ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 23
SUKAH 21-25 - my brother Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored one month of
Dafyomi publications for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
(a) The author of our Mishnah (which validates a Sukah on top of a ship), is
Rebbi Akiva, who specifically says so in a Beraisa. Raban Gamliel
invalidates such a Sukah.
Raban Gamliel holds that a Sukah must comprise a permanent structure - Rebbi
Akiva maintains that this is not necessary.
(b) Rebbi Akiva once put up a Sukah on a ship - when a strong wind came and
blew it down, Raban Gamliel commented 'Akiva, where is your Sukah'?
1. ... Rebbi Akiva will agree that such a Sukah is invalid - if the Sukah is
so weak that it cannot even withstand a regular land wind.
(d) We establish their dispute - by a Sukah which can withstand a regular
land wind, but not a land-storm one.
2. ... And Raban Gamliel will agree that it is valid - if it is strong
enough to withstand a land-storm wind.
(a) The author of our Mishnah (which validates a Sukah that is built on a
camel's back - or one that is built on the backs of two animals), is Rebbi
Meir. Rebbi Yehudah declares it invalid - because the Torah writes "Chag
ha'Sukos Ta'aseh Lecha *Shiv'as Yamim*", from which we learn that a Sukah
must be fit to stand for seven days, and this Sukah is *not*, since Chazal
forbade entering it on Yom-Tov (It is unclear however, why it should not be
Pasul anyway, since Rebbi Yehudah requires a 'Diras Ke'va', and such a Sukah
can hardly fall under the category of Diras Ke'va - see Tosfos DH 'Al Gabei
(b) Rebbi Meir explains the Pasuk in the same way as Rebbi Yehudah: namely,
that a Sukah must be fit to last for seven days - only that would not
invalidate a Sukah on an animal's back, because *that* is only Asur
mi'de'Rabbanan; min ha'Torah, it *is* fit for seven days.
(c) When it comes to using a live animal as a wall of the Sukah, Rebbi Meir
is more stringent than Rebbi Yehudah . He also disqualifies an animal from
being used as a Lechi at the entrance of a Mavoy, for Pasei Bira'os and as a
Golel (a cover for a grave - i.e. if one did use the animal as a Golel, it
does not transmit Tum'ah, as a regular Golel does).
(d) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili adds to Rebbi Meir's list - that one cannot write
Gitin on it.
(a) Abaye gives Rebbi Meir's reason as 'a fear that the animal will die on
Yom-Tov' - in which case, it will fall down, leaving the Sukah without a
(b) Rebbi Zeira gives the reason as - the animal may run away.
(c) They agree that a trussed-up elephant is permitted - because it can
neither run away, nor will it leave a gap, even if it dies and falls down,
since it will still be more than ten Tefachim.
(d) We object to the initial contention that Abaye and Rebbi Zeira argue
over using an untied elephant (over whether or not, we are afraid that it
may walk away in the middle of Sukos) - because even Abaye will have to
admit that this might just happen, and will have to concede that it is
(a) So we conclude that in fact, they argue over using a trussed-up animal
(other than an elephant) - Abaye will forbid it because it may die; Rebbi
Zeira will permit it, because it cannot run away.
(b) Rebbi Zeira disagrees with Abaye - because it is unusual for the animal
to die (just at that time).
(c) In any event, the animal will only serve as a wall - if one fills in the
gaps between its legs with foliage etc.
(a) Nor are we afraid that the animal might crouch down (leaving a wall of
less than ten Tefachim) - because it speaks when he attaches it to the roof
of the Sukah by means of ropes, so that it is unable to crouch.
(b) Nevertheless, Abaye gives Rebbi Yehudah's reason as being that the
animal might die - because even though the animal is unable to crouch, it is
however, able to sag - minimally, sufficient to leave a three Tefachim gap
between itself and the S'chach, nullifying the 'Levud' that originally
caused it to be considered a wall (without anyone realizing it).
(a) The Mishnah in Gitin permits a Bas Yisrael to eat Terumah, even after
her husband has gone overseas - because he has a Chezkas Chai (he is
assumed to be alive until he is known to have died).
(b) Another Mishnah there forbids a woman to eat Terumah immediately, if her
husband gives her a Get telling her that it is to come into effect only one
hour before he dies - because, at any given moment, we are afraid that he
may die, and that now is that one hour beforehand to which he referred.
(c) Abaye initially reconciles the two Mishnahs - by establishing the first
Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, who is *not* afraid that a person may die at any
given moment (as we shall soon see); and the second Mishnah like Rebbi
Yehudah, who *is*.
(d) But did Abaye not just explain that Rebbi Meir *is* afraid that the
animal may die on Sukos?