Siman - Succah Daf 6

  • שיעורין הלכה למשה מסיני

Rav  Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav, שיעורין חציצין ומחיצין הלכה למשה מסיני – the halachos of shiurim, chatzitzahs and mechitzas, are Halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai. The Gemara challenges this, stating that shiurim are in fact d’Oraysas, and brings the passuk of the ז' מינים as proof, as Rav Chanin said: כל הפסוק הזה לשיעורין נאמר – This entire passuk was stated for the purpose of teaching shiurim; that is, each of the seven fruits is a unit of measure for some law. For example, עצם כשעורה מטמא במגע ובמשא ואינו מטמא באהל – a human bone fragment the size of a barley kernel, is metamei through contact, or to a person who carries it, even if he does not touch it directly, and it is not metamei through being under a common roof. גפן teaches the size of a reviis of wine for a nazir. תאנה teaches כגרוגרת להוצאת שבת – the size of a dried fig is the minimum amount of food for which one is chayav for hotza’ah on Shabbos. The Gemara rejects this challenge to Rav, since these shiurim are not written explicitly in the Torah. Rather, קרא אסמכתא בעלמא הוא – the Rabbanon only linked these shiurim to the passuk as a support for them.

  • Clarifying which laws of chatzitzah are Halachah l’Moshe m’Sinai

The Gemara challenges Rav’s assertion that laws of chatzitzah are הלכה למשה מסיני, proving that they are d’Oraysa from the passuk from the parshah of Metzora, "ורחץ את בשרו במים" – and he shall immerse his flesh in the water. שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין המים – This teaches that there should be no extraneous matter that is a chatzitzah between him and the mikveh water. The Gemara clarifies that Rav was referring to a halacha which Rebbe Yitzchok taught, דבר תורה רובו ומקפיד עליו חוצץ – According to Torah law, (meaning Halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai), something on one’s hair is only a chatzitzah if it covers the majority of the hair, and one objects to it being there. Rashi gives the examples of dried blood, ink, clay or tar , and explains that if one does not object to the object being on his hair, it is considered as part of the body. The Rabbanon decreed that even if only one factor exists, meaning that it covers most of one’s hair, or if he objects to it being on his hair, the tevillah is invalid.

  • שאין לה שלש דפנות פסולה

The Mishnah stated, ושאין לה שלש דפנות פסולה – that a succah that does not have three walls, is passul. It was taught in a Baraisa, שתים כהלכתן ושלישית אפילו טפח – A succah must have two proper walls, and a third wall even a tefach long. Rebbe Shimon says: שלש כהלכתן ורביעית אפילה טפח – It must have three proper walls, and a fourth wall even a tefach long. The Gemara explains their machlokes is based on which has primacy when expounding on a word from the Torah, its written form or pronounced form? The Rabbanon hold יש אם למסורת – the written form has primacy. Therefore, they expounded the three words בסכת in the Torah, twice written without a vav and once written with a vav, as four allusions to a succah. Subtract one, which is required to introduce the mitzvah of succah itself, and three allusions remain. Of these, two must be proper walls ואתא הלכתא וגרעתה לשלישית – and the oral law comes and reduces the length of the third wall and establishes it as a tefach. Rebbe Shimon maintains יש אם למקרא – the pronounced form has primacy, and therefore there are six allusions to a succah. Since the first mention of succos is needed for the mitzvah, only four allusions remain. Three must be proper walls and the oral law teaches the fourth wall can be a tefach. The Gemara presents three alternative explanations for the basis of the machlokes.