The Masechet Sukkah has been dedicated by Celia and Isaac Jemal, may God grant them life, amen, for the success of their dear children. May they see much joy from all of them, may they all grow up and get married at the right time and have children, healthily, happily, with blessing and success, and may they see descendants and descendants of their descendants until the coming of the righteous redeemer, amen. The tractate has also been dedicated for the elevation of the soul of Sarah bat Adele, may the spirit of God grant her rest in Gan Eden, amen, again by Celia and Isaac Jemal, may you merit to perform mitzvot. Today's page has been generously sponsored by Mr. Harry Adjmi in honor of the premier caterer, our dear friend Mr. Uri Nidham. We want to congratulate Uri on the birth of a baby girl, may he see much joy from all his children, may she be given into the embrace of those who fear God, amen. Page eighteen. Today's page is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may the spirit of God grant him rest in Gan Eden, amen. We begin today's page on seventeen amud bet, three lines from the bottom. The Gemara begins: Come and hear: If one covered a sukkah with cedar planks that are four handbreadths wide, everyone agrees it is invalid. This was, if you remember, one of the ways of understanding the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. The Mishnah stated, "If one covered it with planks." One way of understanding the dispute was that if the planks are above four handbreadths, everyone agrees it is invalid, and the dispute concerned planks less than four handbreadths. That was the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. This understanding aligns with Shmuel's interpretation of the dispute. So again, come and hear: If one covered a sukkah with cedar planks that are four handbreadths wide, everyone agrees it is invalid. If they are not four handbreadths wide (meaning less than four, specifically between three and four handbreadths, as the Gemara learned above), Rabbi Meir invalidates it, and Rabbi Yehuda validates it. But Rabbi Meir agrees that if there is a space between one plank and another that is the width of a plank, and one places valid covering material in between them, the sukkah is valid. Valid covering material is the refuse of the threshing floor and the winepress. So, as long as you have a plank, then valid covering material, then a plank, then valid covering material, going across the covering material, it sounds like. So the Gemara asks: It is understandable according to the one who says that both in the middle and at the side, the measure for invalidation is four cubits. According to that opinion, there is no problem; therefore, it is valid. This means that when you have a plank of four handbreadths, and then valid covering material, and then a plank, and so on, as long as you don't have four cubits of invalid material in a row, it is acceptable. That is why Rabbi Meir says it is not a problem. But according to the one who says that in the middle, four handbreadths invalidate, why is it valid? According to the opinion that in the middle of a sukkah, four handbreadths of invalid material invalidate, and we know that everyone in this version prohibits a plank of four handbreadths, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, how can you have a plank, then covering material, then a plank, then covering material? Once you have a plank of four handbreadths, it is over, it is invalid. How can the adjacent covering material make it valid? It will not make it valid. So the question is really on the statement, "But Rabbi Meir agrees that if there is a space between one plank and another that is the width of a plank, and one places valid covering material in between them, the sukkah is valid." How can that be? You have a plank that is already four handbreadths wide.
Rav Huna says, and the son of Rav Yehoshua, here we are dealing with a sukkah that is exactly eight cubits by eight cubits. Eight cubits means 48 handbreadths, as each cubit is six handbreadths. So it is a sukkah 48 handbreadths. What do you gain by this? That one places from one side, starting from one wall, a plank and then valid covering material. Now, each plank, we will say, is four handbreadths. So, plank, valid covering material, plank, valid covering material, plank, valid covering material. Therefore, you have 24 handbreadths on one side, ending with valid covering material at the center from this direction. And plank, valid covering material, plank, valid covering material, plank, valid covering material from the other direction. Now, on the other side, you also have 24 handbreadths, starting with a plank and then valid covering material, ending with valid covering material. So your two sections of valid covering material meet in the center. You will end up having your two sections of valid covering material in the middle. If you look at a picture of that quickly, page 111 in the HaMaor HaMevoar, where you see starting off with a plank and then covering material, plank, covering material, plank, then covering material, and from the other side as well. Altogether, you reach a total of 48 handbreadths, and there is a valid sukkah in the middle. What do you gain by this? You end up having a valid sukkah of eight handbreadths in the center. Now, which is fine. Ah, but what do you mean? We have a problem here because you have four handbreadths of plank. Ah, once you already have these four handbreadths here, you can employ the principle of a bent wall because these four handbreadths are within four cubits of the wall. How much is four cubits? Four cubits is 24 handbreadths. So here it is only 20 handbreadths, right? From the plank closest to the middle to the wall, you have 20 handbreadths. 