Today’s learning sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

Summary

Mishna: A sukkah that is meduvleles (the gemara will explain this term) and one whose “shade is more than its sunlight”, is kosher.

A sukkah whose schach is thick like a solid roof is kosher even though the stars cannot be viewed from inside the sukkah (sometimes houses were made with thatched roofs, thus this sukkah would be indistinguishable from a house, but it still kosher).

Gemara:

Question: What is Meduvleles?

Rav: A sparse sukkah.

Shmuel: It means that the schach is uneven; there are two layers of sparse schach [from the top everything is covered, but the cover is not level]. (The top layer is at least 3 tefachim higher than the bottom layer, otherwise it’s considered one level).

According to Rav the mishna is saying one thing, “a sparse sukkah whose shade is more than its sunlight, is kosher”. According to Shmuel the mishna is saying two separate things, “a sukkah whose shade is more than its sunlight” is a separate law.

Rav says that a sukkah meduldeles [a sparse sukkah] whose shade is more than its sunlight is kosher.

Shmuel says that a sukkah mevulbeles [a confused sukkah that’s not level] is kosher and a sukkah whose shade is more than its sunlight is kosher.

Abayye: Shmuel’s law is only applicable when there is no 3 tefach airspace on the bottom level, if there’s 3 tefachim empty, then it’s not kosher.

Rava: If the upper level has a board that’s a tefach wide above the airspace, the sukkah remains kosher because of the rule that “Chavot Remi”, the tefach can be ‘knocked down’ from above. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

Summary

Mishna: If one supports schach with his bedposts, it is kosher.

Rabbi Yehuda: If it cannot stand without the posts [it is supported only by bedposts], it is possul.

Gemara:

Question: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning?

Answer: Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Mammal:

One of them explained: Because it’s not a permanent dwelling [according to Rabbi Yehuda, a sukkah must be permanent; 6.2, 18.6].

One of them explained: Because it is supported by something that is mekabel tumah (just as the schach cannot be made from something that’s mekabel tumah [9.3], it cannot be supported by a mekabel tumah).

Question: What is the difference between the reasons?

Answer: If the schach would be held up by four iron rods.

According to the first reason, it would be kosher, since the rods are not portable.

According to the second reason, it would be possul, since the rods are mekabel tumah.

(This all according to Rabbi Yehuda. According to the Chachomim a sukkah must not be permanent and it may be supported by something that’s mekabel tumah).

Abayye: If the schach is over the bed [the walls are a part of the bed, but the schach is on posts over the bed] Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is kosher.

Why? Because it’s permanent and not mekabel tumah [although the walls may be portable and mekabel tumah, the posts are not and we’re only concerned with the schach]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by

KACH MAGI’IM

THE BOOK THAT WILL TRAIN YOU TO LEARN THE ENTIRE TORAH

“Making the Entire Torah Attainable for ALL”

AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH AND HEBREW

ORDER YOURS ONLINE CLICK HERE OR CALL/TEXT 732-691-2907

https://www.shopeichlers.com/products/within-reach/50012

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permissible to sleep under a bed in the sukkah. But if the bed is an ohel, the person sleeping should be considered sleeping only in the ohel and not in the sukkah?

Summary

Another answer: Rabbi Yehuda follows his opinion (6.2) that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling, and “a casual ohel (the bed) cannot nullify a permanent ohel” (9.2). (The Chachomim disagree, according to them, the sukkah is also an ohel arai - temporary and casual - so sleeping under a bed is problematic).

Challenge: Rabbi Shimon is also of the opinion that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling (6.2), still he holds (18.3) that one cannot sleep under a bed in the sukkah?

Resolution: Indeed, Both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling. But they argue over whether a casual ohel can nullify a permanent ohel (Rabbi Shimon), or not (Rabbi Yehuda).

Mishna (18.3): Rabbi Shimon: It happened that Tavi, the eved of Rabban Gamliel slept under the bed in the sukkah. Rabban Gamliel pointed out to the Chachomim that Tavi is a talmid chochom and is aware that he is pottur from the sukkah, so he sleeps under the bed.

Beraisa: Rabbi Shimon: From Rabban Gamliel’s “schmooze” we learn two things:

1. That a servant is pottur from sukkah.*

2. That one who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation.

Question: Why does Rabbi Shimon say it is learned from Rabban Gamliel’s “schmooze”, let him say “from Rabban Gamliel’s words”?

