Daf 2
1) If the Sukka's Schach is above twenty Amos, it's Pasul. R' Yehuda says it's Kosher. Rabbah says the reason it's Pasul since the Torah says "in order that you should know for generations that I put you in Sukkos." Therefore, until the Schach is twenty Amos high, people realize that they're in a Sukka. However, if it's above twenty, people don't realize they're in a Sukka since their eyes don't notice what's above twenty. [Tosfos says: even though Rabbah in Eiruvin Pasuls a Sukka that's partially above twenty and partially below, despite that people can see the lower surface of the Schach that's within twenty; we can explain like the explanation there that, since Sukos belong to individuals, the bottom layer might fall down and he might not realize that it's now completely above twenty. Even according to Raveina there who explains Rabbah that he was stringent by a Sukka since it's a Torah obligation, we can still explain that it's a stringency enacted by the rabbis, and not really a problem from the Torah.]
2) R' Zeira explains the reason: since it says "the Sukka should be for shade." Until twenty Amos, people receive their shade from the Schach. If it's above twenty, the shade comes from the walls. This is not similar to the case of building a Sukka in a valley between mountains where the shade comes from the mountains. After all, over there, if you remove the mountains, you'll be in the shade of the Sukka. However, by a Sukka above twenty, if you remove the walls, the sun will come from below the Schach, and it would be no longer a Sukka.
3) Rava explains the reason: until twenty Amos, someone can still make it a temporary dwelling, but if it's above twenty, it must be a permanent established structure. However, you can make a Sukka out of iron since you could make it into a temporary structure at that height, so, you can also make it more established. [Rashi explains: since established walls are temporary walls made stronger, we say that there is a temporary structure within those walls. So, we must say that the Torah only cared that it should be built within the height that it can be temporary. Tosfos says: only the walls could be established, but the main part of the Sukka is the Schach, and it needs to be temporary, or it's Pasul. That's why it's considered a curse if it rains during Sukkos, since you can't make the Schach too strong to prevent rain from entering.]
4) According to Rabbah, it's not Pasul unless the walls don't reach the Schach, but it's Kosher if it leads all the way to the Schach since the walls leads your eyes to see the Schach. [Tosfos explains: it's not similar to a crossbeam over the alleyway that it's Pasul (and doesn't permit carrying in the alley) if it's above twenty, even when it's sitting on top of the wall. After all, it's a very narrow item that's only a Tefach wide, it doesn't catch your eyes. However, it's Kosher by a Sukka that needs to be wider.]
5) According to R' Zeira, it's only Pasul if the Sukka is four Amos squared or narrower; but more than that, we say that there is shade from the Schach. [Tosfos explains: you must say that this is only in proportion of a Sukka that's twenty Amos high and four Amos squared, but if it goes much higher than it gets wider, then it's not getting shade from the Schach. Alternatively, it's Kosher even if it's a hundred Amos high and a little more than four Amos squared wide. After all, since it's wider than four, it's impossible that some shade shouldn't come in. This is similar to what we say that the universal Shiur to be Chayiv for eating on Yom Kippur is a Koseves. You need an eating that calms one down, and the Koseves calms everyone down. However, it calms most people a lot, and it calms Og king of Bashan a little bit.]
6) There's another opinion that it only Pasuls above twenty when it has the most minimal width of a Sukka, i.e., that it fits his head and most of his body and table. However, it's Kosher if it's wider than that, and it doesn't fit into any of the reasons we said. [Tosfos explains: it could be that the problem is; if it's that narrow and high, it's similar to a chicken coop. However, if it's a little wider, it no longer resembles a chicken coop.]
7) R' Yehuda wants to bring a proof from Queen Hilni who sat in a Sukka that was twenty Amos high with her seven sons, (which one of her sons must have been old enough not to be attached to his mother, and is obligated to be trained in the Mitzvah of Sukka. We know her to be pius to be careful in all the rabbinical Mitzvos, so this proves that it's a Kosher Sukka). Now, this fits well to the opinion that the Chachumim only argue if the walls didn't reach the Schach, since it's normal for a queen to sit in such a Sukka so that the fresh air should enter. Even the opinion who says that it's only a problem when it's four Amos squared, even though it's not normal for a queen to have such a small Sukka, but perhaps they made a small room on the side for her privacy. [Rashi says: however, it's difficult to the opinion that says it's only a problem when it's seven Tefachim squared, since it's impossible for the queen to squeeze in with her sons into the seven Tefachim. However, Tosfos says: you find a case where it's seven Tefachim in width, but it's a lot longer. Therefore, they all fit well sitting along its length.]
Daf 3
8) Beis Shammai says that a Sukka must be able to hold his head, most of his body and his table. Beis Hillel says that it's enough if it only holds his head and most of his body without a table. Rebbi requires it to be four Amos squared.
9) If you have a large Sukka, but your table is set up right outside the Sukka in your house; Beis Shammai holds that you can't have it this way since you might end up following your table into the house, and Beis Hillel allows it since he holds that we're not worried you'll follow your table. [Tosfos says: although we Paskin like Beis Shammai regarding a small Sukka (that it must be big enough to fit your table), we don't Paskin like them by a big Sukka that has its table inside the house, since we don't worry he'll follow his table inside.]
10) [Tosfos brings R' Amram who Paskins like Beis Shammai in six cases. The above case of a small Sukka; you're exempt from Tzitzis on linen clothing; there are four strings on Tzitzis, and not three; Tziztis needs to hang down for four finger worths, and not three; you first need to sweep the floors before washing for Mayim Achronim (and Beis Hillel says the opposite); if you left the place you ate, you need to return to your place (since even Beis Hillel requires it L'chatchila).]
11) If a house isn't at least four Amos squared, it's not considered as a house. Therefore, they're exempt from Mezuza, and from building a fence around its roof. It doesn't become Tamai if it gets Tzaras; and if sold in a walled city, it doesn't become the buyer's permanently, (and the seller can't force a buy back). If you build such a house, you don't return from being drafted by the army. Someone living there doesn't need to contribute to the Eiruv, and a courtyard that only has this one house in it doesn't need to contribute to the Shituf, (i.e., an Eiruv to combine courtyards open to the same alley). You can't put the Eiruv in that house [Tosfos: since it's not fit to live there. This is (not only according to the opinion that the Eiruv makes it as if everyone is residing in this house), but even to Shmuel who learns an Eiruv is an acquisition, he agrees that the house has to be able to be lived in. (See Maharam- that, through the Eiruv, they acquire some of his house, and by that, he acquires their ownership in the courtyard.) This is why, even to Shmuel, the house that holds the Eiruv doesn't need to contribute to the Eiruv. Therefore, they won't give over their share in the courtyard for a house that's not fit to live in.]
It also doesn't connect two cities together regarding T'chum if it's situated within the outskirts to both of them. Although little huts help, that's because they're fit for what they're designed for, to house watchmen for the night; but this house is not fit for what it was designed for, which is full time living. [Tosfos says: Rashbam says the text should be "it doesn't extend one city's T'chum, since a house doesn't do more by combineing two cities than extending one city. This is also the implication from the Yerushalmi. However, R' Tam found a way to keep our text; according to the Rabanan who say that you only give a distance of seventy and two-third Amos to extend a city is between two cities, that they're considered attached when they're within one hundred and forty one and a third Amos from eac other, which is seventy and two third Amos for each city. We'll say "two cities" is not exact, but you'll give that amount even if a house is next to the city. However, we won't give this to connect two houses, but they must be within seventy Amos of each other.]
Also, if brothers split their estate or partners split, according to R' Huna who says they split the courtyard according to how many doors you have open to it, they don't give a share for this house; and according to R' Chisda who says that they give four extra Amos for every door (and split the rest evenly), they don't give four Amos in the courtyard before this house's door. [Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi: also, produce brought into it doesn't become Tevel for Maasar, and if someone vowed not to enter a house, may enter into this house. Tosfos adds: when we said that you stone an adulterous Naarah Arusah by her father's house, this house won't count for it.]
12) The Gemara concludes that these Halachos are not only according to Rebbi who requires a Sukka to be four Amos squared. Rather, it could be even according to Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, since they only hold that a Sukka can be less since it's a temporary dwelling. However, you need four Amos squared for a permanent dwelling, since, otherwise, people won't live there.
13) However, you may place a Shituf in this house since it's no worse than placing it in the courtyard, where you need to place the Shituf.
14) If your Sukka was above twenty, and you now would like to make the airspace less by placing bedding on the floor, it doesn't make the airspace less. This is true even if you want to Mevatel it there, since it's abnormal and your intentions are null against what people consider to be normal. [Tosfos points out: this is not similar to the case of filling a trench between courtyards with purses in order to make it a level floor to make one Eiruv together, that there is an opinion that people even Mevatel purses there.]
Daf 4
15) The Rabanan hold that dirt and straw that you Mevatel there [Rashi: for the full seven days of Sukkos] lessens the airspace. Otherwise, it doesn't lessen it. R' Yossi holds: straw that you don't plan on removing, even if you didn't explicitly Mevatel it, or dirt that's there without any intent, lessens the airspace. This is learned from their argument regarding a house with a corpse in it that was filled with straw and dirt. They argue what it takes to say that it's Batul there and it will no longer be a corpse in a tent (that spreads out through the whole tent, but doesn't go above it), but the Tumah just goes straight up.