20 handbreadths is less than four cubits, and therefore you can say it is a bent wall, and therefore this turns into a wall, and the other side as well turns into a wall. So you have your walls next to your covering material in the middle. Therefore, you have a valid sukkah. So therefore, the case of putting a plank and then putting covering material in the middle is not a regular case of plank-covering material, plank-covering material. No, it is a specific measurement of the sukkah, because you have to give the case of a sukkah of eight cubits because you need to get eight handbreadths of covering material in the middle. You need to get the minimum amount of covering material there. Okay, that is how Rashi explains it as well. Let us read Rashi's words here. "That it is only eight precise cubits, no less and no more." Well, Rashi tells us that it is not less and it is not more, which means the Gemara is choosing a specific case of eight cubits. It actually could be, it cannot be more because then you will already lose your bent wall. But there is a case it can be less, but technically if it was, like we will see in a second, if let us say it was three handbreadths each, right? So if you would go three handbreadths each, so you would also have your bent wall, right? Because according to Rabbi Meir, and we will see it in Rashi, Rabbi Meir holds you need seven in the middle, right? So that is why you have to pick the case of fours because it will give you the eight in the middle. But we will see, we will see Rashi's case, this question soon. "No less and no more than forty-eight handbreadths, and for example, one started it from both sides." You start from both sides. "That one puts a plank first, and then valid covering material and a plank and valid covering material and a plank and valid covering material from this side, behold, it is 24 handbreadths." That is 24 handbreadths on one side. "Behold, covering material until its middle." He went to the middle. "And one returns and starts from the second side, and does likewise, and there will be two valid covering materials in the middle, where there is a valid sukkah, and behold, they are eight handbreadths." Therefore, it is valid by means of those two valid covering materials, and one may not sleep under the planks. Okay, obviously you cannot sleep under the planks because we said a bent wall, only the middle. Once you say a bent wall, it becomes a wall. Now you cannot sleep under the wall. "And the sukkah is not invalidated by them," why? "Because we say it is a bent wall until the middle valid covering materials, and it is less than four cubits." Now the implication in Rashi is that you cannot sleep under the planks, but it implies that under the valid covering materials of the bent wall you can sleep. Which is a very big novel concept, and it is a bigger novel concept because it is really not the required measure. It is not the required measure; it is only four handbreadths of valid covering material there. So your body cannot fit in such a small measure. You just need to fit one's head and most of one's body and one's table, etcetera, in that little measure. So they question that precise inference in Rashi. What does he say? You cannot sleep under the planks. Ostensibly, you should say you cannot sleep under the whole area, right? It implies that under the valid covering materials you can. In any event, what he means... what does he mean? Just to clarify precisely because his language was "out of the wall," because it is part of a wall. So he should have said from the whole bent wall you should sleep, but he just said under the planks. So that is the precise inference they are making. In any event, he asks: "If you say, with planks and valid covering materials that are less than four handbreadths." Let us say you had planks and valid covering materials, same situation, less than four, three. Okay? Now, Rabbi Meir also says three is invalid, right? Between three and four, according to this version, it is invalid. "It will not be valid with two in the middle." You are not going to have a valid sukkah. Why? "Because sometimes there will not be a valid sukkah," because possibly you are not going to have a valid sukkah in the middle. Let us say three, right? So you are going to end up in the middle with six. And then six is not a valid sukkah. "And according to Rabbi Meir who says that even if there are not four handbreadths, they are covered by them, how is it valid when there is between one plank and another the width of a plank, behold, the whole thing is valid?" So he says a big novel concept here. He says according to Rabbi Meir, if the planks were, let us say, three and a half. Okay? Now, in the middle you will have your seven, so let us say you will have your measure. So he says according to Rabbi Meir, it will be valid. And how will it be valid? "And even though there are planks that do not have four handbreadths in one place." Which means he is saying a big novel concept over Rashi according to Rabbi Meir, that when you have less than three, right? Going across, even if you do not have a seven in the middle. Once you have less than three, or less than four, I should say, the whole sukkah is valid. Why? What is the logic? "And where does Rabbi Meir invalidate? Where there are two together, for he holds that two planks combine to four." Which means when did Rabbi Meir say that covering material is invalid if it is less than four? If it combines with each other. Which means if you have covering material of two and you have covering material of two, the two will combine with the two to make four. That is when he meant less than four is invalid. But if you have, let us say, covering material of three, next to valid covering material, and then covering material of three, next to valid covering material, it is not combining because they are not next to each other. Which is the only time Rabbi Meir says, it is a big novel concept, the only time less than four is invalid in the middle is when it combines to four. Wow. Which is a new way of understanding. Which means we always understood: what do you mean? He holds also less than... three... four is also forbidden. And he is saying no. Less than four that is forbidden is because it combines to four. And therefore, technically according to Rabbi Meir, if you have, let us say, covering material of three, three planks, three covering material, three planks, three covering material, it is according to no problem, the whole covering material is valid. You are not going to have a problem! Why? Because the whole covering material is valid. What do you mean? You have a plank of three, Rabbi Meir says it is no good? It is only no good because it can combine to four. But here if it is not combining to four, why? Because you have covering material in between. Plank, covering material, it is not combining with each other. So it can be either one of two cases. It can be a case here, like where we have this picture here which is all fours, then you have to come up with this configuration, you know, with the leave the middle open up and keep it fine, even according to Rabbi Yehuda because he holds four is invalid. But the novel concept is that even according to Rabbi Meir, if it was less than four, Rashi is telling you it would also be okay. Yeah. Everything would be okay. You can even sleep under the planks because the planks are really valid. Okay, and that is why Rabbi Meir said that less than four is invalid means less than four that is combining to another plank in order to get to the measure of four. Okay, that is the subject of Rabbi Meir.
