of the third wall. This entails placing one half-Tefach post adjacent to the
corner, and another similar post at the far end of that side (with nothing
in the middle), with a cane running across the top from one post to the
(c) The second interpretation of Rava's opinion - is that the Tzuras
ha'Pesach does not replace the Tefach-post, but is an alternative method of
building the third wall; and the third interpretation is that both are
needed, the Tefach post, and a Tzuras ha'Pesach - from it to a post that is
placed at the far end.
(d) Rav Ashi holds like Rava's *second* explanation - Rav Kahana holds like
the *third*, and that is the Halachah.
(a) Rabah says that the validity of the third Tefach-wall applies to
Shabbos, too - with regard to a Sukah that adjoins one's house. because,
'Migu' (since) the wall is Kasher with regard to Sukah, it is also Kasher
with regard to Shabbos, and is therefore considered a Reshus ha'Yachid,
permitting carrying from the Sukah to the house.
(b) The 'Migu' only applies to the Shabbos during Sukos, but not to rest of
(a) The Beraisa says that the wall of ...
1. ... a Sukah has the same leniencies as that of Shabbos - with regard to a
wall that is made of vertical or horizontal posts (which do not have a space
of three Tefachim between one post and the next - and which is Kasher
despite the fact that the spaces exceed the actual wall).
(b) If, as we initially contend, the above refers even to Shabbos during
Sukos - this will prove that we do not hold of 'Migu' in this regard, a
Kashya on what Rabah just taught.
2. ... a Sukah has leniencies that a wall of Shabbos does not - inasmuch as
a Sukah is permitted even if it has large spaces (e.g. doorways - not to
speak of our case, where the best part of two whole walls are missing) that
are larger than the built-up wall, whereas on Shabbos, such a wall is
(c) If, as we explain, the Beraisa is talking about Shabbos throughout the
year (but not on Sukos) - then the Beraisa should have added that Sukah,
too, has a Chumra over Shabbos, inasmuch as the third wall of a Sukah (that
has two parallel walls) must be at least one Tefach wide, as we learned
above (according to Rav Yehudah); whereas on Shabbos, this is not necessary,
because, since a Lechi (a post of any width) is sufficient to turn a Mavoy
into a Reshus ha'Yachid (mi'd'Oraysa), it will also be Machshir a Sukah.
(d) It would not be necessary to tell us this, answers the Gemara - because
having already informed us that we apply 'Migu' from Sukah to Shabbos (which
is more stringent), then is it not obvious that we will also 'Migu' from
Shabbos to Sukah (which is more lenient)?
(a) Rava finds it necessary to permit a Sukah whose walls consist of ...
1. ... Pasei Bira'os - which we could not have learnt from a Mavoy and the
Lechi at the entrance, since they have two *proper* walls, which Pasei
Bira'os do *not*.
(b) He also needs to permit a Sukah of two walls and a Tefach even on
Shabbos because of Migu, which we would not know from the reverse case (i.e.
of walls that are valid on Sukos because they are valid on Shabbos [as in 5a
1]) - because although we say 'Migu' from Shabbos to Sukah (from the more
strict to the more lenient) it does not follow that we also say it from
Sukah which is more lenient) to Shabbos (which is more strict).
2. ... a Mavoy and the Lechi at the entrance - which we could not have
learnt from Pasei Bira'os - which at least has *four* walls (even if they
*are* incomplete), which a Mavoy and the Lechi at the entrance do *not*.
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, it is only the sunlight that
shines through the *S'chach* that can invalidate the Sukah, but not that
shines through the *walls* - whereas according to Rebbi Yoshi'ah, even
sunlight that shines through the walls will invalidate the Sukah, if,
combined with the sunlight that shines in from the S'chach, it lets in more
than the combined shade.
(b) He learns this from the Pasuk "ve'Sakosa al ha'Aron es ha'Paroches"-
which uses the word "ve'Sakosa" (from the Lashon 'S'chach') even though it
is dealing with the Paroches, which is a Mechitzah (a wall). From which we
see that the principles of S'chach apply to the walls, too.
(c) The Rabbanan, who do not consider a wall as S'chach, learn from this
Pasuk - that the top of the Paroches should be folded over slightly to form
a short roof, so that it resembles S'chach.
(d) We have already learned that Rebbi requires a Sukah to be at least four
by four Amos, and that Rebbi Yehudah validates a Sukah that is higher than
twenty Amos. They (as well as Rebbi Shimon, who requires at least three full
walls, and a third wall of one Tefach), agree with Rebbi Yoshi'ah - that a
Sukah must be a permanent dwelling (though each one applies this concept
(a) Raban Gamliel, Beis Shamai, Rebbi Eliezer and Acheirim also subscribe to
the same opinion. Beis Shamai invalidate a Sukah, if one's table is in the
house. According to Raban Gamliel, a Sukah on top of a wagon or a ship is
Pasul (the former - because the height at which it is built renders it
incapable of withstanding a strong wind, the latter because it sways to and
fro, conveying the impression that it is only temporary.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer says in a Beraisa that a Sukah in the shape of a wigwam is
(c) He also invalidates a Sukah that consists of canes leaning against a
wall - both are Pasul because the roof is indistinguishable from the walls.
(d) The Chachamim validate it.
(a) Acheirim invalidate a round Sukah - because it does not have corners.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan does not rule like Acheirim. According to him, a round
Sukah is Kasher, provided twenty-four people can sit round it - because he
requires a minimum size of four by four Amos, like the opinion of Rebbi.