16) If you have Schach above twenty Amos, but there are drooping palm branches that come within twenty; if there is more shade than sun from the leaves dropping within twenty, then it's Kosher. Otherwise, it's Pasul. [Tosfos says: even according to the opinion in Eiruvin that, if you cut off the part above twenty, the rest will fall to the ground, it's Pasul; and here, if you would cut off the top Schach, the drooping leaves will fall; we must say that there is a difference. After all, there refers to a case that, when you cut off the top, the bottom will be so light that the wind will blow it away. However, here, there is enough drooping Schach that can last by its own if there would be proper support for it.]
17) If you have the Schach above ten Tefachim, but leaves droop to within ten; it's Pasul, even if the Schach above ten has more shade than sun, and the Schach below has more sun than shade. Granted, we don't consider the below ten leaves as Schach, still it's not a good living space (if you don't have a full ten Tefachim airspace).
18) If the Sukka is above twenty, but you build a platform in the back of the Sukka along the whole middle wall (when you only have three walls) that lessens the airspace to less than twenty; if the platform has the Shuir of a Sukka, it's Kosher [Rashi: even the part in front of the platform, since it's Pesel Hayoitza Min Hasukka (i.e., if Schach extends beyond the part of a Kosher Sukka, we sometimes consider it as an extention of the Sukka.)]
19) If you build it along one of the side walls; if there is less than four Amos to the other side wall, we can consider that this platform has three walls surrounding it, since we say Dofen Akuma (that the opposite wall bends when it gets to the ceiling until it reaches the Schach). This is true even in this case that the opposite wall is too big to be a wall for a Sukka. This is even when you build the platform in the middle of the Sukka, as long as it's within four Amos to all the walls, we say Dofen Akuma by three walls too.
20) If the Sukka is not ten Tefachim high, and you're digging in the ground to supplement the height, the hole needs to be within three T'fachim to the walls in order to say Lavud. This is not similar to Dofen Akuma that we say you can connect horizontally within four Amos. After all, over there you already have a wall, and you just want to extend it. However, here, you don't have a ten Tefachim wall yet, so you're trying to connect the hole to the wall to create a Mechitza, so, we don't say Dofen Akuma. [Tosfos says: although by Shabbos, the Gemara says that, if a house is not ten Tefachim deep, you just need to dig a hole of four Tefachim squared in the house and you don't need it to be within three Tefachim to the walls; that's because a Mechitza by Shabbos only needs to prevent people from passing through, but by Sukka, you have the added need that the wall needs to be next to the Schach.]
21) [Tosfos says: this seems not like how Rashi explains in Gitten that, when we say that the height of raised dirt doesn't combine to the height of a wall for a Mechitza, refers to building a wall around a trench. After all, we say here that the height of the hole combines to the height of the walls. We see this in many places in Shas. Rather, it refers to building a five Tefachim wall surrounding a five Tefachim high mound. We don't say that it should be a Reshus Hayachid anyhow since you could place a board over it to use the top so that would make it like a stand ten Tefachim tall, as the Gemara in Shabbos says; since we refer to a very wide mound that you can't place a board over it.]
22) If you have a Sukka that's above twenty, and you build a stand in the middle ten Tefachim high that's more than four Amos away from the walls, (so you can't make it Kosher because of Dofen Akuma); Rava says that it's not Kosher, and we don't allow it because we'll view the surface of the side of the stand as they extend upwards forming a Mechitza, like we would allow by Shabbos, since you need a discernable Mechitzos for Sukka. [Tosfos says: although we say later that a Sukka between porches is Kosher even without walls because of Pi Tikra, that we view the lip of the porch's roof as if it descends to make a Mechitza; we must say that it's viewed as a more discernable Mechitza than our case.]
23) If you have four poles, and you put Schach on the space between them; R' Yaakov says it's a Kosher Sukka if we could carve out a Tefach on each pole from two sides (to make it like two Tefach-wide corner Mechitzos to the space in the middle. [Tosfos says: even though we see by Shabbos, when we allow corner Mechitzos, (like around a well that's needed to give animals to drink when people are coming up to the Mikdash on Yom Tov), we only allow it if it's an Amah long; that's because we're stricter by Shabbos than by Sukka.] However, the Rabanan Pasul until you have two full walls, and a Tefach for the third one.
24) If you place these polls on the side of the roof, there is an inquiry whether the Rabanan admit to this case since we'll view it as the side of the building extends upwards, or not. [Tosfos says: we consider this to be more of a discernable Mechitza since the walls are discernible within the building.] (This was according to R' Nachman. However, R' Huna says that R' Yaakov only allowed by the edge of the roof because of the extending Mechitzos, but not if it's on the ground. However, his version was disproven.)
Daf 5
25) The Tzitz was a plate of gold that was two finger's worth wide and went from ear to ear. It was engraved in it "Yud Hey" on top, and "Kodesh L" on the bottom. [Tosfos says: some say that the top line was directly on top of the bottom line. However, Tosfos held this to be difficult since it's not read this way. Rather we must say that it wasn't in the same area of the Tzitz. Rather, it had "Kodesh L" on the right side of the Tzitz on the bottom line, and "Yud Hey" on the left side of the Tzitz on the top line.] R' Elazar b. Yossi says that he saw it in Rome and it's engraved with "Kodesh LaHashem" in one line.
[Tosfos says: even though "Yud Hey" is a real name of Hashem, they still spelled it out and didn't feel that it's under the prohibition of saying the letters of Hashem's name since it's not a full name, but a short version of "Yud Key Vuv Key." However, Rashi doesn't explain that prohibition of reading the letters, but just by Darshening Hashem's forty-two letters name. Even so, the world is careful not to spell Hashem's name out.]
26) [Tosfos quotes R' Tam: if we say that the Mesgeres on the Shulchon was below, it was under the board, so we can learn that the "overturned wooden board" is susceptible to Tumah. I.e., if you have a flat board on top, but if you turn it over, it would have a rim, it's susceptible since it has a receptacle when it's turned over. Therefore, if there is no rim, it's not susceptible, as there are many Gemaras that say that a flat board without a receptacle on either side is always Tahor. However, Tosfos disagrees since it's not the implications from our Gemara. After all, our Gemara says that, if it was on the bottom, it's defined as being a part of the utensil, and not just the accessory to the utensil, that it was on the legs, and the top of the Shulchon was placed on the Mesgeres. Rather, an "overturned board" is one that has no rim, but you can use either side of it, so it's more similar to a receptacle. Although we find Gemaras that say that it's not susceptible to Tumah; we must say that they hold that the Mesgeres was above the board. Alternatively, it's only susceptible to Tumah if it's used both for humans and for what humans use (like to have a place for them to be placed on). However, the Gemara that says that a baker's board is not susceptible, that's because that description doesn't apply to it. Although we see some flat wooden utensils that are rabbinically able to be susceptible to Tumah, and some not; we must say that they decreed only on those wide ones that you can place objects on since they're similar to receptacles (since they hold items).]
27) [Tosfos quotes Riva: the Tzitz was placed in the same place you don Tefilin. Therefore, we see that the Kohein Gadol had a different hat than the Kohein Hedyot, since his hat needs to be smaller to leave room for the Tzitz.]
28) Rav says: Shiurim, Mechitzos and Chatzitzos are Halacha L'Moshe M'sinai.
29) Even though we have a Drasha from the Pasuk "the land of wheat, barley, etc." to teach us the Torah's Shiurim, but we must say that it's only an Asmachta, but not a real Drasha. After all, the Pasuk doesn't say explicitly that they're Shiurim.
30) As wheat is the Shiur for the following: if someone enters a house with Tzaras and he draped his clothing on his shoulder, and he's holding his sandals and rings; the person and clothing become Tamai right away. However, if he's wearing the clothing and the ring was on his finger; the person is immediately Tamai, and his clothing is only Tamai if he remained there for the amount of time needed to eat a Pras of wheat bread (that's eaten faster than bread from barley), while leaning (and concentrating on eating), with a dip (to help the eating go faster).
Daf 6
31) Barley is the Shiur of the following: a human bone the size of a barleycorn is Tamai if touched or carried, but not if you're just in the same tent as it.
32) Grapes are the Shiur of the following: a Revious wine for a Nazir. [Rashi explains: this is according to the opinion that the Shiur of a Nazir eating vine products is a Revious. Therefore, you must place the amount of pits, leaves and young vines that you ate in a cup of wine, and if it displaces a Revious, you're Chayiv. Using a cup of wine is different than using water since it's thicker than water and it doesn't leak out that fast since it forms a heap over the rim of the utensil. Tosfos says: and not like Rashi explains in Eiruvin: that the Shiur for a Nazir to be Chayiv is to drink a Revious of wine. After all, that is not like the other Shiurim that the fruit measures other items, and not that you're measuring the fruit. R' Tam explains this according to the opinion that the Shiur is a Kezayis. However, this is difficult. If it's referring to food and you want to measure if what you ate displaces as much wine as an olive does, if so, you can use any liquid as well as wine since the olive will proportionally displace the same amount of liquid compared to what you ate. If it's to say the Shiur of drinking, of course you displace wine since that's the item you're trying to measure.]
33) 'Fig' hints to the Shiur that someone's Chayiv for carrying out food on Shabbos, which is a dried fig. "Pomegranates' hints to the Shiur of a hole to make a household utensil not susceptible to Tumah [Tosfos points out that this refers to a wooden utensil, but the Shiur for an earthenware utensil is a Kezayis, unless you explicitly designated it for pomegranates. Tosfos also points out that we measure with only one pomegranate. Although it says in one place that it's three pomegranates, that's only that you need it wide enough that three pomegranates can roll out of it, one pomegranate at a time, (and they shouldn't block each other from coming out). Alternatively, they need to be middle sized pomegranates that grow three in a group. Not the big ones that only grow two in a group, or small ones that grow four or five in a group.]
34) 'Olive' hints to a lot of Shiurim that are a Kazayis. 'Honey' hints to the Shiur that someone needs to eat to be Chayiv for eating on Yom Kippur, which is a large dried date.
35) It's a Halacha L'Moshe M'sinai that you can't have a Chatzitza when you Toivel. Although it seems to be an explicit Pasuk "you should wash your flesh," and even the hair is learned from an extra 'Es,' the Halacha teaches us that a Chatzitza is only when it covers most of the body's area and the person cares that it shouldn't be there. [There are those who explain: this only refers to the hair. However, Tosfos asks: since the Gemara says that the mother who is going through Geirus is a Chatzitza to her fetus, and we don't say that the fetus is Toiveled, although he doesn't care that the mother is in the way, since it's only good if the Chatzitza covers most of the body, but not all of the body. This proves that it's not a Chatzitza if it covers most of the body, and not only the hairs. Also, we see that blood on a butchers clothing is not a Chatzitza even if it's on the main part of the utensil. Rather, Tosfos says it refers to the whole body]. However, if it's only on part of the body, although you care that it shouldn't be there, or if you don't care, although it's on most of the body, it's not a Chatzitza from the Torah, but it's a rabbinical Chatzitza, since they decreed if it has one variable to make it a Chatzitza because you might end up Toiveling with both variables. However, it's not even rabbinically a Chatzitza if he doesn't care about it and is only on part of the body, and they didn't decree to forbid when there are no variables of a Chatzitza, for you might come to Toivel with one variable, since one variable is only rabbinically a Chatzitza, and we don't make decrees in order to safeguard rabbinical prohibitions.
36) Mechitzos are a Halacha L'moshe M'sinai. According to R' Yehuda who holds that the Aron Hakodesh was measured with a five-Tefachim Amah, so, an Amah and a half tall would only be seven and a half Tefachim, and a Tefach cover would make it eight and a half tall, so you can't extrapolate a ten Tefachim Mechitza from it, we learn the ten Tefachim of a Mechitza from the Halacha L'Moshe M'sinai. However, R' Meir held that we measure it with a six-Tefachim Amah, and the Amah and a half was nine Tefachim, and the Tefach cover made it ten Tefachim high, and that served as a Mechitza to the Shechina, who was on top of the Aron, and He wouldn't descend on the Earth proper, so we can extrapolate that all Mechitzos are ten Tefachim from there. Therefore, we need to say that the Halacha L'moshe M'sinai of Mechitzos is only needed for Gud (we view the surface of a Mechitza to extend upwards, or downwards) Lavud (any gap of less than three Tefachim is considered as if there is no gap at all), and Dofen Akuma (as we explained earlier.)
37) The Rabanan say that a Sukka needs two full walls and a Tefach for the third wall. R' Shimon says that you need three full walls and a Tefach for the fourth wall.
38) That extra Tefach wall; Rav says to put it next to one of the full walls. R' Kahana and R' Assi ask: why not put it at an angle? [Rashi explains: since you have two perpendicular walls, so, instead of just putting the Tefach straight on a ninety degree angle, have it on a forty five degree angle pointing to the end of the other full wall so it would look more enclosed. Tosfos explains: (you place it at that angle half way between the ends of both walls.) You won't say that the airspace on both sides of the Tefach, which are larger than the Tefach, will Mevatel that Tefach wall; since that Tefach is a Torah Mechitza and a Halacha L'moshe M'Sinai.] Rav kept quiet (and didn't answer).
Daf 7
39) R' Yehoshua b. Levi says that you take a board that has a large Tefach (which is slightly more than a regular Tefach) and place it slightly within three Tefachim from the wall. [Rashi says: and through this Lavud, you're making a Mechitza that's four Tefachim wide, which is most of the minimum Sukka wall, which is seven Tefachim. Tosfos comments: and that's the reason it couldn't be done with a small reed less than three Tefachim from the wall to form a Tefach with Lavud. Also, since we would say that the larger airspace from both sides will Mevatel it.] However, this is only if the two full walls were perpendicular, but if they're parallel, you need a little more than a four Tefachim board and place it withing three Tefachim to one of its walls so that it would be, through Lavud, a seven-Tefachim wall.
40) First version of Rava: not only is a Tefach wall permit, but even a Tzuras Hapesach in its place permits. Second version of Rava: you need both a Tefach wall and a Tzuras Hapesach to permit. [Rashi explains: you put a Tefach next to one wall, and a reed on the other side, and place a reed to go across on top from one to the other. Tosfos says that you have two boards, a half a Tefach each, on both ends of the third side, and run a reed across on top from one to the other. He concludes: although the side poles of a Tzuras Hapesach on Shabbos could be the thinnest amount, but we need it thicker for a Sukka since the walls need to be more discernable.]
41) Rava says: when Shabbos falls out on Sukkos, even though usually two walls and a Tefach is not enough to be Mechitzos for Shabbos, but once it works to be a Mechitza for Sukka, it works for Shabbos too, so you can carry inside. The same applies if you put Schach over an alley that has a Lechi (pole). Even though a small Lechi is not good for a third Mechitza for a Sukka, but once it's a Mechitza for Shabbos, it's a Mechitza for Sukka. [Rashi explains that this refers to an alley that's open on both ends, and that's why you only have two parallel walls and the Lechi for the Sukka walls. Tosfos disagrees. After all, you can't permit carrying in an alleyway open on both ends with a Lechi. Rather, we refer to a closed alley that has three walls, but you don't put Schach on the whole length of the alley, so the back wall can't help for the Sukka. We must refer to a Tefach thick Lechi, since that's necessary to make the Sukka Kosher from the Torah. However, inasmuch as the rabbis require you to distance it almost three Tefachim from the wall to make it like four Tefachim, we can say since the Lechi makes the alleyway rabbinically permitted to carry in, it also makes the Sukka Kosher even from the rabbinical requirements.]
The same applies when you make a Sukka over the corner boards that surround a well, (that they allowed to draw from on Shabbos, although the spaces between the boards were much larger than the boards themselves, to give animals to drink for those who came up to the Mikdash for Yom Tov). [Tosfos says: even though they only permitted to carry there on Shabbos for the animals for those who come up for the Regel, (and not even for the people, since they can climb down the pit to drink), however, since it's Kosher Mechitzos from the Torah, the rabbis didn't forbid it by a Mitzvah.]
42) The Rabanan say that you don't need to have more shade than sun when it comes to the walls, (so, it can be made from thin poles less than three Tefachim from each other). R' Yashiya says that you need more shade than sun by the walls too (i.e., you need more wall than space between the walls).
43) These are the Tannaim who hold that a Sukka needs to be an established living space. R' Yasiya who needs the walls also to have more shade than sun. R' Yehuda who says a Sukka above twenty Amos is Kosher. R' Shimon who needs three walls and a Tefach. R' Gamliel who says that you can't make a Sukka on top of a boat [Tosfos: if it can't stand a normal wind at sea. However, Tosfos originally says that we shouldn't have in the text that he also Pasuls on top of a wagon since it's not an unestablished structure since it's not out at sea. However, it's possible to say that the reason he holds you can't build it there since it might fall down from the wagon's motion. We'll deal with the problems with this approach in the next Perek.] Rebbi who says that you need a Sukka four Amos squared. Beis Shammai who says that you need it to hold your head and most of your body and your table (and Beis Hill holds that it doesn't need to hold the table). [Tosfos points out that you must say that all these Tannaim don't necessarily hold the same opinion. After all, Rebbi and Beis Shammai argue on the Shiur of the Sukka. Rather, they hold that the Sukka needs to be stronger, or bigger, than other Tannaim.] R' Elazar who Pasuls a Sukka that's made like a tepee. Acheirim [Tosfos; i.e., R' Meir] who holds that a circular Sukka is Pasul. [Tosfos adds: therefore, that, which R' Meir will say soon, that the potter's two Sukkos, since he doesn't live in the outer one, he can use it as a Sukka on Sukkos and he doesn't need a Mezuzah; we must say he only doesn't need a Mezuza on it the rest of the year. However, on Sukkos, since he holds that it needs an established structure, he would need a Mezuza just like we see that R' Yehuda who holds that a Sukka is an established structure holds that it's obligated in a Mezuza.]
44) Those who say a circular Sukka is Kosher, you need to be able to have a square of the Shiur of a Sukka within the circle of the Sukka.
Daf 8
45) If you have two Sukkos of potters, an inner one within the outer one; the inner one can't be used as a Sukka during Sukkos since it's where he lives year round, it doesn't look as if he left his place to live in a Sukka. Also, since he lives there year round, it's obligated in a Mezuza. However, in the outer one, (where he usually works), can be used as a Sukka during Sukkos and doesn't need a Mezuzah. Even though it's a foyer to the inner one, it's still exempt from a Mezuza since it's not an established structure. [Tosfos says: however, a regular foyer is obligated in Mezuza. Granted that the Gemara in Yuma has a Drasha to exempt a foyer, that's only from the Torah, but it's rabbinically obligated.]