The Gemara continues. Abaye says, now we go to the air. Airspace of three handbreadths in a large sukkah. Okay? You have airspace, three handbreadths, in a large sukkah, in a regular big sukkah, more than seven by seven. And then you minimized it. So how did you minimize it? By reeds, you put in reeds, right, to minimize the airspace. Or you minimized it by spits, or you put spits. If you look in your picture books at number 112, right, you see what they did here. They put, you have airspace of three handbreadths right in the middle of the sukkah. Now airspace, what it does is it splits up your sukkah. Yeah. Now once you split it down the center, you do not have three walls anymore. Okay? We are talking about a sukkah here, you have three walls to start off with, right? So once you split up the center going right down the middle, you end up with two walls. So therefore, I want to close it up. So the Gemara says close it up however you want. Close it up with invalid covering material, put iron spits, whatever it is metal spits, or put regular valid covering material. The point is bottom line, you do not have your airspace of... three anymore. So the Gemara says: And if one minimized it with reeds or with spits, it is a minimization. Good. In a small sukkah, the Rabbis. And a small sukkah, you need a measure. Right? It is not enough just to get rid of the airspace. You need to have a measure of seven by seven handbreadths of covering material somehow. So the Gemara says: With reeds, it is a minimization. If you add reeds. Now, what did you gain by adding reeds? Reeds are valid covering material. So now you have let us say, instead of having three you have 2.9. Once you have 2.9 you have the principle of joining. So halachically, the joining pushes the covering material to the wall and therefore you have halachically a measure of seven by seven. With spits, it is not a minimization. However, but you cannot put spits. You cannot put invalid covering material because bottom line you do not have the, you are not going to have the measure because spits... because if you put valid covering material, okay, very good, the valid covering material goes to the wall, you have your joining. But you are going to put your invalid covering material, it does not work. Look at the pictures in 113. You have the, you have the case of a small sukkah. Alright? They are telling you that minimizing with spits is not going to be, is not going to be good. Okay, the picture speaks for itself. In any event the Gemara says, look at Rashi. "And with spits, it is not a minimization." Rashi: "And even though neither from this side nor from that side is there a measure to invalidate." Even though you say what do you mean? Why should it not be valid? Bottom line, I do not have a measure of air anymore. I do not have a measure of invalid covering material. Because invalid covering material is let us say four handbreadths. I have, I only have one handbreadth of invalid covering material. Why should it be invalid? So Rashi says: "However, since there are three handbreadths together." Bottom line you have three handbreadths of non-covering material. Air plus invalid covering material. "That comes out of a valid sukkah." "They are considered as separate entities," which is considered a separate entity on its own. "And they do not combine with each other to fill its measure, for there is no measure of a sukkah." Which means bottom line you need a valid sukkah seven by seven. So here, what is going to help me? You have two airspace, airspace is no good, and one invalid covering material. It is also no good. So therefore, since you are out of your covering material, the valid sukkah measure, it is not going to be good. "These words apply to the side." Oh, when are we talking about all this subject here? That is talking about the side because then you can start playing with joining. Now you can start making joining, you can connect it to the wall. "But in the middle." Which means when do we say three handbreadths of airspace invalidates a sukkah? That is only talking about the side. Okay? "But in the middle." But if you have three handbreadths of airspace in the middle of a sukkah. Fantastic dispute. Rav Acha and Ravina dispute about it. We have a dispute of Rav Acha and Ravina. One says there is joining in the middle and one says there is no joining in the middle. New item. Do you say joining in the middle of a covering material or not? Which means, when do we say joining? For sure regarding the sides. Which means you have let us say your wall to the, to the, this airspace and then your covering material starts. Okay? So if you have three to the wall you extend them, make it to the end and therefore you are okay. Nobody argues on that. The magic number is less than three handbreadths is valid, more than three there is no joining, therefore your sukkah is going to be invalid. The question is here if you have your covering material, your airspace in the center. Dispute between whom? Rav Acha and Ravina. Now we do not know who said what but the assumption is that Ravina usually is the lenient one. Whenever you have a dispute with Ravina involved and you do not know who said what, the Gemara Pesachim said Ravina is the lenient one except for three cases. So in this case he is also the lenient one. So again one says there is joining in the middle and one says there is no joining in the middle. Look at Rashi. "In the middle." Airspace less than three handbreadths that is not adjacent to a wall. Right? Which means in the middle if you have airspace that is less than three, then you will say joining and therefore it will close your covering material or you do not say joining and therefore it will not close your covering material. Okay? That is actually picture number 114. Okay? You see the less than three handbreadths right in the middle of the sukkah. Exactly. It is kind of like... Correct.
