ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 56
SUKA 36-56 (End of Maseches) have been dedicated by the wife and daughters
of the late Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of
Queens N.Y. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he will
long be remembered.
(a) According to ...
1. ... Rav, Sukah precedes 'Z'man', - because the obligation of the day
(b) According to ...
2. ... Rabah bar bar Chanah, 'Z'man' precedes Sukah - because it is more
common than Sukah (seeing as it is applicable on all the Yamim-Tovim).
1. ... Beis Shamai, Kidush precedes 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' - because it is
the day that causes the wine to be brought; in addition, the day enters
before the wine.
(c) We initially contend that Rav holds like Beis Shamai, and Rabah bar bar
Chanah, like Beis Hillel - because Rav gives precedence to the Berachah over
the day to that of wine even though it is more common (similar to Beis
Shamai), whereas Rabah bar bar Chanah gives precedence to the wine, because
it is more common (like Beis Hillel).
2. ... Beis Hillel, 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' precedes Kidush - because it is
the wine that causes Kidush to be recited, and besides, wine is more common
(d) It is possible for ...
1. ... Rav to hold like Beis Hillel - because, in his opinion, Beis Hillel's
*main* reason is because it is the wine that causes Kidush to be recited
(not because it is more common).
2. ... Rabah bar bar Chanah to hold like Beis Shamai - because in his
opinion, Beis Shamai's main reason is the fact that the day causes the wine
to be brought (whereas by Sukah, one would recite Z'man over the day, even
in the market-place, if he had no Sukah).
(a) This leaves us with a Kashya on Rav from our Mishnah, where, by the
distribution of the loaves, they would say to the Kohanim 'Heilech Matzah,
Heilech Chametz' - giving Matzah precedence over Chametz, despite the fact
that Chametz is the main obligation of the day, because it is more common?
The Tana of our Mishnah states that the group whose turn it was to serve in
the Beis Hamikdash brought 'Temidim, Nedarim and Nedavos, and the other
Korbenos Tzibur, and they brought everything'.
(b) Rav answers that this is a Machlokes Tana'im - that the Tana of our
Mishnah follows the opinion of the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, but *he* rules
like Aba Shaul in that Beraisa, according to whom they would say to the
Kohen 'Heilech Chametz, Heilech Matzah'!
1. 'The other Korbenos Tzibur' - comes to include the 'Par He'elam Davar
shel Tzibur' and the goats of Avodah-Zarah.
2. 'And they brought everything' - the Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olos Nedavah
that they would bring on the Mizbe'ach, particularly during the long summer
days, when no other Korbanos were being brought on the Mizbe'ach).
(a) When the first day of Yom-Tov fell immediately after Shabbos, (on
Sunday), or when Shabbos fell immediately after the eighth day, all the
Kohanim would receive an equal portion of Lechem ha'Panim - because in the
former case they had no choice but to arrive before Shabbos, in order to be
there for Yom-Tov; and in the latter case, because they had no choice but to
remain behind until Sunday (as a sort of compensation for their trouble).
(b) When the first day of Yom-Tov fell on Monday (in which case, they could
have arrived on Sunday) yet some Kohanim arrived before Shabbos, or when the
eighth day fell on Thursday (and they could have left on Friday), but some
Kohanim remained over Shabbos - the Kohanim who arrived early or left late,
received *two* Challes.
(c) On a regular Shabbos ...
1. ... according to the Tana Kama - the incoming group received six Challes
and so did the outgoing one.
2. ... according to Rebbi Yehudah - the incoming group received seven
Challes and the outgoing one, five.
(a) The fact that the incoming group distributed their Challes in the
*north*, whereas the outgoing group distributed their's in the *south* -
indicated that the incoming group was more important.
'Yom-Tov ha'Samuch le'Shabbos *Bein mi'Lefaneha, Bein mi'Le'achareha*'
cannot be understand literally - because then the Tana would be talking
about Shabbos that falls in the middle of Yom-Tov, when all the groups would
divide the Lechem ha'Panim equally, as we learned in the previous Mishnah.
(b) The North of the Azarah was more important than the south - because that
is where they Shechted Kodshei Kodshei.