Answer: He teaches us “by the way” what was taught by Rav Acha Bar Ada, some say, Rav Acha bar Ada quoting Rav Hamnuna quoting Rav:

Even the casual talk of Talmidei Chachomim must be studied. We know this from the possuk: “His leaves shall not wither”. (It means, not only are his fruit valuable, even his leaves don’t wither! So although Rabban Gamliel seemingly made a passing remark, a joke, it became a mishna.

__________

* Tosfos: One might think that women are also obligated in sukkah because it’s supposed to be like dwelling in a home. So it’s a chiddush that an eved is pottur. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Aaron Stimmel

L'ilui Nishmas Avraham Yosef ben Moshe on his 44th Yahrzeit. May his Neshama have an Aliyah.

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

There were courtyards in Yerushalayim built on rock atop caves because of graves in the depths. Pregnant women would be brought there to give birth and these children would be brought up there for the service of the Parah Adumah. They would bring oxen with doors on their backs and the children would sit on these holding stone cups. When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back sitting on the doors of the oxen.

Rabbi Yosi: They wouldn’t enter the water, rather they would lower their cups and draw water with ropes, in case there’s a grave under the stream.

Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: Doors were not necessary, the children would sit on oxen, and the oxen would intervene between the child and the tumah.

Summary

Challenge: According to Rabbi Yehuda, why shouldn’t they sit on doors, it is very high off the ground, more than many full fists? (This is a difficult question to understand because (1) a door is a good ohel according to everyone, even when it’s only one tefach above the ground and (2) why would an ox be a better ohel? According to Rabbi Yehuda (18.3) an ox shouldn’t be an ohel! [Tosfos]).

Abayye: Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the doors were not necessary, not that there’s any problem with sitting on a door.

Rava: According to Rabbi Yehuda doors should be avoided, because the child may become cocky sitting atop the door and stick his head out and become tamei.

We learned a beraisa like Rava: “Rabbi Yehuda: Doors should not be used at all, because the child may become cocky sitting atop the door and stick his head out and become tamei. Rather they would bring wide-bellied Egyptian oxen and the children would sit on these holding stone cups. When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back on the backs of the oxen.

Challenge: According to Rabbi Yehuda, there are many ‘full fists’ under a bed, and it should be considered an ohel, yet we learned in the mishna (18.3) “Rabbi Yehuda: It was our custom to sleep under the bed in the sukkah in the presence of the Chachomim”? (But if it’s an ohel it shouldn’t be considered part of the sukkah!)

Resolution: A bed is made for its top (it’s not made to cover anything, see also 14.4).

Challenge: Oxen aren’t either made to cover anything!

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisroel, he quoted Rabbi Elazar: Oxen protect the shepherds from the heat or the rain.

Challenge: In that case (that the casual use of the shepherd makes the ox an ohel), a bed also protects shoes and sandals!

Rava: The oxe’s back was created for the purpose of protecting the oxe’s inner organs so it can be considered “built for an ohel” as the possuk states “You clothed me with sin and flesh, and you made a sukkah around me of bone and sinew”. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

Chachomim: An unintentional Ohel is still an ohel. Rabbi Yehuda: an unintentional ohel is not an ohel. Rabbi Yehuda learns this from the mishkan which is called an ohel and it was intentional*.

Summary

The Chachomim explain: Since the word ohel is repeated in the Torah, it comes to include any type of ohel.

Challenge: Does Rabbi Yehuda hold that an unintentional ohel cannot be considered an ohel? We learned:

There were courtyards in Yerushalayim built on rock atop caves because of graves in the depths (the parah adumah had to be done in complete purity, these courtyards were built above a hollow so that even if there was a grave somewhere in the depths below, the hollow would not allow the tumah to rise). Pregnant women would be brought there to give birth (these children would be completely protected from tumas meis) and these children would be brought up there for the service of the Parah Adumah. They would bring oxen with doors on their backs and the children would sit on these (as if on a sedan. This was done so that the doors would make an ohel and interven between the children and any potential tumah) holding stone cups (which aren’t mekabel tumah). When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back sitting on the doors of the oxen.

Rabbi Yosi: They wouldn’t enter the water, rather they would lower their cups and draw water with ropes, in case there’s a grave under the stream.

Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: Doors were not necessary, the children would sit on oxen, and the oxen would intervene between the child and the tumah.

But an ox is an ohel that was not intentionally made by man, which should not be an ohel according to Rabbi Yehuda?!

When Rav Dimi came, he quoted Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if an ohel is a full fist (more than a tefach), even an unintentional ohel is significant (Thus an ox can be considered an ohel).

We learned a beraisa also thus:

Rabbi Yehuda agrees with regard to an arcade or an erosion in rocks [since these are big hollows, they’re considered ohalim].

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-H0O2CJl0L-0BVA85VgRBSliDZ8C2AAd/view?usp=sharing

__________

* Tosfos : Then an ohel should have to be made of pishtan too, as we learn in Shabbos? Tosfos answers that we learn other materials from Metzora. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

18.3 - Sukkah Daf 20 B (Misnah)

Summary

Mishna: One who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his mitzvah.

Rabbi Yehuda: It was our custom to sleep under the bed in the sukkah in the presence of the Chachomim and they didn’t tell us anything (in those days they wouldn’t hold back criticism if someone was doing something wrong).

Rabbi Shimon: It happened that Tavi, the eved of Rabban Gamliel (this eved was a pious and scholarly man. It was common for the family of the nesi’im to have scholarly servants. We find that the maidservant of Rebbi had certain knowledge that the Chachomim didn’t have) slept under the bed in the sukkah*. Rabban Gamliel pointed out to the Chachomim that Tavi is a talmid chochom and is aware that he is pottur from the sukkah (since an eved is like a woman who is absolved of mitzvos asei she’hazman grama), so he sleeps under the bed which is not considered to be in the sukkah. Thus we learn that one who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his mitzvah.

Gemara:

Challenge: But the bed is not 10 tefachim high?!

Resolution: Shmuel explained that our mishna is referring to a bed that is 10 tefachim high**.

We learned there [in Ohalos]:

If [an unintentional ohel was formed; it means that] something was hollowed out by water, by moles, or if it was corroded by salt, [or if an ohel was unintentionally formed by] a pile of stones or wood: constitutes an ohel if it is over a meis.

Rabbi Yehuda: It cannot be an ohel unless it was made intentionally as an ohel.

Question: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s source?

Answer: He learns it from the word ohel that is used regarding the mishkan. Just as the mishkan was built by intentional humans, so too an ohel hameis needts to be made intentionally.

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1svN7dbl20Q5SV16k933VMae0qUYQ3ZCJ/view?usp=drivesdk

__________

* Tosfos: The Yerushalmi says that he would put on tefillin too. The Yerushalmi asks why they allowed him to put on tefillin (which may mislead people into thinking that he is a full-fledged Jew) but not to sleep in the sukkah. The answer is that he was allowed into the sukkah proper but he wanted to make more room for the Chachomim. The question is though, why he didn’t leave the sukkah entirely to make even more room. The answer is because he wanted to hear the conversations of the Chachomim.

** Tosfos has a discussion about whether this gemara is based on a unanimous opinion or if it’s only Shmuel’s opinion. If it’s unanimous, then we understand the question and the answer. But if it’s only Shmuel’s opinion then we must explain that the question was also asked by Shmuel, not only that he answered the question. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

In 17.6, a mishna discussing the tumah of “Chotzlos” was referenced. The Chachomim ascribed a severe level of tumah to them while Rabbi Dosa was more lenient (while still considering them tamei, and thus invalid for use as schach).

Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri said that Chotzlos are Marzuvli - sacks filled with leaves. Reish Lakish said that they’re mats.

Summary

Challenge: We learned: “Rabbi Dosa: Chotzlos become tamei with meis-level tumah.”

And yet we learned (17.6): “Rabbi Dosa concurred [to the opinion of Rabbi Yosi, that mats can be used for schach].”

Resolution: It depends whether the mat has walls [like a large basket] or not. (A metal keili is always mekabel tumah, but other materials require a ‘beis kibul - indentation that can hold things’ in order to be considered a keili that is mekabel tumah. If the mat doesn’t have walls, then it’s flat like ‘peshutei klei eitz - flat slabs of wood’ and not mekabel tumah, but a mat with walls has a beis kibul and is considered a keili mekabel tumah [this discussion is only relevant to tumas meis, but something flat can become tamei with tumas midras, it can then become tamei meis as well]).