The Gemara says: What is the reason of the one who says there is joining in the middle? What is the logic of the opinion that says, what is the source actually of the opinion that says you say joining in the middle of a covering material? Now again, the only discussion is by the covering material. By walls we know we say joining. Remember we learned earlier you can make a wall with planks let us say going across horizontally? So those within three of each other, so therefore you say joining. The discussion here is not by the walls, the discussion is by covering material in the middle of a sukkah do you say joining or not? So the Gemara says here, I will bring your proof: For it was taught in a Baraisa in Eruvin. A beam that extends from one wall and does not reach the other wall. Discussing a case here of an alleyway. Okay. Now regarding an alleyway, we know what is an alleyway, an alleyway is an alley, and on both sides of it you have courtyards. Now the people of the courtyard cannot carry from their courtyard into the alley unless you make an adjustment at the end of the alleyway, right? You have to either make a side-post, or put a crossbeam or a pole, a vertical pole, or a beam, where you put a horizontal across in order that the people will know that there is a sign so they will not walk into the public domain. So now we are talking about here where the guy, you put your crossbeams, however they did not reach each other. You put let us say one coming from one side of it. Do you have a picture in your Peirush Chai? Oh, okay. Yeah. If you look in your Peirush Chai, you see picture number 274 and 275. The first one is a beam that extends from one wall and does not reach the other wall. You have one pole, it is one side, it goes all the way across but does not reach the second side. Therefore it is let us say, you know, you have an airspace in the middle. Or you have another case. Two beams. You have two beams that are coming out of both sides but they do not meet. Now that is an airspace in the middle. Okay? So now we have to see is it a good beam or was it not a good beam? So yeah let us read it. A beam that extends from one wall. First case is a beam that extends from one wall and does not reach the other wall. It does not reach the second beam, right? And similarly, two beams, one extending from one wall and one extending from the other wall. Right? Both, you have two beams that are coming out of both sides and they do not touch each other. So what does the Gemara say? If it is less than three handbreadths, one does not need to bring another beam. Wow! Less than three, it is valid. What is the reasoning? Joining. So you see why you do say joining in the middle. If it is three handbreadths, one needs to bring another beam. But if it is more than three then you have to bring another beam to close it up because you are not going to say joining. Oh, so that is the opinion of Ravina. Ravina's source for joining in the middle is the case of a beam by Eruvin. Exactly. Tada! The Gemara says: And the other one? Oh, what will the other rabbi say? What will Rav Acha say to this? The case of a beam is different, for it is a rabbinical enactment. The case of a beam is different, but wait, this adjustment for an alleyway is rabbinical. From the Torah, you can carry in the alleyway because it has three walls. We are talking about an alleyway that is not open at both ends. Right? It has the back wall and the two side walls. Only you need to make this adjustment rabbinically, a decree that you might forget that it is a public domain. For a rabbinical adjustment we will say joining in the middle, but a sukkah is a Torah commandment. Therefore we are not going to say joining by the sukkah. Look at Rashi: "The case of a beam is different, for all the prohibition of carrying in an alleyway and the laws of eruv are rabbinical, for from the Torah it does not require a rectification. Therefore, they were lenient in this case, for they prohibited and they permitted." They are the ones that prohibited and they are the ones that permitted. Which means it is all their, it is their call. "But a sukkah is a Torah commandment, and if we do not have a tradition of joining in the middle as a law given to Moses at Sinai, we cannot validate it." Which means when it comes to a sukkah, a sukkah is a Torah commandment. If we do not have a tradition from a law given to Moses at Sinai, we cannot be lenient. Which means according to these rabbis the tradition of a law given to Moses at Sinai was joining at the side, not in the middle. Okay, so you want, you want to be lenient in a sukkah that is a Torah commandment, you need a law given to Moses at Sinai to come and tell you explicitly that it is okay. By Eruvin, you do not need a law given to Moses at Sinai because the whole laws are rabbinical. Yeah. So they said that you need an eruv and they were the ones to be lenient also and tell you that you can use joining in the middle. But by a sukkah, you have to have an explicit law given to Moses at Sinai by a Torah commandment to be lenient. Yeah.
Now the Gemara says: What is the reason of the one who says there is no joining in the middle? Now what is the logic of the opinion that says no joining in the middle? So what is the opinion according to Rav Acha? Why do you not say joining in the middle? So the Gemara is going to bring a proof from a Mishnah. For we learned in the Mishnah in Ohalot. A skylight in a house. Okay, you have a skylight in the house, meaning a breach in the ceiling. Okay? And it has an opening of a handbreadth, and it is a handbreadth, a handbreadth by a handbreadth. Okay? It is a square, square handbreadth. Right. Impurity in the house and there happens to be impurity in the house. God forbid, an olive-sized piece of a corpse is in the house under the roof. So it says: The whole house is impure. So the whole house... so therefore if the corpse is under the roof, so now it is covering. So therefore everything in the house is going to become impure like the regular law of a tent. Whatever is opposite the skylight is pure. But whatever is directly under the skylight, for example you have vessels, let us say you have a cup, let us say... Right under the skylight, that is going to be pure because there it is not under the roof anymore. It is under the skylight, under that handbreadth by a handbreadth, which is only the stuff that is under the roof proper is going to become impure. But the items that are under the skylight itself cannot become impure because it is not under the roof. It is open on top of it. Right? Now impurity opposite the skylight, now if the impurity is opposite the skylight then nothing in the house is going to be impure, the whole house is pure. Very good. Why? Because it goes out of the of the roof. Good. Now if there is no opening of a handbreadth in