46) you're Yoitza sitting in a Sukka of Ganvach (Goyim {non-Jews), Noshim {women}, Beheima {animals} and Kusim) even though they're all exempt from a Sukka. [Tosfos explains: this is only necessary for those who hold that Kusim were only converts because of the threat of lions, but not true converts, so they were non-Jews. Although we Paskin that those who convert because of the threat of lions are true converts, the Kusim were different since they kept serving their idols. The opinions who say that they're true converts hold that, eventually, they abandoned their idol worshipping and converted for real.] You're also Yoitza with a Sukka Rakvash (Royim {shepherds} Kaytzanim {those who dry out figs} Burganon {temporary watchmen huts} Shomrei Peiros {fruit guards}) even though they are very temporary. This is as long as they made it like the Halacha describes; that they were covered for shade.
Daf 9
47) Beis Shammai Pasuls an old Sukka that was made thirty days before Sukkos since we can assume it wasn't made for the Yom Tov, but Beis Hillel says it's Kosher. [Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi: but, you need to redo something. B. Chavra says you need to redo a Tefach. R' Yossi says even the smallest amount of width, as long as it goes through the whole side of the Sukka.] If you made the Sukka explicitly for the Yom Tov, it's Kosher even if made before thirty days. [Tosfos says: there is a practical difference even according to Beis Hillel, since you don't even need to redo any of it. However, the Yerushalmi says that everyone agrees that you can't use Matza made more than thirty days before, since we can assume they weren't careful with it to make sure it didn't become Chametz.]
48) The wood of the Sukka is forbidden all seven days since there is a Hekish between it and the Korban Chagiga. [Tosfos says: it seems that it's a real Drasha. Although the Gemara in Shabbos says it's because it's Muktza, i.e., since it's Muktza (set aside for) its Mitzvah, it's also becomes Muktza because of the prohibition (to demolish it on Yom Tov); that refers to after it fell down and is no longer designated for the Mitzvah. However when it is standing, it's forbidden from the Torah as long as it's the main part of the Sukka, i.e., excluding the Sukka decorations that are only rabbinically forbidden. However, R' Tam explains: the Torah prohibition is only for the minimum amount needed for the Sukka to be Kosher, but any addition is only rabbinical. Although there is another Gemara that says that the reason it's forbidden to partake from the Sukka is that you're disgracing a Mitzvah, we'll explain it someplace else.]
49) This, that Beis Hillel doesn't need a Sukka be made for the Mitzva, although the Pasuk says "you should make for yourself," which from those words written by Tzitzis we learn that the Tzitzis needed to be made for the Mitzvah (according to Rav, when you hang it on the Talis, and according to Shmuel, even the spinning); that's because you need that Pasuk to exclude stealing. [Tosfos says: but a borrowed Sukka is permitted. We can't say a stolen Sukka is anyhow Pasul since it's a Mitzvah that comes through a sin; since it's only Pasuls rabbinically.] However, by Tzitzes, we know that it can't be stolen from another Pasuk "you shall make for you," so the first one tells you that it needs to be done for the Mitzvah.
50) If you make a Sukka underneath a tree, it's as Pasul as if it was built under a house. However, this is only if the tree causes more shade than sun just like the house. However, if the tree has more sun than shade, the Sukka underneath is Kosher. [Tosfos explains: if the Schach has more shade than sun without having to combine the branches above it. However, if there is not enough Schach to make mostly shade without combining the branches] you need to lower the branches into the Schach to make them not recognizable as their own entity and they become Batul to the Schach.
51) If you have a Sukka on top of another Sukka, the bottom one is Pasul. However, if the top one has more sun than shade, then the bottom one is Kosher as long as the top one is within twenty Amos. [Tosfos explains: even if the bottom one doesn't have more shade than sun by its own Schach, but he needs to combine the top Schach with it. (However, if the bottom one has enough Schach to be more shade, then the top Schach can be above twenty Amos too.) Tosfos adds: you can combine the top Schach with the bottom Schach even if it's not within three Tefachim to the bottom Schach if it's a Tefach wide, where we can view it as if it lowers down on the bottom Sukka (Chavut Rami).] The Chiddush is that we don't worry that you'll combine the top Schach even if it's above twenty. [Tosfos quotes R' Tam: Schach above twenty is not considered as Pasul Schach since it's not Pasul per se. Therefore, his text is that you can combine it only if the bottom Schach is below twenty, (but the top one could be above twenty). The Chiddush is that we're not worried that, if you would combine Schach from above twenty, you'll come to combine real Pasul Schach.]
Daf 10
52) R' Huna says that it's Pasul as long as there's a Tefach between the two Sukkos, as we see that an Ohel for Tumah is a Tefach. R' Chisda and Rabbah b. Avuha holds that it's four Tefachim, since it's a Chashuv amount. [Rashi says: we see that there is a Chashuv place regarding a minimum space for a Reshus Hayachid and a Karmulas. Tosfos adds: we also see it's considered Chashuv regarding height (like here between Sukkos) since a window that's high four Tefachim can be used as an opening between courtyards to make an Eiruv Chatzeiros between them.] Shmuel says it's ten Tefachim, since it's the Shiur to make it Kosher, it's the Shiur to make the Sukka below it not Kosher. [Tosfos says: and we don't say Chavit Rami as if the whole top Schach falls down on the bottom (Maharam- since we don't say it by a whole roof, but only on individual sticks.).]
53) R' Yehuda argues with the Tanna Kama and says that, if the top one is not fit for living, the bottom one is Kosher. Therefore, at least to the first opinions that the Tanna Kama Pasuls even if there's an airspace less than ten between the two Schachs, we can say that R' Yehuda held that it's not Pasul until there is ten Tefachim between them. However, according to Shmuel that the Tanna Kama also only Pasuls if the top Schach is above ten, we must say that R' Yehuda argues and says it's even Kosher as long as the bottom Schach can't support holding up bedding for the top Sukka without difficulty. (However, if it can't hold bedding at all even with difficulty, even the Tanna Kama permits the bottom Sukka.)
54) If you spread linen over the Schach to protect it from the sun, or under it to protect it from the falling Schach; it's Pasul. However, it's permitted if it's for decor. [Tosfos brings the Gaonim who explain: this is only Pasul if you need the linen to combine to the Shcach to make it more shade. However, otherwise the linen doesn't Pasul the Sukka. R' Tam explains it similarly; only if the linen protects the Schach from the sun preventing it from drying out and becoming more sun than shade, or preventing it from falling down which would only leave it with more sun than shade. It's Pasul in these cases since the linen causes the Kashrus of the Sukka. Rashi explains that the linen Pasuls in all cases. However, that's difficult since there's no reason to differentiate if it's left there to protect from the sun or for decor.]
55) All Sukka decorations are forbidden until after Moitzie Shmini Atzeres. [Tosfos explains: since he might need to eat a meal there Bein Hashmashes of the seventh day and, therefore, it's Muktza for that Bein Hashmashes that's before Shmini Atzeres, thus, it's Muktza for the whole Shmini Atzeres. However, we don't say that an Esrog is Muktza on Shmini Atzeres since you don't need to use it for the Mitzvah Bein Hashmashes at all. It's only forbidden because of Muktza during Bein Hashmashes since it might still be the day before, and for that, we don't say "once it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes, it's Muktza the whole day."]
56) [The decoration of Sukkos aren't Muktza if they fell off on Shabbos after Shmimi Atzeres. After all, it wasn't Muktza Bein Hashmashes between Shmini Atzeres and Shabbos but because of the Safeik that it might still be the day before, i.e., Shmini Atzeres, and we don't say by that "once it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes, it's Muktza the whole day."]
57) Sukka decorations lessen the Shiur from the side (i.e., what you hang up may make the Sukka less than seven Tefachim squared), but it doesn't make the height of the Sukka lower (and doesn't make a Sukka above twenty Amos Kosher, nor makes a Sukka ten Tefachim high Pasul [Tosfos explains: it's not similar to the palm leaves that are hanging from the Schach into the airspace that Pasuls, since here it's put for a decor.]
58) You may not put anything Pasul on top of the Schach that's Pasul since people may think that you're using it for Schach unless it's obviously not left there for Schach, like when you spread wet clothes there to dry. However, he must remove it right away after it dries.
59) If you have decorations that's more than four Tefachim from the Schach; R' Nachman says it's Kosher, and R' Chisda and Rabbah b. R' Huna Pasuls. Even so, when they went to visit the Reish Gelusa on Yom Tov, they slept in one of R' Nachman's Sukkos even though the Shcach was four Tefachim away from the Schach, since they were on the way to doing a Mitvzah and were exempt from Sukka. [Tosfos points out: this would only be if they couldn't fulfil the Mitzvah (that they're on the way to) if they would need to try to find another Sukka.]
60) The first version of Shmuel: you may sleep under a makeshift canopy bed in a Sakka even if it has a flat roof, and it's not similar to a regular canopy bed that you can't sleep under even if it's not ten Tefachim high, since that is an established tent.
Daf 11
61) A second version of Shmuel: you may sleep under a makeshift canopy bed that doesn't have a flat roof even if it's above ten Tefachim, and it's not similar to a regular canopy bed that's forbidden even though it doesn't have a flat roof, since it's a more established tent. [Tosfos says: it must be rabbinically Pasul since we Paskin that slanted tents are not Halachic tents. This is similar to what we forbade the flat roof canopy bed even though it's not ten Tefachim high, since we rabbinically forbid tents that have one of the two variables to a Torah Halachic tent (that has a flat roof and is ten Tefachim high). Perhaps, the difference between the two versions is that the first version doesn't allow a makeshift slanty canopy roof when it's above ten Tefachim.]