Challenge: Beraisa: Chotzlos of shaam, gmi, goat-hair, and sfira have the potential of becoming tamei with tumas meis according to Rabbi Dosa. According to the Chachomim they can become tamei with midras as well.

According to the opinion that Chotzlos are Marzuvli, so sacks of shaam and gmi can be used for transporting food, while sacks of goat hair and sfira can be used for larger objects.

But according to the opinion that Chotzlos are mats, so mats of goat hair and sfira can be used for curtains (Tosfos explain why a curtain would be mekabel tumah), or as sieves, but what are the other materials fit for?

Resolution: It is fit for dragging kegs*, since it has some walls around it.

Ikka D’omri [a different version of the foregoing]:

According to the opinion that Chotzlos are mats, so sacks of shaam and gmi can be used for dragging kegs, while sacks of goat hair and sfira can be used for curtains or as sieves.

But according to the opinion that Chotzlos are Marzuvli, so mats of goat hair and sfira can be used for transporting large objects, but what are the other materials fit for?

Resolution: For transporting food.

Beraisa: Rabbi Chananiah: When I went down to Bavel I encountered a zakein who said that a mat can be used as schach when I returned to [Eretz Yisroel, where I met] my uncle Rabbi Yehoshua, he concurred.

Rav Chisda: Provided that the mat doesn’t have walls.

Ulla: The mats of Mechuza** would be valid for schach if they didn’t have a wall surrounding them.

We learned in a beraisa also thus: A mat can be used as schach provided that the mat doesn’t have walls.

Click here to listen with Tosfos

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ylp2MkzBbF5PJDV58CUuaC_M5KI7maWR/view?usp=sharing

__________

* Rashi explains that it can be used for covering kegs. But Tosfos argues that in that case it would not be considered a beis kibul.

** Tosfos explains that they were placed under trees to catch the falling fruits, but in that case it should be disqualified as schach just as “a baker’s board” is not considered peshutei klei eitz! Tosfos answers that since these mats were only made to catch the fruit if they had walls around it, the lack of walls would make them peshutei klei eitz. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

There was a discussion about using “Machtzulos - mats” for schach. A mishna discussing the tumah of “Chotzlos” was referenced.

Summary

Question: What are Chotzlos?

Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri: Marzuvli.

Question: What are Marzuvli?

Rabbi Abba: Mazbeli. (A sack of coarse material that’s packed with leaves that can sometimes be used as a cushion. Rabbi Dosa says it can become tamei meis because it’s a keili, but not midras, because it is not made to be used as a cushion. But the Chachomim hold that tumas midras also applies).

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Chotzlos are mats.

Reish Lakish thereby follows his principle as we find:

Reish Lakish: May my suffering provide atonement to Rabbi Chiya and his sons [he so admired them that he wished to take upon himself any of their potential suffering] because in the beginning [of the second temple period] when the Torah was being forgotten (there were many great sages at the time, but the Torah Center of the nation was in Bavel, and in Eretz Yisroel there was a good deal of ignorance) Ezra [with the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah] went up and established it again. It was again forgotten (when the Chachomim fled Eretz Yisroel due to the persecution of the Tzeduki Chashmonai Kings) and Hillel Habavli went up and established it again. Hillel renewed the Torah that was on the verge of being forgotten in Eretz Yisroel. It was once again forgotten (after the war of Beitar when the Romans ravaged all of Eretz Yisroel leaving no places for talmidim to gather) so Rabbi Chiya and his sons [Yehuda and Chizkiyah] went up and established it again (they established Torah schools across the country and raised up a generation of Torah students).

Rabbi Chiya and his sons taught: Rabbi Dosa and the Chachomim agree regarding mats of Usha; they are potentially tamei midras (they’re made of a soft material and are used for sitting or lying on). The mats of Teveriah cannot become tamei with midras.

Their debate is only regarding other small mats. Rabbi Dosa is of the opinion that since they’re not made for sitting on, they’re like the mats of Teveriah. The Chachomim hold that since it happens sometimes that people use them as a seat, they're like the mats of Usha. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Aaron Stimmel

l'ilui nishmas פּלטיאל בן בינימין.

His Neshama should have an aliyah.