the skylight, let us say the skylight does not have a handbreadth, it is less than a handbreadth. The Mishnah is going to say the exact same law, which is really in this law there is no difference between a handbreadth and less than a handbreadth. The only reason why the Mishnah here brings a difference between a handbreadth and not a handbreadth is for other laws. But for this law it is actually the same exact law and the Mishnah continues. Impurity in the house, if you have impurity in the house opposite the skylight, next to the skylight even if it is less than a handbreadth, it is pure. Impurity in the house, I am sorry, if you have impurity in the house, you have impurity in the house opposite the skylight, whatever is opposite like a cup let us say, or a vessel is under the skylight, that cup is going to be pure because bottom line it is not under the roof. Impurity opposite the skylight, but if the impurity is opposite the skylight, the whole house is pure. So bottom line what are you learning here? We are learning here a case that there is no, that there is no joining in the middle. Why? Because if you said joining in the middle even if the impurity was underneath the skylight, bottom line it is less than three handbreadths, it is a small skylight. So therefore close it up. Close it up with joining. Once you close it up then everything in the house should be impure. From the fact that it says that once the impurity is under the skylight everything in the house is pure, that means you are not saying joining. Because if you would say joining in the middle, a handbreadth, less than a handbreadth, the point is it is less than three handbreadths, close it up with joining. But you do not close it up. Why? Because it is impurity in the middle. So therefore the Gemara wants to prove here that what? You do not say joining in the middle. And to this the Pnei Yehoshua asks you a question because the Mishnah here does not make a difference between if it is in the middle or on the side. So the Pnei Yehoshua asks you a question, "What do you mean bring a proof here that you do not even say joining at the side?" Okay, so he has a whole approach, but for sure we are talking about the middle as well. So the Gemara says: And the other one? So how is Rabbi Yochanan going to answer this question? So the Gemara says: The laws of impurity are different, for we have received them as such. Leave the laws of impurity, for we have a tradition, a law given to Moses at Sinai by impurity that there is no joining in the middle. Finish. Now you want to apply a law given to Moses at Sinai from impurity to a sukkah? Cannot do that. Which means you cannot just say, "Oh, if we have a law given to Moses at Sinai here so I will apply it to somewhere else." No. A law given to Moses at Sinai is said where it is said and it is not said where it is not said. And therefore look at Rashi, first wide line, "We have received them as such from Sinai, that there is no joining in the middle, and we do not derive anything else from a law, but only that which was said about it." It is finish. That which was said by it, it is said by it, not not.
The Gemara continues. Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai expounded: A house that was breached. Yeah, we had this case yesterday in the Mishnah. You have a house. So the roof was breached. So you have a hole in the roof then you put covering material on top, and covered it, it is valid. Now that is a strange thing only because it depends. Which means do you have four cubits to the walls or do you have less than four cubits? If you have less than four cubits then you do a bent wall and you are okay. More than four cubits it is invalid. So Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai just made a blanket statement: hole in the middle of the roof, put your covering material up there, it is valid. Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yose said before him, "Rabbi, explain." Rabbi, explain your words, which means you have to, you have to give more details to the law, it is very misleading. "Thus my father explained:" Four cubits invalidate, less than four cubits validate. You have to add that factor. Again, you just want to see the case again? No problem. Go back to picture number "A house that was breached," okay 97 from the Maor, right? So you have a house. Right in the center of its roof you have a hole there, you put valid covering material. Okay. So you want to know can I sit under this valid covering material? Well it depends. Where are my walls? Well the walls I am using are the walls of the house. Now it depends. The planks next to the covering material are invalid. Why are they invalid? Because they were not put up for the sake of shade. They were put up for the sake of a house. So therefore this is invalid covering material next to it. So if I am within four cubits using a bent wall I can connect it to make it all wall and therefore my covering material has walls that are next to it and therefore it is valid. More than four cubits it is going to be invalid. So Rabbi Yishmael just said, you know what, "A house that was breached and covered it, it is valid." Rabbi Yishmael says eh, wait a minute, valid? Specify. Depends. If it is four cubits invalid, less than four cubits valid. Does a bent wall work on all four sides? Yes. Yes. Yes. Have to say. Have to say. Otherwise you are missing two walls. In this case all three walls are bent walls. Yeah. I think so. Yeah, all four walls. Correct. Correct. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Ilai said. Okay now the Gemara gives another exposition from Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai. Abruma. Very nice. It is permitted. Abruma, Rashi says second line, "a type of small fish," it is a small fish, "and no creeping things are discernible among them." When they catch these small fish, sometimes in the bucket let us say, with them are small little creeping things, things that are not kosher, things that are impure. Now since everything is so small it is really hard to discern between the Abruma and the creeping things. So the Rabbi said Abruma is permitted. You go fishing for Abruma, do not worry about it, even whatever is in the bucket there you can eat it, it is not a problem. Now even though you might have these creeping things. So Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yose said before him, "Rabbi, explain." Rabbi be explicit, you know, give conditions, be a bit more clear. Why? "Thus my father Rabbi Yose said:" That of a certain place is forbidden, that of a certain place is permitted. It depends. You have to give destinations. At this place here the Abruma is okay. From this water the Abruma is not okay. Why? What is the difference? Rashi second wide line, "That of a certain place is forbidden, for creeping things grow in