Thursday shiur review

Review of Thursday’s shiur:

R. Zeira and Rava do not agree with Rava – why? They understand the the ידיעה referred to in the pasuk refers to the lesson that later generations will learn that Hashem protected Am Yisrael with the ענני הכבוד – not (as Raba understands it) as referring to the knowledge that we are sitting in a Succah that Hashem commanded……

Raba and Rava do not agree with R. Zeira – why? The reference to the shade of the Succah is a reference to the Divine Protection that will be provided Am Yisrael in the times of the Mashiach. R. Zeira responds: If that was the ONLY intention of the pasuk in the Navi, the term “Chuppah” would have been used. The use of the term “Succah” conveys both the prophecy PLUS the halachic information that the shade must be provided by the סכך

R. Zeira and Raba do not agree with Rava – for the same reason Abaye objected to Rava’s approach.

The Gemara then goes on to successive quotes of Rav – asking: “according to which of the three approaches on 2a do these statements align?

R. Yoshiya/Rav - The machloket between TK and RY in the mishna is only when the walls don’t reach the schach, because then the human eye does not follow the walls up to the schach, but if the walls reach the schach, even TK agrees with RY.  This goes according to Raba, whose whole concern with the 20 ama high limit is the lack of awareness that one is sitting in a Succah that Hashem commanded.

R. Huna/Rav – the Machloket is when the succah is less than 4 amot x 4 amot, but more than that, even TK agrees with RY.  This goes according to R. Zeira, who says that the concern is that the schach doesn’t provide the shade.  But if it’s a larger succah than 4 x 4, even 20 ama high succahs will have their schach provide the shade.

R. Chanan/Rav – the machloket is only where the succah does not contain his head, the majority of his body and his table, but if it holds more, then even TK says it is kosher…We will review in shiur why this must be so….