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

When the mishna says: “A large reed mat that was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach.” , so we understand that if it was not known to be made with that intention, it’s kosher.

But then the mishna says “If it was made to cover merchandise or the like, it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah.”, so it seems that only if it was made with this specific intention, it’s kosher?!

The same ambiguous wording is used by Rabbi Eliezer who uses this wording regarding both large and small mats. Thus we cannot be sure whether a mat can be used for schach unless we’re certain about which intention it was made with.

Rava explains that everyone agrees that a large mat is most likely kosher (unless it was known to be made with the intention of lying down on it). But a small mat is a matter of debate. The Tanna Kamma holds it is most likely possul while Rabbi Eliezer holds that even a small mat is most likely kosher.

Summary

Abayye to Rava: But actually only large mats are a matter of debate and Rabbi Eliezer takes the more stringent position. As we learn in a beraisa:

A large mat of reeds can be used for schach.

Rabbi Eliezer: It can only be used if it is known not to be mekabel tumah.

Rav Papa: Everyone agrees that a small mat is likely to be used for lying down on and is generally possul. They argue only regarding large mats. The Tanna Kamma holds that large mats are generally made to use as coverings. Rabbi Eliezer holds that large mats are also generally made to lie down on.

One sentence in the gemara is missing from the recording.

Beraisa: Mats made of Shifa and Gmi (certain soft grass fibers): Large ones can be used for schach, but small ones were made to sit on and cannot be used for schach.

Mats made of Reeds or Cheilas (coarse materials): If it’s plaited, it can be used for schach (even though it’s small, because it’s too coarse to sit on) but if it’s woven it cannot be used for schach.

Rabbi Yishmael B’rebbi Yosi quoting his father: [Small mats made of rough material can be used] whether plaited or woven. Rabbi Dosa concurred.

We learned there [in Idiyos]:

Rabbi Dosa: All Chotzlos [mats] become tamei with meis -level tumah (by touching and ohel).

Chachomim: They become tamei with midras (a more sensitive tumah than mere touching, it means that if a zav or niddah are on top of something, it becomes an av hatumah even if he’s not in direct contact with it. However midras can only be applied to something that is made for standing, sitting or lying on it).

Challenge: Can it be that they only become tamei with midras? We learned “All tumas midras is certainly tamei meis”.

Resolution: The Chachomim add that chotzlos are also tamei midras in addition to being tamei meis. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

A large reed mat: If it was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach.

If it was made to cover merchandise or the like, it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah.

Gemara:

Challenge: The mishna seems to contradict itself!You say that “If it was made to lie down on it, it cannot be used”, so we understand that if it was not known to be made with that intention, it’s kosher .

But then you say that “If it was made to cover, it can be used”, so it seems that only if it was made with this specific intention, it’s kosher?!

Summary

Resolution [this resolution is improbable, but the gemara suggests it for the time being]: The second half of the mishna’s statement is referring to a small mat. [A large reed mat is kosher as long as it’s not known to be made with the intention of lying down on it. A small mat is only kosher if it was made with the specific intention of using it to cover things].

Challenge: The mishna continues: Rabbi Eliezer: Whether the mat is small or big: If it was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach.

If it was made to cover merchandise or the like, it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah.

Here he explicitly stated that he is discussing both large and small mats, yet the same question can be raised about his words (from the first part of his statement it seems that if it was not known to be made with the intention of lying down on it, it’s kosher. Yet from the second part of his statement it seems that mats are only kosher if they were made with the specific intention of using them to cover things).

Rava: Everyone agrees that a large mat is most likely kosher (unless it was known to be made with the intention of lying down on it). But a small mat is a matter of debate. The Tanna Kamma holds it is most likely possul while Rabbi Eliezer holds that even a small mat is most likely kosher.

The mishna must be read as follows:

“A large reed mat: If it was made to lie down on it, it is mekabel tumah and cannot be used for schach.

[But] If it was [not] made [specifically to lie down on, then we treat as if it was made] to cover merchandise or the like, [and] it can be used as schach and it is not mekabel tumah.” Rabbi Eliezer argues that even a small mat is not perceived as being designed only for sleep and can be used as schach.

Abayye to Rava: So why does Rabbi Eliezer say “whether the mat is small or big”? He should say “big or small”! (That’s the proper order of speaking, the bigger chiddush should be the mentioned last). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate