Daf 2a

The Mishna Pasuls a Sukka above twenty Amos. R' Yehuda holds it's Kosher. The Mishna also Pasuls if it's not ten T'fachim high or doesn't have three walls or has more sun than shade.

In Eruvin there is a similar Mishna about a Korah (a beam that extends horizontally across the opening of an alleyway. This is to serve as a distinction between the alley and the street to make sure one won't come to carry in the street on Shabbos just as one carries in the alley.) If one places a Korah above twenty Amos, one needs to lower it. The Gemara asks, why by Sukka the Mishna says it's Pasul and by Eruvin it tells you how to fix it?

Tosfos asks, why is the Gemara not concerned with the Mishna about Hadassim that has more berries than leaves? (The Mishna there says it's Pasul and one can fix it by plucking off the berries. So there it says both it's Pasul and how to fix it.)

Tosfos answers that the Gemara is only concerned that our Mishna should parallel the Mishna in Eruvin, since it's the same Halacha of how high they could be. Therefore he asks why our Mishna changed from the way they wrote it in Eruvin.

Another answer: by Hadassim the Mishna needs to say that you can fix them. Since it grew while it's Pasul, I would say you can never make it Kosher. Therefore the Mishna needs to say that you could fix it.

The Gemara answers that a Korah is only Midarabanan while Sukka is from the Torah. Rashi explains that only Halachos that existed before the Mishna, the Mishna could say Pasul. It conveys that you didn't do it as the Torah prescribed. But by Korah, since the Mishna introduces that concept the first time, it cannot say that you didn't do it as prescribed before.

However, Tosfos explains that if it only said how to fix it, someone might misconstrue it to mean that you only L'chatchila need to fix it. Therefore, by a Torah Mitzvah, since we don't want to leave it for people to misconstrue, we use the term of Pasul. But by a rabbinic Mitzvah we don't need to be so stringent and worry that one might misconstrue it. Therefore we say how to fix it, since it's always better to say words in a nice, positive way.

Another explanation is that the term "to lower it" connotes a rabbinic stringency. Pasul connotes that the Torah says it's not good. Therefore the Mishna uses the appropriate term for each Halacha.

Tosfos asks a question. The Braisa in Shabbos says “a Menorah above twenty is Pasul like a Sukka and a Korah.” Since Chanukah is only Midarabanan why should we use the term Pasul rather than say how to fix it?

Tosfos answers that since the Braisa compares it to Sukka, it needed to say Pasul.

Another answer: if the Braisa only said to lower it, I would think that this means to lower it as is, i.e. while lit. This is certainly not good according to what we Paskin that the lighting does the Mitzvah, since he lit it in the wrong place. But even according to those who say placing the Menorah does the Mitzvah, it's still no good, because the spectator will assume this is not the light of the Mitzvah, but your personal light. (Since you're moving it, it looks as if you are moving it to see your way.)

The Gemara says another answer. Really, you could say how to fix it for Torah Mitzvos. However, since our Mishna quotes many types of P'sulim, it would be too long to list all the ways to fix them, therefore it just said Pasul for all of them.

New Sugya- why a Sukka above twenty Amos is Pasul

The Gemara asks why do we Pasul a Sukka that's above twenty Amos?

Rabba says that the Torah requires one to know that he's in the Sukka. Above twenty Amos it's hard to realize you're in a Sukka because the S'chach doesn't catch your eyes.

.

Tosfos asks: Rabba in Eruvin (according to the first version) Pasul S'chach that's half below twenty Amos and half above. But according to Rabba's reasoning, that the S'chach needs to catch one's eye, as long as the bottom surface is within twenty it should catch his eye. So why isn't it Kosher?

Tosfos answers, according to this first explanation of Rabba there, he Pasuls because we're afraid that the bottom of the S'chach may fall out and then all the S'chach will be above twenty. Even though the Torah permits it since it catches one's eye, but the Rabanan forbid it because the bottom surface might fall down without him noticing.

Even according to the second explanation, that since Sukka is a Torah law we're more stringent, it's not problematic. It still implies that the Sukka is Kosher from the Torah but the Rabanan were stringent because of the severity of being a Torah law. 

< Prev		Next >