(c) Bilgah always distributed their portion of Lechem ha'Panim in the south
- in addition, their ring was permanently fixed to the ground, so that it
could not be turned to encircle the head of the animal during Shechitah, to
keep it still. (Consequently, they had to use the ring belonging to one of
the other groups). Also, their window (the opening in the wall of one of the
rooms on the north of the Heichal, where they would place their Shechitah-
knives) was permanently blocked (again, they were forced to use somebody
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the incoming group of Kohanim received two
extra loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim - for closing the gates (when really it
is the outgoing group, who opened them in the morning, who should have
(b) The outgoing group of Kohanim cannot point out to the incoming group
that it is will be to their advantage to divide the Lechem ha'Panim equally,
so that, on the following week (when *they* will be the *outgoing* group),
they will be able to receive *six* loaves instead of only *five* - because
'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.
(c) According to Rav Yehudah's contention, the *Musaf* was distributed
equally among the two groups of Kohanim serving in the Beis Hamikdash that
Shabbos (just like the Lechem ha'Panim).
(a) On a regular Shabbos ...
1. ... the Tamid shel Shachar and the Musaf? - was brought by the outgoing
group of Kohanim.
(b) Even if the Musaf was divided among the two groups of Kohanim (like Rav
Yehudah contends), this Tana does not say so - because he is not concerned
at all with the distribution.
2. ... the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim - by the incoming group.
(c) Even if it was the outgoing group who brought the Musaf, the incoming
group was able to partake of it - because they also participated in the
Avodah, by constantly turning over the flesh with large forks, as it burned
on the Mizbe'ach.
(d) The Gemara does not ask from our Mishnah (like it asked from the
Beraisa), which *does* mention the division of the Lechem ha'Panim, but
*not* of the Musaf - because we could answer that the Tana mentions the
division of the Lechem ha'Panim on Shabbos there, at the same time as it
mentions their division on Yom-Tov.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa de'Bei Shmuel repeats the Halachos that we just
learned, adding that four Kohanim would arrange the Lechem ha'Panim, two
from each of the two groups.
(b) The two bowls of frankincense were emptied on to the Mizbe'ach, at which
point the Kohanim were permitted to eat the Lechem ha'Panim.
(c) The Beraisa ends with the words 've'Cholkin be'Lechem ha'Panim'- from
which we see that this Tana *is* concerned with the distribution - yet he
does not say anything about the *Musaf* being distributed equally among the
two groups. So we have to conclude that it is only the members of the
*outgoing* group (who actually brought the Musaf, as we learned earlier) who
received a portion, and not those of the incomimg one (as Rav Yehudah
(a) Chazal penalized the entire group of Bilgah, because of what Miriam bas
1. *Before* the Greeks entered the Heichal - she converted out of the faith
and married a Greek officer.
(b) Alternatively, Chazal penalized Bilgah - because the entire group once
arrived late for the Avodah.
2. *After* the Greeks entered the Heichal - she kicked the Mizbe'ach and
said: 'Wolf, wolf (because a wolf tends to tear up its prey, and because the
Zohar refers to the Mizbe'ach as a wolf), how long will you continue to
devour the money of Yisrael and not help them when they are oppressed'?
(c) Yesheivav was the group that preceded them - they continued to serve
until Bilgah arrived.
(d) It was unusual that, after they penalized Bilgah, Yesheivav was given
the right to distribute the Lechem ha'Pamin on the north side of the Azarah
- because, due to the principle 'Woe to a Rasha, woe to his neighbor', the
neighbor of a Rasha does not normally benefit when the Rasha suffers.
(a) Even though it was Miriam bas Bilgah who sinned, Chazal nevertheless
***** Hadran Alach, ha'Chalil, u'Selika Lah Maseches Sukah *****
1. ... *her father* - because a child who talks the way *she* did, must have
heard derogatory statements concerning the Avodah coming from the mouth of
(b) We learn this principle from a house that has the signs of Tzara'as. The
bricks concerned must be removed, even when the next-door neighbor shares
the same wall; he too, is forced to suffer because he is the neighbor of a
2. ... all the members of that group - because of the principle that we just
quoted 'Woe to the Rasha, woe to his neighbor'!
(c) And if a person must suffer because of his neighbor's *evil* deeds, then
how much more so will he share in the reward of his *good* ones, because we
have a principle that the reward for good deeds outweighs by far the
punishment for bad ones.
On To Beitzah