that river, and because of their small size one cannot separate them, for they are not discernible." It depends. Certain waters that grow creeping things, that are prone to produce creeping things, you cannot eat the Abruma because the creeping things would get mixed up in there. Different waters do not produce creeping things. So you have to be specific. When you just say Abruma is permissible, you have to say where. In this water yes, that water no. So he says, "Like that which Abaye said." The Gemara gives an example to Abaye. This Sahanta. Sahanta is a type of fish. Okay. Small fish, Rashi in Avoda Zara calls it the Chilak. Sahanta, "like small fish." Anyway, this Sahanta of the River Bab. Right? If you go to the River Bab and get this Sahanta fish, it is permitted, it is permissible. What is the reason? What is the reason? "If you say because the waters are swift?" What is the issue of you worried it might get mixed up with an impure fish? Because again it is a small fish and when you catch it there are some small fish that are impure in there also. So the Gemara says if you go to the River Bab, no problem. So the Gemara is trying to analyze why what is so special about the River Bab. So the Gemara says maybe because it has a very strong current and maybe impure fish cannot live in such a current. Why? "And this impure fish, since it does not have a spinal cord," since it does not have a spine. Right? So the spine is the strength of the fish. So if it does not have a spine, "it cannot stand." It cannot exist. So maybe that is why in the Bab river you can go catch these Sahanta fish because you are not worried it is being mixed up with impure fish because the impure fish cannot make it in that water. The Gemara says that is not so. "But we see that it does stand." See, by the way, they do exist. By the way, impure fish does exist in strong currents in these type of rivers. So therefore that is not the issue here. So again, so why is the Bab river different? "Rather, because the waters are salty." Tell me now because it is very salty waters. So what? "And this impure fish, since it does not have scales, it cannot stand." Since it does not have scales, right? A kosher fish has fins and scales. A non-kosher fish does not have scales. So therefore the scales protect the fish from the salt water, from the elements. Now therefore in salt waters the salt is going to kill the fish. So maybe that is the reason. The reason why it is not a problem in the River Bab is because it is salty and therefore the impure fish cannot exist because it does not have scales. The Gemara says: "But we see that it does stand." But we do see it does exist which is in salty waters you do have fish that are impure. "Rather, because their mud does not produce impure fish." Because the tar on the bottom of the riverbed does not produce impure fish. It seems that the impure fish produce in a certain environment, what is it called? Silt. The the- The tar, the mud on the bottom of the water somehow produces fish. It has like an environment we will call it, okay? So this case here that does not have the tar on the bottom of the water, therefore does not produce. So therefore you have no problem when you go to the River Bab, you can draw water. You can draw these fish and eat them, no problem. Abaye said, Abaye says it is changed. What changed? "That now that the rivers Eitam and Gamda flow into there, it is forbidden." Now that the river currents changed and now you have the rivers Eitam and the river Gamda flowing into the River of Bab, and in those rivers they have Daktamei, right? They grow. So they empty out the Daktamei into the River Bab, therefore you cannot eat the Tzachanta from those rivers anymore. Okay, which is they grow in the other rivers. Now once they get into this river, I do not care if it is salty. Salty is not the issue and I do not care if it has a strong current, that is not the issue. The only point is they were not able to be born in such rivers because the riverbed does not produce it. Fine, but if it is produced in a different river and those rivers empty out into the River Bab, so therefore you are going to have a problem. So today the Tzachanta would be forbidden. Comes the Gemara continues, but there is good canoeing there.
It was stated: If one covered an Achsandra that has side-posts, it is valid. Okay, let us go back to the case of the Achsandra. We have a picture of this here, so let me find it. I should have it again. Yeah, okay, so number 117. Okay, so bottom line you have a courtyard, okay? In your courtyard you had porticos, right? Porticos were like porches coming out of the of the top of the courtyard, going across all three sides of the courtyard, okay? Now, like porches, these awnings that were coming out from the top, awnings over the over the courtyard. Now, in the center it was wide open, so you put covering material there. Okay, but now we are giving a new case here where right under the covering material you have what is called side-posts. Side-posts are poles. You have poles, yeah, like beams, that were within three handbreadths of each other that are going across all three sides. So therefore this is a beautiful sukkah. Why? Because you have side-posts within three, three is joining, therefore the walls here are perfect and it is right under the covering material, therefore you have covering material with side-posts, nobody is going to say that the covering material is not valid. This covering material is a beautiful valid covering material according to everyone. The debate that we have now in today's Gemara is the same case without side-posts, okay? Just take your courtyard, put your porticos around, you have the center wide open, you just want to drop covering material in the middle now, and now it is more than four cubits away from the walls. Right, if it was within four cubits to the walls, we learned on yesterday's page, you are able to say a bent wall, which means the walls of the houses right there, you have your portico. Now why are your porticos invalid? The porticos are made out of wood, yeah, and it is also produce of the ground and it does not receive impurity, so what is the problem with these porticos? It must be made, and not from that which is already made. Correct, it must be made, and not from that which is already made. It was not placed there for the sake of a sukkah, right? So therefore it is invalid covering material because of "it must be made, and not from that which is already made." But the point is what? A bent wall. You have your walls of your houses, right? Bend them over. So now your wall is next to your covering material in the middle, no problem. We are discussing a case where the walls of the houses are more than four cubits away. So if it is more than four cubits away and you have your porticos there, no