Clarification: Above (on Daf 9a) in connection with learning an Isur Hana'ah, this question is not applicable.

Rebbi Yochanan: Rebbi Yochanan does not learn from the Ananei Kavod.

Yerushalmi (Rebbi Yochanan): The Yerushalmi explains that each one follows his respective opinion - Rebbi Yochanan holds that 'the clouds are up above - that they come from the heaven and that this is not the 'Gidulo min ha'Aretz' mentioned in the Mishnah ...

Yerushalmi (Resh Lakish): Whilst Resh Lakish maintains that they come from below.

Parable (Rebbi Yochanan): Rebbi Yochanan compares it to someone who sends his friend a barrel and jars ...

Parable (Resh Lakish): Whereas Resh Lakish compares it to someone who says to his friend 'Send your box and and help yourself to wheat'.

Medrash Rabah (Rebbi Yochanan): The Bereishis Rabah (Parshah 13) too writes - Rebbi Yochanan says 'the clouds come from above, as the Pasuk states (in Daniel 7) "and behold with the clouds of the heaven [there came ... "] ...

Medrash Rabah (Resh Lakish): Resh Lakish, that they come from below, as the Pasuk says (in Tehilim) "He raises the clouds from the edge of the earth".

Parable (Rebbi Yochanan): According to Rebi Yochanan, it is compared to somebody who offered his friend a barel of wine and its jar ...

Parable (Resh Lakish): According to Resh Lakish, to somebody who who asked his friend for a Sa'ah of wheat, and his friend replied 'Bring your box and come and measure'.

Parable (Resh Lakish (cont.): So Hash-m said to the earth 'Bring your clouds and receive the water'.

Inference: This implies that Rebbi Zeira does not establish the Pasuk by the refuse of the granary.

Introduction to Question: In the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 13a) the Gemara Darhens "Chag ha'Asif" What is "Asif" - 'the harvest'.

Introduction to Question (cont.): Which Rebbi Chanina queries 'How can one say What is "Asif" - 'the harvest' - when the Torah writes "from your granary and from your wine-press"?, from which we see that it is talking about the refuse the refuse of the granary and the wine-press?'

Introduction to Question (concl.): And Rebbi Zeira replied 'This matter we had tied up, and along came Rebbi Chanina and placed a spoke in the wheel!' ...

Qustion: So we see that Rebbi Zeira concedes that the Pasuk is talking about the refuse of the granary and the wine-press?

Answer: Here too, Rebbi Zeira concedes that, and all he is saying is that he does not know how to answer the Kashya of Rebbi Yirmiyah.

Clarification: The Yerushalmi explains that a bundle is not less than twenty-five canes.

Clarification: To begin with, on account of the Gezeirah of Otzer'.

Refuted Text: We do not have the text 'Lechatchilah' ...

Reason: Seeing as, mi'de'Rabanan, it is not even effective Bedi'eved ...

Source: Since the Gemara says 'But 'mi'd'Oraysa it would be in order', it implies that mi'de'Rabanan, it would not.

Question: With regard to 'something that is subject to Tum'ah and that does not grow from the ground' the Mishnah said earlier (on Daf 11a) 'Ein Mesach'chin bo' even though Bedi'eved it is not considered a Sukah min'ha'Torah either?

Answer: It is different there, since there is no room for error.

Refuted Question: And from what the Mishnah says 'And all of them are Kasher in the event that one ubtied them', one cannot extrapolate anything ...

Refutation: Because even if one placed them there initially in order for them to dry, untying them would be effective like shaking them, which we learned earlier (is effective).

Distinction: They are not comparable to other flat wooden Keilim - such as 'the baker's board' in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis (Bava Basra, Daf 66a), which is subject to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabanan ...

Distinction (cont.): In that these are aaatahor even mi'de'Rabanan, as Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 5.) in connection with 'The frame was on top (of the Shulchan)'.

Question: Since it is meant to be filled in, it falls under the heading of 'Unfinished wooden vessels', which are Tahor (See Mesores ha'Shas) ...

Source: Like the handle of a knife before one inserts the metal?

Inference: It is implied here that this is considered 'Kibul'.

Introduction to Question: Thereby posing a Kashya on Rashi at the end of 'Arba Misos' (Sanhedrin, Daf 68a) who explains, in connection with a ball and a shoemaker's last', where he explains the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim in Seider Taharos ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): In that the Chachamim hold they are not subjectg to Tum'ah, since leather vessels are not subject to Tum'ah unless they have a Beis Kibul ...

