Thursday Night Chazara

Dov Ber Polisky -6:20 Pacific/ 8:20 Central/9:20 Eastern
Gabe Fogel -  6:40 Pacific/8:40 Central/9:40 Eastern

Review and Thought Questions

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן: בית שאין בו ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות, פטור מן המזוזה ומן המעקה, ואינו מטמא בנגעים, ואינו נחלט בבתי ערי חומה, ואין חוזרין עליו מעורכי המלחמה, ואין מערבין בו ואין משתתפין בו, ואין מניחין בו עירוב, ואין עושין אותו עיבור בין שתי עיירות ואין האחין והשותפין חולקין בו. לימא רבי היא ולא רבנן? - אפילו תימא רבנן. עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא לענין סוכה, דדירת עראי היא. אבל לגבי בית, דדירת קבע הוא - אפילו רבנן מודו, דאי אית ביה ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות - דיירי ביה אינשי, ואי לא - לא דיירי ביה אינשי.

Yesterday, we began the section at the bottom of ג. – in which the Gemara inquires about the authorship of the baraita dealing with a house that is less than 4 x 4 amot –  and all of the exemptions in various scenarios, including

-        from fence around a roof

and from the inapplicability of the structure to the problem of

-        צרעת – halachic leprosy

-        Permission to return from war to dedicate his home – and more.

The Gemara, as we saw, is going to propose that this is authored by Rebbe, and is going to reject this view and argue that it could even be authored by Rabanan.

Thought Questions for tonight:

1)     What view of Rebbe is the Gemara referring to?

2)     What view of Rabanan is the Gemara referring to?

3)     In light of what you answered in #1, why does the Gemara think that the baraita was authored by Rebbe and not Rabanan?

4)     When the Gemara rejects this proposal, what distinction does it make to explain the applicability of the baraita to the view of Rabanan?

Tonight, we are going to do an overview of the Perek from the beginning to map out the structure of what we've been learning for the past several weeks.  See you in shiur!

Chasurei Mechsarah...

Mar Zutrah offers an apparent proof that the two renditions of Chachamim's view represent BS and BH's views respectively - and that the issue of their machloket is the minimal shiur of a succah. The support is noted in the words of the baraita - of "Poslin" and "Machshirin" - literally: disqualify and declare kosher.  If the subject of their machloket was the question of whether or not we make a rabbinic Gezeira, then the terms that should have been used are "fulfilled" (yatzah) and "not fulfilled" (lo yatzah) his obligation.  This seems to prove that the issue is the shiur of the succah.

The baraita in fact gives an indication in both directions.  To review:

1) The fact that the baraita sets up the scenario as a person whose rov and rosh are in the succah and table is in the house implies that the topic is whether, given where he is sitting, he has fulfilled the mitzvah

2) The terms "Poslin" and "machshirin", however, indicate that the topic is whether or not the succah is kosher.

The Gemara resolves this contradiction using a חסורי מחסרא - which means: something is missing in the text of the baraita.  והכי קתני -  and this is how it should read:

The Gemara precedes then to "edit" the baraita in a way that the first entry into the baraita - which talks about the man's physical position - is followed by a disagreement as to whether he is yotzeh (fulfilled) his mitzvah or not yotzeh (not fulfilled) his mitzvah.  The gemara then inserts a new scenario - ie a succah that only holds his rosh and rov [but not table] - BS pasuls and BH says is kosher.

Now we have resolved the contradictory indicators as to what BH and BS are disagreeing about- and thereby reaffirm the original discussion between R. Shmuel and R. Aba as truly representing the view of BS in their argument with BHillel