62) We don't need to compare the problem of sleeping under the flat roof canopy bed even if it's not above ten Tefachim to what Shmuel only Pasuls a Sukka below another Sukka when there is ten Tefachim. After all, there, the top Sukka has to Pasul the bottom Sukka, so you need the Shiur that Kashers it to make it Pasul. Here, you only need to be sleeping under another 'tent' to say you're not in the Sukka, and you can have a tent less than ten Tefachim high.
63) Shmuel says: a naked person can stick out his head outside the makeshift canopy bed that's not ten Tefachim high, since it's like sticking his head outside his shirt, and his head is not with his Ervah. [Tosfos points out: Shmuel must hold like the opinion that there is no problem for your heart to 'see' your Ervah.] However, if it's ten high, then it's a tent, and we say that his head follows the rest of his body and it's in the same place as his Ervah. If he's in a house, he can't read even if his head's out the window and the house is not high ten, since it's a more established building.
64) Rabbah b. R' Huna allowed sleeping in a canopy bed that has a flat roof and is ten Tefachim high. As he holds like R' Yehuda that you may sleep in a Sukka under a bed, and the Chiddush is that the reason for R' Yehuda is, since he holds a Sukka needs to be an established tent, we don't say sleeping under a temporary tent stops you from being considered under the established tent, (and we don't say R' Yehuda's reason is because we don't consider under the bed as a tent since it's made to use the top of the bed). [Tosfos points out: the Halacha is not like R' Yehuda.]
65) If someone runs a vine across a Sukka, it's Pasul since it's attached to the ground, unless they add more Schach Kosher to make it Batul. However, if you cut the vine, it's Kosher. Shmuel says that you need to shake it, or else it's Pasul since the Torah says to make a Sukka, and this Schach was ready-made (from when it was Pasul). Rav says that you don't need to shake it since the cutting of the vine is the making of the Sukka. This is like he holds that, if you tie the Tzitzis before you separate a very long string into four separate strings, and now the ends of the Tzitzis strings are still attached to each other, you can make it Kosher by cutting those attached strings. Although the Tzitzis also need to be made and not be ready-made, but the cutting is the making of the Tzitzis. [Tosfos adds: Rav admits that you can't make Tzitzis from lose threads from the weaving since it wasn't even put on the clothes to be Tzitzis.] Shmuel says the Tzitzis is Pasul. However, Shmuel admits that if it was placed in the clothes before cutting the strings, but you cut them before tying them, it's Kosher.
66) [Tosfos says that we Paskin like R' Shimon who holds that night is not the time for Tzitzis. Therefore, it's a time based positive Mitzvah and women are exempt.]
67) Although we have a Braisa that says that the Sukka is Pasul even when cutting the tree branch off because it's ready-made; that's only if it's yanked off. [Rashi explains: since it's not noticeable that it's off, since it's still laying right next to where it was cut off from the tree, it's Pasul. Tosfos explains according to this: that the reason that the Brasia brings for it to be Pasul, from the Drasha "you shall make," and not for it to be ready-made, is only an Asmachta, since it's only rabbinically Pasul since it looks like it's attached. However, Tosfos gives an alternative explanation: the bark is still attached, but you detached it by the inner wood. Granted, it's considered detached since it can't live this way; but since it wasn't completely plucked off, detaching it is not considered as if you're making it.]
68) However, it's difficult to Rav since there is a Braisa that Pasuls when you make Tzitzis and then cut them. [Tosfos adds: also, it seems like all the Amaraim hold like Shmuel.]
69) There's no proof from the Tannaic argument of having a Hadas that has more berries than leaves (that makes it Pasul), and it's already bound with the Luluv, if you can pluck the berries off. You don't need to say the one who permits holds that the plucking off is the making of the Luluv-bind. After all, we can say that everyone agrees that it doesn't make the Luluv-bind, but they argue whether you need to make the bind, or it can be ready-made. One holds that we extrapolate Luluv from Sukka that it needs to be made, and the other holds that we don't extrapolate. Alternatively, even if we would extrapolate Luluv from Sukka if Luluv needs to be bound, but they argue whether a Luluv needs to be bound or not. As we see that R' Yehuda holds that a Luluv needs to be bound, as we learn it from a Gezeura Shava from the binding of the hyssop of the Parah waters, and the Rabanan don't need it bound since they don't learn that Gezeiras Shava. However, they agree that it's a Mitzvah to bind it in order to beautify the Mitzvah as the Pasuk says "this is my Hashem and I should beautify him."
70) The Schach must be something that grows from the ground and is not susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos explains: it doesn't include animals, even though they're sometimes referred to as "growing from the ground" since they grow from consuming what grows from the ground; but since the source is from actual plants that actually grow from the ground, we never compare animals to that in order to include them that they "grow from the ground."]
Daf 12
71) You can't make Schach with bundles [Tosfos brings the Yerushalmi: we don't consider it as a bundle unless there are twenty five pieces bundled together.] Even if it's placed up on the Sukka for shade, since you might have put it up there to dry out and then decide to use it as a Sukka, which is Pasul since it's ready-made after you decided it to be for shade. However, if you untie it, it's permitted [Tosfos says: even if you originally only put it up to dry, since untying is like shaking it up.]
72) (They used to have arrows made of two parts, and they attached them by putting the one with the peg into the one with the socket.) You can make Schach with 'male' halves of an arrow since it doesn't have a receptacle, so it's a flat wooden utensil that's not susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos says: it's not even susceptible rabbinically.] The Chiddush is that we're not concerned that if you make Schach fom the male peg halves, you'll also make it from female socket halves. However, you can't make it from the female half since it has a receptacle, and we don't say that it doesn't have the status of a real receptacle since it's meant to be filled. [Tosfos asks: before it's attached, it shouldn't be a complete utensil, and it's like a handle of a knife that's not susceptible to Tumah before it's attached to the blade. Also, the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the Rabanan hold that the receptacles that were meant to be filled doesn't have the status of a receptacle, and only R' Eliezer, who's a student of Beis Shammai, says that it does. It's difficult to answer that it has a status of a receptacle here since the arrow is meant to be taken apart.]
73) Schach from Intzei of flax (i.e., it's beaten and combed) is Pasul. [Tosfos explains: although it's not susceptible to Tumah from the Torah with Tzaras unless it's already thread, but since it's close to being susceptible to Tumah from the Torah, it's rabbinically susceptible to Tumah and is Pasul to make Schach with it. However, this is only according to R' Meir who says that it becomes susceptible as soon as it's made into thread, but according to R' Yehuda who holds that it doesn't become susceptible until you whiten the threads, we don't say that Intzei is so close to being Tamai, so it's Kosher. This is not like Rashi who quotes R' Yehuda here.] Hutzni flax (i.e., that it wasn't even soaked yet) is Kosher Schach. However, it's a Safeik if Hushni flax is Kosher or Pasul. It's also a Safeik if Hushni flax is defined as only if it's soaked and beaten (without combing), or also if it was soaked without beating.
74) R' Yehuda says that the vegetable "Shvatzri" can be made into Schach since it's not susceptible to Tumah since it's not human food. However, Abaya forbids it. Since it smells bad, people might leave the Sukka.
Daf 13
75) R' Chanan b. Rava says you can make Schach out of Higi (a type of thorn bush). However, Abaya forbids it. Since the leaves fall down, it might cause someone to leave his Sukka.
76) If you have a branch with many reeds coming out of it, we don't say that it's Pasul for Schach because it's a bundle, since something bundled from heaven (i.e.,naturally) is not considered bundled in this Halacha. Even if you tie all the reeds together, it's Kosher, since binding one branch to itself is not considered to be bound.
77) A person can be Yoitza eating Maror with the "swamp Maror," even though it has a specific name to it, and we don't say that this is not the Maror of the Torah, which would be just regular Maror. Although we see that we Pasul different hyssops to sprinkle the Parah waters since they have specific names; Abaya differentiates whether it got its specific name before the Torah giving, (so the Torah never included it in the Pasuk), and whether it was given its specific name after Matan Torah, (and it was called a regular Maror when the Torah said to eat Maror). Rava says: really, it's called regular Maror. It's only got the nickname "swamp Maror" since it grows in the swamp.
78) Three items tied together is definitely a bundle, and one is not. Two items tied together is dependant on the following argument: R' Yossi says that you originally need to tie three hyssops together to be a tie, but after using it, it's Kosher if only two survived. The Rabanan say that you need L'chatchila three, B'dieved two, and after you started using it, you need one to survive.
79) If it was tied to be sold by a certain count, since it's not tied to dry out, but to sell, and the buyer unties it right after the sale; you don't need to untie it for Schach.
80) A hunter's blind (that's tied together on the top and bottom), that its upper tie is undone, it's Kosher for Schach. Although the bottom tie is still tied; R' Pappa says that we must refer to a case that the bottom was also untied. R' Huna b. R' Yehoshua says that it's Kosher even when not untied since you can't move it with that tie, since it will make the whole blind fall apart, it's not considered as a bundle for Schach.
81) All vegetables that are Maror, since they dry out quickly, we only consider them there (if made for a roof) as a stringency, but not as a leniency. After all, you might rely on it as if it's there when it dries out and falls down. Therefore, regarding a tent for a corpse, it brings the Tumah to the sides of this tent, but doesn't block the Tumah for ascending above it. [Tosfos says: don't say that it anyhow should not block Tumah since it's susceptible to Tumah since Maror must be from something you can buy with Maasar Sheini money, and all that are bought with Maasar Sheini money is susceptible to Tumah for being food (and not like Rashi who says that it's not susceptible since it's not edible for humans). After all, we can say the case is: it was before it had liquid on it to Macsher it for Tumah.] Also, it Pasuls a Sukka like airspace, (which Pasuls with a three Tefachim airspace, and not like Schach Pasul that Pasuls only with four Tefachim).