Reason: Because they are compared to a sack; and there, since they are made to be filled in permanently, it is not considered a Beis Kibul ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): Whereas Rebbi Eliezer maintains that they are subject to Tum'ah, since it is considered a Beis Kibul.

Question #1: It transpires that, according to Rashi, the outcome of our Gemara is like Rebbi Eliezer, who is a Shamuti (from Beis Shamai or he was in Cherem)?

Pushed Answer: And it is a Dochek to say that it is coming to teach us that, in the case of the arrows it is considered a Beis Kibul, because one sometimes removes the metal from the wood.

Question #2: There is also a Kashya from the Beraisa of Maseches Keilim 9Perek 18, Mishnah 8) 'Tefilin comprise four Keilim' - and there is no better example of 'a vessel that stands to be filled in than Tefilin?

Reference: Tosfos elaborated on this Kashya in Sanhedrin (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), and in Maseches Keilim (Perek 26, Mishnah 2), in connection with 'the bundle of money', which Rebbi Eliezer declares Tamei and the Rabanan, Tahor.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that that they are fitting to adopt Tum'as Nega'im ...

Source: As the Gemara says in 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos, Daf 27b) 'The stalk of flax, from the time that it is bleached' - i.e. stalks of flax after they have been prepared with a comb, that is called ... in old French.

Source (cont.): This implies that the flax itself is subject to Tum'as Nega'im before it has been spun.

Introduction to Question: According to this explanation, the Sugya goes like Rebbi Yehudah, since it is a Machlokes in Nega'im (Perek 11, Mishnah 8), which ic cited in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Ibvid.) ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): As the Mishnah states 'The warp and the weft become Tamei immediately', says Rebbi Meir; Rebbi Yehudah says 'The warp, from when it has been boiled, the weft, immediately and the stalks, once they have been bleached'.

Question #1: How can flax be subject to Tum'ah according to any Tana, bearing in mind that the Torah writes "the Sh'si" and "the Eirev"?

Question #2: Moreover, it transpires that Rebbi Yehudah is more lenient than Rebbi Meir regarding the 'Sh'si', and more strict than him regarding the stalks?

Attempted Answer: And even if one says that they do not argue over the stalks, that the ruling there is unanimous ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, now that Tum'as Nega'im applies when the flax is still stalks, how can the Sh'si leave the realm of Tum'ah until it has been boiled?

Question #3: Furthermore, the Gemara, in 'Bameh Madlikin', quoting Sumchus, says (Ibid.) that 'If one covered the Sukah with spun material, it is Pasul, since it is subject to Tum'as Nega'im. Like whom? Like that Tana ... ' ...

Question #3: (cont.): And it cites the above Mishnah in Nega'im - a clear implication that only if it is spun is it subject to Nega'im?

Answer: However, in that very Sugya, Rashi explains 'stalks of flax that have not been spun, meaning that it is subject to a Machlokes.

Introduction to Question #4: Abaye says there that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumchus are saying the same thing; Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar as he states there in a Beraisa 'Whatever comes from a tree is not subject to the Din of three by three (finger-breadths) and one may use it as S'chach with the exception of flax'.

Question #4: Now how are they saying the same thing? They are in fact arguing - since Sumchus mentioned 'spun', whereas Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar mentions 'flax', even before it has been spun?

Refuted Answer: And even if one wants to answer that flax is La'av Davka, like with regard to 'three by three' ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, from where does the Gemara know that it is speaking about spun flax, any more than stalks, seeing as we find Rebbi Yehudah, who declares stalks subject to Tum'ah?

Explanation #2: The correct explanation therefore appears to be that of the Aruch - that the definition of 'Unin' is a piece of spun flax, and the Sh'si and the Eirev mentioned by Rebbi Meir refers to wool ...

Reason: By which one can discern which is the Sh'si and which is the Eirev, since the former is spun toward the hand and the latter, toward the back of the hand ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas a piece of spun flax is all the same and one cannot tell the difference.

Implied Question: And when, in the first Perek of Maseches Avodah-Zarah (Daf 17b) they brought before Rebbi Elazar ben P'rata two coils of material and asked him which one was made of the weft and which one, the warp ...

Answer #1: It may well be they were coils of wool, which are recognizable ...

Answer #2: Or even if they were coils of flax, experts such as the head of the weavers could discern which was which.