side-posts, so therefore still we are going to have an opinion that is going to say it is valid. How? Aha, so the Gemara says: bottom line of the Gemara, that it does not have side-posts, Abaye says it is valid, and Rava says it is invalid. Now, what is the logic? Abaye says it is valid, the reason why Abaye says it is valid, because we say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." Okay, new rule. We learned on the previous pages from a law given to Moses at Sinai, one of the laws given to Moses at Sinai says "draw down the partition," that the wall extends downward. So part of "draw down" is "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes," which means like this: here you have your porticos, right? So we imagine the tip of the portico, the edge of the ceiling, the end of the portico, imagine it, the lip of it exactly, just draws a line down to make imaginary walls. And therefore we are going to say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" on all sides, which means on all four, on all three walls here, right? You need it in the back because the portico... protruding from all three walls. So then you are going to say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" on all three sides and therefore you are going to have yourself a halachically valid sukkah of novel concept here even though the walls are more than four cubits away. You still have a way to validate the sukkah. That is according to Abaye. So the Gemara says: Rava says it is invalid. Rava says no way, this sukkah is invalid. "We do not say 'the edge of the ceiling descends and closes.'" Now, Rashi just points out on the second line there: "Rava says it is invalid, we do not say 'the edge of the ceiling descends and closes' as the reason will be explained later." The Gemara is going to explain it later. "The edge of the ceiling," "the thickness of the planks." Yeah, on the thickness of the planks. "At their edge and also the thickness of the lip that comes to the side of the sukkah," which means the end of it that ends by the sukkah that Rashi is holding it has to have a little thickness. Rashi is going to say later it has to be at least a handbreadth. Its thickness. That is a novel concept. It means you do not simply say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" on any width. It has to have a little thickness just to create a wall. Okay. So the Gemara says: Rava said to Abaye. So Rava tells Abaye. Here Abaye was the lenient one, right? He said "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" on all the sides. "According to you, who says 'the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,' even if the middle wall collapsed." Which means let us say you have a sukkah. Rashi says originally it had three walls. Okay. But then let us say the middle wall, the back wall collapsed. Now you only have two walls. Still should be valid. Why? You have the two parallel walls. Now the back wall, say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" from your covering material. The covering material, let us say you have thick boards, right? Let us say a handbreadth, right? At the end. At the end. So make a wall going down. Therefore, technically you can make a valid sukkah with only two walls. Two walls and thick covering material on the back, ostensibly that is okay because you used "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." You used the "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" here in the courtyard on all three sides. So here, better! I am saying it on one side, right? To make your third wall. Why not? Look at Rashi. "According to you, Abaye, who says the edge of the ceiling of the portico descends and closes, you would also say so in a sukkah made in the middle of a courtyard." Let us say you have a sukkah that is made in the middle of a courtyard, meaning it is in an open place. "And it is covered with thick planks." It has thick beams. "That are not four handbreadths wide." Okay, it is not. Rashi does not want to get involved with the four handbreadths issue there. So you have not a problem of, you know, invalid covering material with planks. But he wants it to be thick because he wants to use "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." "And the middle wall collapsed." Now Rashi, it is interesting that the case they are discussing is where you had three walls and the third wall fell. And ostensibly it should be the same if you started off with a sukkah of two walls from the beginning. "And two from here and two from here are standing." Two walls, one on one side, one on the other side. "It would be validated for us by means of the edge of the ceiling of that sukkah" and say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." Right. So therefore, ostensibly, why not Abaye in that case? And ostensibly we do not say it because we know that we always say a sukkah has to have at least two and one, right? You have to have. So ostensibly it should have two and the edge of the ceiling. So to that the Gemara says, Abaye says big difference. He said to him: "I agree with you on that." I agree with you on that case we are not going to say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." "For it would be like an open alleyway." Because that case there, it is open, it is wide open. It is like an alleyway that has two entrances. You see, a sukkah has got to have a certain amount of real walls, protection. Right? Here it is a thoroughfare. And therefore you are not going to say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" in such a case. Now ostensibly, what do you mean? In the case of the portico, I had no walls. Yeah. I had no walls. I said "the edge of the ceiling" to create all three. But bottom line, I have the house behind it. So even though I am not using that house, but it is enclosed. Here, it is in the middle of a street here. It is an open area. So it is a thoroughfare. So to say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes," if so, if I had walls behind it then I would say it. But the whole point is here you have to have a sukkah that is enclosed. So even though the thing that is enclosing it is not valid, like in this case here of the portico, the walls that are enclosing the sukkah are not valid, they are more than four cubits away. But since bottom line the sukkah is enclosed, that already it is valid. Look at Rashi. "I agree with you on that." Abaye says I agree with you on that case, "for since the air is open opposite it," right, since it is open air going across the sukkah, "it is similar to an open alleyway and is made like a shortcut for the public." It serves as a shortcut for the public. They are going to cut through your sukkah to get to the other side. Okay? So therefore we are not going to say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" in such a case.