82) R' Menasisa quotes R' Huna: if you harvested grain to use the straw as Schach, none of the stalk is susceptible to Tumah as being the handle for the grain, and, of course, if you harvest grapes for pressing into wine, none of the vines are susceptible to Tumah for being a handle since you have the extra factor that you don't want the vines to be by the pressing since it will absorb the wine. However, R' Abba quotes R' Huna: only the vines aren't susceptible for being handles, but the straw is susceptible as a handle since you want it to not scatter. [Rashi explains: you don't want the grain to scatter so that you can eat it after Sukkos, so you want it attached to the straw for that reason. Tosfos explains: he wants the grains attached to the straw to weigh down the straw so it won't scatter.]
83) We see a Tannaic argument if you made Schach with the branches attached to fruit. The Tanna Kama says that it's Kosher when you have a majority of the branches to Mevatel the fruit. [Tosfos says: we don't say that, by the very fact that you made a roof out of them, that the fruit no longer has the status of food, like we say by a house that's roofed with seeds, that the seeds are no longer susceptible to Tumah. After all, you're more Mevatel it there by a permanent house than a temporary Sukka. Also, even if you're Mevatel it there, it's only after it's placed upon it. Therefore, it's Pasul since you need the Schach to be made when it's Kosher, and not ready-made (after it turned Kosher after the building). Alternatively, the case of the seeds is only if you did some action to them to change them.] Acheirim say that you need that the extra branches (that are past the point of them being handles) to be the majority to Mevatel the fruit and their handles.
After all, we need to say that R' Abba's statement can't be like both opinions, but we can say that R' Menasia held like both, that no one holds that, when harvested for Schach, they're considered to be handles. Rather, we refer to a case where it was harvested to eat, and then he changed his mind to use it for Schach. Once it was a handle, you need to change it to remove it from the status of a handle. Therefore, according to the opinion that the Rabanan say that it loses its status by untying it, we refer to a case where he was Mevatel its status by untying it (and it's more lenient than making a utensil lose its status. After all, since the utensil is more Chashuv, you need an action to change it). According to the opinion that you need to thresh it, here too, it refers to when he threshed it. (However, R' Yossi argues with the Rabanan and say, according to this first version, it doesn't lose its status by untying, and according to the second opinion, even after threshing, since threshed straw could be overturned with a pitchfork (so it still functions as a handle). Therefore, we'll say that Acheirim held like R' Yossi, and by Sukka, you'll still use the threshed straw to remove each straw after Sukkos to be able to take the grain.)
Daf 14
84) R' Yehuda allows using boards for Schach, and R' Meir forbids because the rabbis decreed it to be Pasul because they're similar to ceilings (i.e., since you make your ceilings from these boards, you'll say "what's the difference between sitting in the Sukka or sitting under my house's ceiling").
85) Rav says that their argument is only by a four Tefachim board, but if it was less, even R' Meir permits. Shmuel says that they argue from three Tefachim to four Tefachim, (but less than three everyone allows since they're only like reeds). However, if it's four Tefachim and larger, everyone agrees that they're Pasul. Each opinion has a Braisa to support them.
86) According to Rav according to R' Meir, or according to Shmuel according to everyone; if you put a four Tefachim board on the side of the Sukka, it's still Kosher (since you can use it as a Dofen Akuma), but you can't sleep under the board.
87) [Tosfos says: according to Shmuel, according to R' Meir, if you put up boards that's less than four, and you fill up Schach Kosher between the boards that's the same size of the board, the Sukka is Kosher and you can even sleep under the boards (since you don't have four Tefachim of Schach Pasul in one place). However, if there are more of the boards than of the Schach Kosher, it's worse, and makes the whole Sukka Pasul.]
88) If you place a four Tefachim wide board on the Sukka on its thickness (and it's not four Tefachim thick), it's still Pasul. After all, once they decreed that boards are Pasul, they have the status like metal spits and can't be used as Schach in any way. [Tosfos says: this seems to say that we Paskin like Shmuel, even though we would regularly Paskin like Rav, since this statement is not like Rav according to R' Yehuda, who we Paskin like against R' Meir, and can only fit into R' Yehuda according to Shmuel. Also, when the Gemara later needs to bring the argument, it brings the Braisa that supports Shmuel.]
Daf 15
89) The Mishna says: if you have a house that four-Tefachim boards are placed there to make the ceiling, but it wasn't yet cemented; R' Yehuda says that it's an argument between Beis Shammai, who Pasuls, and Beis Hillel who says it's Kosher if you move it or shake them up a little so it wouldn't be ready-made. R' Meir says that both of them Pasuls. This fits well to Rav since this is the old argument, and R' Yehuda permits four Tefachim boards, and R' Meir Pasuls. However, according to Shmuel who says that even R' Yehuda Pasuls if it's four Tefachim; we must say that here is different since he's actually doing an action (by shaking it) to remove it from being a ceiling, R' Yehuda says that we're no longer worried that you wouldn't know the difference between the Sukka and a ceiling in your house, and R' Meir holds that the decree remains.
90) If someone covers his Sukka with metal spits, or with bed posts, that are Pasul for Schach); if there is the same amount of space between the Pasul Schach to put Kosher Schach; it will be kosher. This fits well according to R' Pappa who says that if the airspace between Mechitzos are exactly the same size as the Mechitzos, it's Kosher. However, according to R' Huna b. R' Yehoshua that Pasuls, you need to say that we refer to adding extra. [Rashi explains: adding extra space between the spits in order that there should be a little more Kosher Schach than Pasul Schach. Tosfos explains: that you add extra Kosher Schach to Mevatel the Pasul Schach since it's now the majority.] R' Ashi answers: if the spits are in one direction, place the Schach in the opposite direction. [Rashi explains: so that it will come out that there is more Schach Kosher, since if it would only be enough to be between the spits, there won't be anything holding them up. So the extra that's needed to be placed over the Schach Pasul to hold it up will make it the majority and is Mevatel the Schach Pasul. Tosfos says: R' Ashi doesn't like the answer of just piling extra wood to Mevatel the spits since you might forget to add extra, (but you will be forced to add extra when you place it in the opposite direction and it must be held up). However, Tosfos disagrees to this whole explanation. After all, how can you Mevatel the Schach Pasul since you can recognize the Schach Pasul by themselves and are not mixed together?
Rather, we must say like R' Tam's text: we already answered according to the opinion that you need more Mechitza than airspace, that you leave extra room between the spits. However, according to the one who needs it to be exact, even though there is exact room between the spits to be equal, but how can you make sure that it's completely covered, and not the slightest space empty? On that, the Gemara answers that you pile the Schach up until it fills every cranny. Alternatively, you place it in the opposite direction to make sure that every inch is covered.]
90a) [Tosfos brings the Gemara in Eiruvin that says: If a Lechi sticks out for four Amos or more, it has a status of a wall, and can't be used as a Lechi. R' Huna b. R' Yehoshua says that a four Amos Lechi is only Pasul if the alleyway is eight Amos wide. However if it's less than that, the alleyway is permitted since it has more wall to cover the opening than it has open space. R' Ashi says that it's permitted even by an eight Amos wide alleyway. This is even according to those who hold that if it's half closed and half open, it's not a good Mechitza. After all, perhaps the Lechi is the smallest amount more than four Amos and you have more wall than opening. Perhaps it's the smallest amount smaller than four Amos and it's a Lechi less than four Amos. The only way it would be prohibited if it's exactly four Amos. Therefore, we can say it's a Safeik Drabanan and we can be lenient. Tosfos explains: even if you say things that are orchestrated by man can be exact, like we Paskin that a Mechitza that's exactly half wall (and half open) is a good Mechitza; but he can only be exact if he takes pains to do so, and the rabbis didn't require him to take such pains to check it out.
Alternatively, we can explain; we can't measure things so exact. Although we say that a half Mechitza is Kosher, that's only because it's like a Sfeik Sfeika. Perhaps it's a little more than half and is Kosher, and even if it's not more, perhaps it's exact and it's still Kosher. The same can be said here, that most of the possibilities are Kosher. Perhaps it's a little more than four, or a little less, and it's only not Kosher if it's exactly four. However, Tosfos asks: this would infer that you need to be stringent by a Safeik Torah; so how can the Gemara in Bechoros prove that if they measured and found the killed person exactly between two cities, both cities bring an Eglah; that they hold that you can measure exactly? After all, perhaps they're just stringent for a Safeik Torah. Also, the one who holds that half Mechitza half airspace is Pasul is because the Torah says to have more Mechitzos, and not even if the Torah says to have exactly the same and to be stringent because of a Safeik Torah.]
91) Your not allowed to make Schach from the Torah from partial frames of beds consisting of one side of the frame and two legs, according to the opinion that it's susceptible to Tumah from the Torah. As R' Eliezer says that a bed is only Tamai when fully attached, and it becomes Tahor through Teveila when they're attached. (However, if you detached the pieces and then Toivel them, and then reattach them, they get back their old Tumah.) The Chachumim say that they become susceptible each piece by itself (i.e., the frame and two legs), and can be Tahor through Teveila each piece by itself. [Tosfos brings the Tosefta that seems to argue about the frame and two legs: R' Eliezer says that, if you touch one piece of that partial frame, all the pieces are Tamai too, and if you Toivel it whole, it's not like one piece is a Chatzitza to the second one. The Rabanan hold that only the piece you touch is Tamai, but the others are Tahor, and you can't Toivel it whole since one piece is a Chatzitza to the other one.]