Answer #2 (cont.): And 'Anitzei Pishtan' too, says Rabeinu Tam is spun flax, in which case Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumchus are both speaking specifically about spun flax.

Question #1: In Maseches Nedarim, Perek Rebbi Eliezer Omer (Daf 66b), the Gemara asks 'Perhaps "her hair is nice" mans that it is like stalks of flax (and not spun flax)? - and she is not beautiful at all'?

Question #2: Moreover, the Beraisa in the Sifri (in Parshas Ki Seiteri) asks 'One may have thought that one may not bring shearings of flax and stalks of flax and warm oneself by them? Therefore the Torah writes "Sha'atnez" ...

Question #2 (cont.): Implying that 'Anitzei Pishtan is similar to shearings of wool - which has not been spun?

Question #3: Furthermore, from our very Sugya it is clear that it refers to flax that has not been spun, pounded or combed ...

Source: Since it says 'Hutzni (flax-stalks before they have been prepared for spinning) (the Sukah) is Kasher, 'Hashni' (flax-stalks at a later stage) , I don't know' ...

Question #3 (cont.): Implying that the Gemara is in doubt with regard to where they have been soaked but not yet beaten or beaten but not yet combed ...

Question #3 (concl.): From which we can extrapolate that where they have been beaten and combed, it is obviously Pasul - and that is 'Anitzei'?

Explanation #3: It therefore seems that 'Anitzei Pishtan' have definitely not been spun ...

Explanation #3: It therefore seems that 'Anitzei Pishtan' are definitely not spun; yet, even though they are not subject to Tum'as Nega'im, the Chachamim disqualify them regarding Sukah, seeing as they are at a stage that is close to Tum'ah ...

Precedent: As we find later on Daf 15a), where some opinions disqualify sloping planks due to a decree on Keilim - and even those who declare them Kasher there may well disqualify them here.

Implied Question: And when Sumchus declares Pasul a Sukah that is covered with spun S'chach ...

Answer: He means Pasul mi'd'Oraysa, though if it has not been spun, it is also Pasul, but mi'de'Rabanan, as Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says 'except for flax', implying flax such as 'Anitzei'.

Implied Question: And as for 'Amru Davar Echad' that the Gemara says ...

Answer: That is because, according o Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that flax is not subject to Nega'im until it has been bleached, stalks of flax are not Pasul regarding Sukah, seeing as they are far removed from Tum'ah.

Answer (cont): Whereas Sumchus says 'Sich'chah be'Tavuy', implying immediately.

Answer (cont): And even if we were to say that Rebbi Yehudah renders Pasul mi'de'Rabanan prior to Libun, like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar before spinning ...

Answer (concl.): Sumchus must mean that it is Pasul mi'd'Oraysa, since he gives the reason 'because it is Metamei by Nega'im'.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara in Bameh Madlikin) did not say that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, Sumchus and Rebbi Meir said one and the same thing is ...

Answer #1: Because the Mishnah in Nega'im does not mention Rebbi Meir's name.

Answer #1 (cont.): And this certainly explains the Gemara's statement 'Like whom? Like the following Tana ... ' (and not 'like Rebbi Meir').

Answer #2: And besides, Rebbi Meir is not talking about Sikuch - even though the two Dinim aare interdependent ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Because, since it becaomes subject to Tum'ah immediately, it will be Pasul for S'chach mi'de'Rabanan regarding 'Anitzei Pishtan'

Conclusion: In any event, 'Unin shel Pishtan', according to Rebbi Yehudah, is Tavuy, as the Aruch explains (and this still requires examination).

Alternatively: One can also explain that the Rabanan who argue with Sumchus hold 'Sich'chah be'Tavuy is Kasher', even though they declare it Tamei by Nega'im ...

Alternatively (cont.): Because they maintain that one cannot learn from the waste of the granary and the winepress to disqualify whatever is Tamei by Nega'im ...

Reason: Seeing as it is not subject to other areas of Tum'ah.

Alternatively (concl.): And 'Amru Davar Echad' therefore means that one cannot use something that is subject to Tum'as Nega'im as S'chach.

Refuted Explanation: And one cannot explain that when Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says 'Chutz mi'Pishtan' he is referring to a linen garment, like the Rabanan ...

Refuted Explanation (cont.): Like 'Ein bo Mishum Shalosh al Shalosh' - which is a garment ...

Refutation: This is incorrect - since there too, what they mean is that 'Whatever comes from a tree is not subject to three by three (finger-breadths) except for what comes from flax'.