The Gemara continues: Let us say that Abaye and Rava dispute based on the dispute of Rav and Shmuel. Let us say this dispute between Abaye and Rava by the case of the Achsandra. Which is how we learn the dispute? According to Abaye you say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" on all sides, on all three sides. So you have no walls, only "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes"? He says it is okay. And Rava is saying what? No. Rava is saying you cannot say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" in such a case. So let us say that that dispute between Abaye and Rava is dependent on another dispute between Rav and Shmuel in Eruvin. Now what is the case there? For it was stated, what is the case there? An Achsandra in a valley. Okay you have an Achsandra, a pavilion, but it is like a porch that has four poles, okay, holding it up. And all four sides are open. Look at that on 120, you see the picture here, it is in the middle of a valley. Okay now what does a guy do? He wants the shade, he wants to sit underneath this item here to protect himself from the elements. Okay the problem is the valley has a law of a karmelit. So you want, you cannot carry. So the guy wants to make himself like this item here and now underneath he wants to make like a private domain. Because if you say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" what is going to happen? All four walls will go down. So now you have a domain here you can carry underneath. But really there are no walls. On all four sides it is open. So the Gemara wants to say, well, that is the dispute we are discussing here. Do you say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" on all four sides or not? Abaye says you do. So this case here would be considered a legitimate private domain and therefore initially you can carry underneath the whole thing. And according to Rava, Rava that does not say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" in the case of the sukkah, well so you do not say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" in this case either and you will not be able to carry underneath. Which means we want to link the dispute by sukkah to the dispute by Shabbat by the case of the Achsandra. Right. So let us see that inside again. For it was stated, an Achsandra in a valley. Valley is in a valley. Rav says it is permitted to carry in its entirety. Rav says underneath that item you can carry the whole area. Why? For we say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." And once you say "the edge of the ceiling" on all four sides what happens? It becomes a private domain. And Shmuel says one may not carry in it except for four cubits. He says no, no, no. You can only carry up to four cubits because it is a law of a karmelit like the valley. This is not considered a closed area. Why? For we do not say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." Because we are not going to say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." Okay. That is the dispute. Now, so again the Gemara wants to say ostensibly it is the same dispute. So the Gemara says like this. The Gemara starts, "According to Shmuel, everyone agrees." Which means according to Shmuel, Shmuel is the one that says what? Shmuel is the one that says in this case here you cannot carry, right? So everyone agrees that what? That Shmuel cannot be going like both opinions. Shmuel cannot be following the opinions of Abaye and Rava. For sure Shmuel that is stringent in this case here on the case of the valley, for sure he has to be going like Rava in the sukkah case. Again, for sure according to Shmuel you have to say that he cannot be going according to all opinions. Which means he must be going at least like Rava. Now, why cannot you say he is going like Abaye? Because because Abaye said you do not say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" in the case of... sorry, according to Abaye you do say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" in the case of the case of the sukkah. Now, the case of the sukkah by the way is worse than the case of Shabbat. Why? Because let us analyze. The case of "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes," what does it do? We say the walls go down and it encloses your area, right? Now, in the case of sukkah, let us analyze it. You are using your porticos, right, to make an imaginary wall going down. Now, those porticos are not made for what is beyond it. It is really made for what is behind it, for the house. So if anything your "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" should help you for the house side, not for the sukkah side. Which means because that is what is really made for. Again, when your porticos, the guy is not planning on building a sukkah there, that was not the purpose of the porticos. Porticos why is it? It is a roof for the courtyard. Right. And still Abaye said that even though the Achsandra is made for the inside, you can use the edge of the ceiling for the outside. Now Shmuel in the case of the valley, right, where you put this Achsandra now, these walls are made for the inside. So it is much easier to say "the edge of the ceiling" over because the walls are for what you need it for. And still he says you do not say it. So Shmuel that says you do not say "the edge of the ceiling" in the case of the valley, certainly you are not going to say it in the case of sukkah by the Achsandra. So for sure Shmuel cannot be going like Abaye. That is for sure the opinion of Shmuel, a dispute, which means he cannot be going like all opinions. Because we want to link this dispute, right? So he says for sure the opinion of Shmuel here, for sure the opinion of Shmuel, he has to say Abaye is not going to agree with me. Why? Because Abaye is telling you that what? You can even say "the edge of the ceiling" where the "the edge of the ceiling" walls are really not for what you need it for. The intent of the Achsandra by the sukkah case is really the walls are to protect the house, and still we are going to use those walls for the sukkah. All the more so in the case of the valley, where your "the edge of the ceiling" is actually for the walls intended. Whereas Shmuel, he is going to say, nah, nah, nah. Even in the case where the walls are intended, still you cannot say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." However, "when they dispute, it is according to Rav." The subject here is according to Rav. Which means like this: the dispute Abaye and Rava is in Rav. Which means Rav that said by the case of... Achsandra by the case of the valley that you do say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" there will say it is a dispute Abaye and Rava in Rav will they will Rav agree by sukkah? Again, there is a dispute Abaye and Rava in Rav's opinion what would it be by sukkah? Rav we know what you said by valley, that is clear, you said by valley it is okay, but Rav could be going either like Abaye or Rava when it comes to the sukkah case. He said, "Ah, because he says Achsandra that is good." Nice, he says Achsandra that is good, but the sukkah exactly. One logic he could say is what? Just like by Achsandra you said on all four sides by the case of the valley, so sukkah same thing. Therefore Rav is going like Abaye. Or you could say, "Hey, oh, he only said it by the case of the valley because the edge of the ceiling is to the inside." Yeah. But maybe by the sukkah he will agree to Rava and say no good. So therefore the dispute is going to be Abaye and Rava that discuss the case of sukkah, either one could be going like Rav. However, either one cannot be going like Shmuel. For the Gemara speaks there that "when they dispute, it is according to Rav." Abaye is like Rav. Right? We could either say Abaye is going like Rav that just like Rav was lenient by the case of Achsandra, he is going like Abaye by the case of sukkah. "And Rava would say to you," and Rava would say to you no no no no. I am also going like Rav. "Up to here Rav only said there," Rav was only lenient by the valley case, "except that the walls of the Achsandra are made for the inside," because the walls are made for the inside of the Achsandra, so you can say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." "But here, where they are made for the outside," no. And therefore you can say no. So therefore the Gemara concludes that indeed, in Rav itself, there can be a dispute between Abaye and Rava as to what Rav would say by the case of sukkah. Blessed is God forever, amen and amen.