The reason for the Rabanan since you may place it from across a wall and place wood between the wall and the partial frame and spread ropes over it and you have a contraption that you can sit on.
92) [Tosfos says: this is according to R' Nechemia who holds that even the long side of the frame and the legs are Tamai (and the Chachumim only say that the short side is Tamai with its legs). However, this is only if the whole bed is still around and belongs to the same person. However, if the other half was stolen, or partners split it up, the bed is Tahor unless he attaches it to other bed parts. (See Aruch L'ner who asks: since the frame is usable by itself, like we said before, why should it be dependent if the rest of the bed is intact?)]
Daf 16
93) [Tosfos deduces from here that you can be Toivel a flat wooden utensil that susceptible to Tumah Medris. We must say it's different than utensils made from Gemmi grass that's Tamai Medris that we say can't be Toiveled.]
94) Worn out utensils that don't have the Shiur anymore to be susceptible to Tumah is still rabbinically Pasul for Schach since he might come to make a Schach with a regular utensil.
95) If someone is digging out a haystack to make a Sukka, it's Pasul since the Schach was ready made. However, if you place the haystack on a Tefach high wall that's seven Tefachim squared, it's Kosher. After all, since there is a Tefach airspace, the haystack gets the status of Schach. It's only missing the walls, and there is no problem for the walls to be ready-made. [Tosfos points out: this is even according to the opinion that, by a Sukka on top of a Sukka, a Tefach of airspace between Sukkos doesn't Pasul (but you need four or ten between). After all if they're dependent on each other, then how will the opinion that you need ten learn the Braisa that allows digging in the haystack if it's started, if he anyhow needs a start of ten Tefachim?]
95) The Tanna Kama says that you can't have the wall of the Sukka suspended more than three Tefachim away from the ground. However, R' Yossi allows such suspended walls.
96) We see a similar opinion regarding drawing from a well that's between two courtyards on Shabbos. The Tanna Kama says that you need to make a ten Tefachim Mechitza in the well, whether it's above, below, or within the rim. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that it's an argument between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. [Tosfos: Beis Shammai requires it to be below by the water.] R' Yehuda says: the well doesn't need its own Mechitza, since the wall that separates the two courtyards from above will help for the well too.
We don't need to say that R' Yossi by Sukka and R' Yehuda by Shabbos held the same way. After all, perhaps R' Yehuda only allows this suspended Mechitza by the rabbinical Eiruv Chatzeiros, but wouldn't allow it by a Sukka that's from the Torah. Also, perhaps R' Yossi only allows it by a Sukka that's only an Asei, but would not allow it by Shabbos that the concept has a Lav that has the punishment of stoning by it. Although we see someone allowed a suspended Mechitza by Shabbos in Tzipori (R' Yossi's city), it may not have been R' Yossi, but his son and successor, R' Yishmael.
97) [Rashi says that the rabbis didn't decree to forbid a temporary tent but by making a roof, and not for making walls. However, Tosfos brings many proofs that it's also forbidden to make a temporary wall when it permits something by being a Mechitza, but not when it's only put up for privacy.]
98) If you have a Sukka that its Schach is exactly ten Tefachim above the ground, you can have four Tefachim and a little bit high Mechitza that's placed within three from the ground, and within three from the Schach, since we can create a ten Tefachim high wall through two Lavuds [Tosfos says: this is a Chiddush when it's horizontal, (but we already know this by vertical Lavuds by making the walls from reeds that are placed less than three from each other). We don't permit with two ropes that thicknesses equal a Tefach, and place the one within three to the ground, and the second one within three from the first rope, and within three from the Schach, which we permit a similar enclosure made by three ropes by an encamped caravan; since we only allow such weak Mechitzos by a caravan, (which is a desperate situation, where you might not have the material to make full Mechitzos).]
99) If you have one regular Mechitza, and you place a four Tefachim and a little bit board less than three Tefachim away from the first Mechitza, and with Lavud, you have a seven Tefachim wall, it's a Kosher two full walls for a Sukka. [Tosfos says: the reason that you can't have two two-Tefachim boards, one next to the full wall, and the second within three Tefachim of the first board; since there is an opinion that you can't make a Mechitza with just vertical pieces, or just horizontal pieces. If the boards are not four Tefachim wide, it's only considered as vertical pieces.]
Daf 17
100) Airspace Pasuls a Sukka, according to everyone, with three Tefachim. [Tosfos says that this is only by airspace on the side of the Sukka, so that the Schach is too far from the walls. However, if you have airspace in the middle of the Sukka and it doesn't go from wall to wall, it's Kosher. This is not only in the case where there is a Shiur of a Kosher Sukka from the back wall until the airspace, so all Schach that extends from it has the status of "Schach that's extended from a Sukka," but this may be even if there is no Shiur Schach Kosher by the back wall. After all, perhaps we'll combine all the Schach that's on both sides of the airspace to a Shiur of Sukka since all the Schach is connected. The same would be true if there would be Schach Pasul in the middle.]
101) Schach Pasul invalidates the Sukka if its four Tefachim wide, unless it's placed on the side of the Sukka, where we can say Dofen Akuma until four Amos.
102) Rabbah asks on this: why is it so simple that the Shiur in the middle is four Tefachim, and not the Shiur that the Mishna says, that it's four Amos (and you need to establish that the Mishna only refers to the side)? It's because of the logic that the Schach on both sides of the Schach Pasul is too far away to combine. If so, how can you say that, if you have less than four Tefachim of Schach Pasul next to an airspace of less than three Tefachim, they don't combine to Pasul the Sukka, and yet, if you fill up the airspace with Schach Pasul, it invalidates it? After all, since the P'sul comes from the fact that the two sides of Schach Kosher are too far apart, what difference does it make what makes them separated?
103) (However, this wouldn't be a difficult question to Rabbah himself, that, if you have less than four Amos of Schach Pasul next to an airspace of less than three Tefachim, they don't combine to Pasul the Sukka, and yet, if you fill up the airspace with Schach Pasul, it invalidates it? After all, the four Amos of Schach Pasul is a Shiur, and not just because it makes both sides of the Schach Kosher too far from each other. Therefore, we have the rule that things don't combine if their Shiurim are not the same at least for one aspect. As we see that, although cloth, sack, leather and mattress material don't have the same Shiur to be susceptible for Tumah, they still combine together to a Shiur [Tosfos: with the material mentioned next to them, but cloth and leather etc. don't combine since their Shiurim are very different], since they're all susceptible to Tumas Medris since they can be used as a patch on a donkey's blanket with the same Shiur, a Tefach.)
103a) [Tosfos says: its a Safeik if you have two Tefachim of Schach Pasul separated from another two Tefachim of Schach Pasul with an airspace of less than three Tefachim, do you combine them through Lavud to make four Tefachim of Schach Pasul and Pasul the Sukka, or not. However, if they're not four Tefachim all together, we won't consider them as four Tefachim through the Lavud that combines them. After all, we don't say Lavud to make a stringency.]
104) Another version: only Shmuel holds that the Shiur for Schach Pasul on the side is four Amos, and in the middle, it's four Tefachim, but Rav says that, in all areas, the Shiur is four Amos. According to Shmuel, that, which R' Meir holds that if you line your Sukka with four Tefachim of Schach Kosher between four-Tefachim boards, it's Kosher, and we don't say that there's a separation of four Tefachim by the boards; we must say it only refers to an eight Amah Sukka. You start with a board on both sides, which leads to have two four-Tefachim size Schach Kosher in the middle. Therefore, you have more than the seven Tefachim squared Sukka with the Schach in the middle, and beyond that until the walls is a Dofen Akuma.
Daf 18
105) You definitely say Lavud from the wall to the start of the Schach. However, there is an argument between Reveina and R' Acha whether there is Lavud in the middle of the Schach. One held there is Lavud just like there is Lavud with two crossbeams protruding from opposite walls of the alley and they don't touch, it permits carrying in the alley if they meet in the middle within three Tefachim from each other. (It's not similar to an Ohel over a corpse that, if there is an empty space in the Ohel, we don't say that the Tumah spreads there by saying it's considered covered because of Lavud, since it's a special Halacha L'moshe Misinai by Ohel.) However, the other one held that we don't say Lavud in the middle of the Schach. [Tosfos says: only if the airspace goes through the whole width of the Sukka, but if they're connected by some Schach, it's not a problem since we're not obligated to cover every inch with Schach without having the slightest hole. The reason why you need four Tefachim of Schach Pasul to invalidate and we don't say that the Schach Kosher is separated more than the amount for Lavud; since Schach Pasul is not Chashuv, it doesn't separate the two sides of Schach Kosher.] The proof is from Ohel that, if you have a skylight in middle of the roof (even less than three Tefachim) where a corpse lay under, it doesn't make Tamai a utensil that's under the skylight. If the corpse is under the skylight, it doesn't make Tamai what's under the roof, and we don't consider it as if the skylight is covered with Lavud. (However, there is no proof from the case of the crossbeams since it's only a rabbinical enactment.)
106) If you have a lot of tiny fish, there forbidden since there could be non-Kosher fish mixed into them, unless they're caught in a sea that these small non-Kosher fish don't live in them.
107) If you make a Sukka by putting Schach between porches; if these porches have poles within three Tefachim from each other, everyone agrees that it's a Kosher Sukka since they can be the walls of the Sukka. If they don't have these poles (and are completely open, [Rashi adds: and the porches' roofs are more than four Amos from their back wall, or else those walls will work as Mechitzos through Dofen Akuma]); Abaya says it's Kosher since we can say Pi Tikra (i.e., we view the thickness of the porch's roof as it extends down to make a Mechitza.) Rava Pasuls and holds we don't say Pi Tikrah. (Abaya admits that you don't say Pi Tikra when opposite sides of the structure are completely open since traffic passes through them.) We don't need to say that they argue with the same argument whether you can permit carrying under a solidary porch in an open valley, that Rav permits because of Pi Tikra, and Shmuel forbids. After all, we can say that everyone agrees to Rav, However, Rava differentiates that Rav only said Pi Tikra for under the porch since the porch was built for that area, and not for the Sukka that's outside the porch area, since they weren't built for that outside area.
107) [Rashi explains that you're using all the surrounding porches to say Pi Tikra, since he holds that Pi Tikra works for Mechitzos on all four sides. Although Abaya says that there is no Pi Tikra when its open on opposite sides; that's only when it's out in the open in middle of the courtyard, and not among the porches where it's more closed up. However, Tosfos felt this to be pushed to say that the one surrounded by a courtyard is more open than one surrounded by porches. Also, Tosfos asks: if it's true like he explains that Rav held we say Pi Tikra on the four sides of the porch in the valley, and Shmuel says it by three sides; how can Abaya admit there is no Pi Tikrah when its open at opposite sides, and, of course it would be forbidden when open on all four sides? Therefore, Tosfos explains: two adjacent porches had full walls, so, you have two full perpendicular walls, and you only need a Mechitza for the third wall. When Rav and Shmuel argued by the porch in the valley, it refers to having three walls, and Rav says that you say Pi Tikra for the completely open fourth wall, and Shmuel only allows it if the fourth wall is partially covered (even if the opening is more than ten Amos, for if it's less, why do you need a Pi Tikra to permit?) Rav would agree that you say Pi Tikra by two adjacent walls, as long as they're not two parallel walls that's open on opposite sides, like the Rabanan who argue on R' Yehuda and don't permit carrying under a bridge, and we don't say the thickness of the bridge comes down and it's Pi Tikra. Even R' Yehuda who permits by Shabbos that needs four Mechitzos, will agree that it doesn't work by a Sukka that only need three Mechitzos.]
Daf 19
108) Abaya admits that we don't say Pi Tikra if the Schach is flush to the side of the porch's roof, since there is no noticeable thickness and the Schach looks like a continuing roof.
109) Another version: everyone holds that if there are no poles, we don't say Pi Tikra when the roof's not made for the outer area, and the Sukka is Pasul. However, if there are poles, Abaya held that it's a Kosher Sukka since the poles form a wall through Lavud. Rava says it's Pasul since we only say Lavud to enclose the porch, since the poles are made to enclose it, but it was not made to enclose the area outside the porch, so we don't say Lavud in that case. The Halacha is like the first version.
110) If the poles of the porch aren't facing the inside of the Sukka, but stretches from the Sukka to the outside; it's still a Kosher Sukka, since we say the same by a Lechi for an alleyway that it's Kosher if it can't be seen from inside the alleyway, but only from the outside. [Tosfos asks: why does this work by a Sukka? After all, the Mechitzos of Sukka needs to be recognizable. You can't say it's because, once it works as a Lechi for Shabbos, it works as a wall for a Sukka. After all, it's not probable to say that they built this Sukka only for Shabbos. Also, we already explained that we only say this logic to permit a rabbinical requirement and not a Torah requirement.]
111) If you have "Schach protruding from the Sukka," it's Kosher. Ullah explains that if some of the Schach sticks out behind the back wall and there's a Shiur of Sukka for it, and that back area has two other walls. [Rashi explains the Chiddush is that we don't say it's Pasul just because the back wall was made for the main Sukka, and not for this back Sukka. Tosfos explains: we don't say it's Pasul because the Schach was put on for the main Sukka and not for this back Sukka.]
112) Rabbah and R' Yosef defines "Schach protruding from the Sukka," that one of the side walls extends further than the opposite side wall, so it's Kosher under the Schach that's past the short side even though it doesn't have three walls surrounding it.
113) R' Yochanan explains that it goes out of the Halacha of Sukka, i.e., if you have a little amount of the Schach's area that has more sun than shade, it's Kosher as long as the majority of the Sukka has more shade than sun.
114) R' Oshiya explains: we refer to Schach Pasul that's less than three Tefachim on a small Sukka. Even though you might say that there is no Chiddush since they're no worse than airspace that's less than three Tefachim [Rashi: and airspace is more stringent]; but the Chiddush is that one combines to a Shiur, but you can't sleep under it, and the other not only combines to a Shiur, but you may sleep under it. [Rashi explains that you can't sleep under the airspace, but you can sleep under the Schach Pasul. Tosfos disagrees. After all, it's more logical to say to sleep under the airspace since, through Lavud, we can view it as if that space is completely covered with Schach Kosher. Also, if you need not to sleep under airspace, how can you sleep at all in a Sukka since you can't be careful to cover every last hole. Also, why does the Gemara give a case of a small Sukka, if you need to say this Chiddush by a big Sukka too. Rather, we need to say that, on the contrary, the airspace is more lenient than Schach Pasul since you can sleep under airspace and not under Schach Pasul by a small Sukka. However, we must say that you're allowed to sleep under it when it's a big Sukka, as we say that you can be in a Sukka that's lined with metal spits as long as there is equal amount of Schach between the spits. However, the Yerushalmi seems to say like Rashi.]
115) We also find this concept that something can combine to a Shiur even though it's not Kosher to use; that loose mud combines to a Shiur of a Mikva but you can't Toivel in it [Rashi: if you make a Mikva exclusively from this mud. Tosfos disagrees since we're comparing it to the Sukka which is not exclusively made of airspace. Rather, even when you combine it to the Shiur Mikvah, you can only Toivel in the water area of the Mikvah, and not in the mud area. In Mikvos there is an argument: R' Eliezer says that you can only be Toivel in the water, and R' Yehoshua says you can be Toivel in both if the mud is under the water, but not if it's on the side of the water.]
115a) [Tosfos explains: the Gemara in Zevachim says that lose mud is Kosher as long as a cow will drink from it. Although in Mikvos there's an argument how thin it has to be (R' Meir says that a reed must sink in it, R' Yehuda says that it can't hold up a reed, R' Eliezer says it needs to be poured in a barrel, R' Shimon says it needs to go down a straw of a water skin, and R' Elazar b. Tzadok says if it could be measured with a Lug measuring cup); we must say that they argue; at what point would a cow drink it. We can't say let us test what a cow would drink since all cows are different, and they were arguing about the average. Although the Gemara in Chulin says that you can be Toivel in what a cow wouldn't drink, that's only referring to water that became putrid, but doesn't have any mud in it.]
116) If you make the Sukka like a tepee, or you lean the tall reeds against the wall; R' Eliezer says it's a Kosher Sukka, since he holds a slant is considered as a true tent, and the Rabanan say it's Pasul since we can't count a slant as a roof, so there is no Schach. However, the Rabanan admit that it's Kosher if you distance the reeds a Tefach away from the wall, or lift it a Tefach above the ground. [Rashi says even if it's empty space from the walls to the reeds and it's considered as a roof through Lavud, and you don't need material between the ground and the reeds when you lift them. Tosfos held that it's only Kosher if you had a Tefach wall on the ground, and a Tefach of Schach between the reeds and the wall. However, the Yerushalmi seems like Rashi.]
117) [Tosfos says: it seems that R' Eliezer doesn't permit it unless the area that the reeds are higher than ten Tefachim is wide seven like a Shiur of the smallest Sukka. However, if it has this Shiur, perhaps, he'll permit to sleep under the area that's under ten Tefachim like "Schach that protrudes from a Sukka."]
118) Therefore, R' Eliezer will hold that it's prohibited to sleep under a slanty canopy bed since he'll be under another tent besides the Sukka, but the Rabanan allow since the slanty canopy isn't a tent by itself.
Daf 20
119) The Gemara's conclusion: everyone holds that small mats are assumed that it's made for sitting on, and is susceptible to Tumas Medris and is Pasul for Schach, unless it was explicitly made for Schach. However, a big mat; the Tanna Kama says that it's assumed that it's made to be Schach and is not susceptible to Tumah and you can make Schach from it. However, R' Eliezer says it's assumed that it's made for sitting and susceptible to Tumah and you can't make Schach from it.
120) R' Dosa says that [Tosfos: small] woven mats that are made from Gemmi grass and Shifa are susceptible to Tumah and you can't make Schach from it, but reeds and 'Chilas' are not susceptible to Tumah, so you can use it as Schach. (However, the Tanna Kama says it's susceptible to Tumah so you can't use it as Schach.) However this is only if there is no rim that makes it to have a receptacle. [Tosfos says: even though wide, flat wooden utensils are rabbinically susceptible to Tumah; this unrimmed mat is different since it doesn't even have a status of a utensil.] However, if there is a rim, it's susceptible to Tumah of a corpse. The Chachumim say it's also susceptible to Tumas Medris.
121) They don't argue about those that were made in Usha that were soft and people sit on them, since everyone says they're susceptible to Tumas Medris. Nor do they argue by those made in Teveria which are very hard, and people don't sit on. They argue about those in other cities. R' Dosa held they're not susceptible to Tumas Medris since most people don't set it aside for sitting. However, the Chachumim say that it does since sometimes people will come to sit on it.