Clarification: Because shaking is not effective there.

Clarification (cont.): Rebbi Meir follows his reasoning, since he says that 'One cannot cover the Sukah with planks, and it becomes Kasher via the Pesel in between them.

Explanation #1: According to Shmuel, who says later (on Daf 17b) 'Pasul S'chach of four Tefachim disqualifies the Sukah in the middle', as Tosfos explained above (on the previous Amud DH u'Modeh') ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): That there should be two Pesalim in the middle, and that the total length of the Sukah is eight Amos, since we apply 'Dofen Akumah up to the Pesalim; and we remove the planks from the Sukah.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, he holds like Rav later that 'Pasul S'chach whether it is at the side or in the middle disqualifies the Sukah if it is four Amos.

Explanation #2 cont.): Consequently, the planks in the middle do not render the Sukah Pasul, seeing as there is no Shi'ur P'sul in one place. So Rashi explains ...

Proof: And his explanation is correct - seeing as it speaks where the planks are four Tefachim wide, since that is how a regular ceiling is made ...

Proof (cont.): Evident from the fact that a plank of four Techim disqualifies a Sukah due to Gezeiras Tikrah.

Support: And this is clear in the Gemara, which asks on Shmuel 'What is the basis of their (the Tana'im's) Machlokes?' and it concludes that they are arguing over 'negatingg' the ceiling ...

Support: Inasmuch as, according to Rebbi Meir shaking is not effective to 'negate' the ceiling, seeing as the planks measure four Tefachim, in which case on is forced to remove one from between them (the Pesalim).

Question: Rather than ask later on Shmuel, who says that in the middle, a plank of four Tefachim renders Pasul, from the Beraisa, it should have queried him from the Mishnah and answered?

Answer: Since the Mishnah does not mention specifically planks of four Tefachim, (and we know it) only because of 'S'tam Tikrah'.

Halachah: Apparently, the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi, who says in the second Perek of Bechoros (Daf 17b & 18a) that 'It is possible to asses exactly, at least what is performed by man' ...

Source: Since the Amora'im are arguing here over 'Parutz ke'Omeid', and in the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 28b & 29a) over whether, or not, 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah is like Rov'.

Implied Question: and when the Gemara says there in connection with 'Chalku li'Shenayim ve'hein Shavin', that they are both Tamei, because 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' ...

Answer: They all concede by earthenware vessels, as the Gemara explains in Bechoros (Daf 17b & 18a) - since they contain holes.

Refuted Refutation: Nor can one say that our Sugya goes even according to the opinion that holds 'I Efshar Letzamtzem', and it calls Mechtzah al Mechtzah 'Parutz ke'Omeid' when they seem to be equal, even though they may not be ...

Refutation: Since in the first Perek of Eruvin (Daf 28b) and in the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 28b), the Gemara attributes the fact that 'Parutz is not k'Omeid' and Rov to the fact that ...

Refutation (cont.): Thus Hash-m taught Moshe (in Har Sinai) 'Set up the majority!' and 'Shecht the majority!'. Why does it not say 'Because in any event it is Asur mi'Safek, in case one left over a majority?

Implied Question: And the Gemara asks in Gitin in Perek ha'Zoreik (Daf 78a & 78b) in connection with 'Where they both (the man and the woman) arrived to within four Amos (of the Get) simultaneously 'But is it not impossible to be Metzamtzem?' ...

Answer: Even assuming the Halachah to be like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili who holds 'Efshar Letzamtzam Afilu bi'Yedei Shamayim'), nevertheless it would be a Dochek to establish the Mishnah like that, seeing as it isw unusual to happen that way, and one can assume that they did not have the intention of arriving at the same time.

Proof #1: In Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus (Shavu'os, Daf 32a & 32b), in connection with where 'Both of them denied simultaneously' in answer to the question 've'Ha I Efshar le'Tzamtzem?', the Gemara answers by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili; whereas Rebbi Yochanan maintains that it can even go like the Rabanan ...

Proof #1 (cont.): Implying that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

Proof #2: Similarly, in Perek Arba'ah Achin (Yevamos, Daf 28a) in connection with 'Achyos Eini Yode'a Mi Shan'an', the Gemara says that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana does not present a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

Conclusion: It therefore seems that bi'Yedei Shamayim the Halachah is not like him, and the above cases (cited on Amud Alef) are considered 'bi'Yedei Shamayim ...

Conclusion (cont.): But bi'Yedei Adam the Halachah is like him, as is evident in the current Sugya and in the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 28a).

Introduction to Question: The Gemara says in the first Perek of Eruvin (Daf 5a) that 'A Lechi (a post) that protrudes from the walls of the Mavoy less than four Amos (into the Mavoy), has the Din of a Lechi an does not require another Lechi to permit it ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): If it is four Amos, it does'. And Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua establishes that by a Mavoy of eight Amos, but by one of seven Amos, it is permitted, provided what is standing exceeds that what is broken ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Whereas Rav Ashi maintains that even a Mavoy of eight Amos does not require a Lechi

Reason: Because Mah Nafshach, if the majority is still standing, it is permitted on account of 'Omeid Merubeh al ha'Parutz'; And if the majority is breached, it is permitted because it has the Din of a Lechi' ...

Question: This means to say that - if that is so, what will you say by a Lechi of four Amos? Where they are both equal, it is a Safek de'Rabanan; and by a Safek de'Rabanan, we go le'Kula. This implies that it is impossible to determine the matter?

Answer: Really, it is possible to measure and to determine it, only the Chachamim did not trouble them to measure it due to a Safek ...

Reason: Seeing as whether what it is what is standing that is the majority or whether it is what is breached there is no suspicion of Isur, only when they are equal, and that is not common.

Answer (cont.): In any case, if it would involve an Isur d'Oraysa, it would be Asur, since it is possible to measure it.

Refuted Question: Nor can one ask on Rav Ashi that, when they are equal, it ought to be permitted, since we Pasken 'Parutz ke'Omeid' ...

Refutation: Since he is commenting on Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who holds 'Parutz ke'Omeid, Asur'.

Another tack: It may well be that the Amora'im who hold 'Parutz ke'Omeid' and 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah ke'Rov' hold like the Rabanan that 'I Efshar le'Tzamtzem - even bi'Yedei Adam ...

Another tack (cont.): The one who permits it, where it appears that Parutz ke'Omeid is because we first assume that what is standing is the majority, and even if they are equal, the Torah says 'Do not breach the majority!'

Another tack (concl.): Whereas the opinion that forbids it holds - because we initially assume that the majority is breached, and even if they are equal, the Torah says 'Wall in the majority!'

Precedence: And the same will apply to 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah' regarding Shechitah.

Conclusion: According to this, the case of Safek Divreihem Lehakeil' fits better, since it is not possible to measure it.

Question #1: It implies that by a Safek d'Oraysa, it would be Asur due to a mere suspicion that maybe they are equal, despite the fact that it would be Mutar, whether either what is standing or what is breached would be in the majority ...

Question #1 (cont.): In that case, how can the Gemara in the second Perek of Bechoros (Daf 17b & 19a) extrapolate from the case of 'A murdered man who is found exactly in the mmiddle between two towns' that 'bi'Yedei Adam Efshar Letzamtem? ...

Question #1 (concl.): Why do we not say there as well that even if we hold 'I Efshar Letzamtzem', the Rabanan concede that one brings two calves because of the Chashash d'Oraysa that perhaps they are exactly equal

Question #2: Moreover, according to the opinion that forbids Parutz ke'Omeid, it is only Asur because Hash-m said to Moshe 'Build up the majority' and not because perhaps what is breached is the majority (as Tosfos just explained).

Question #2 (cont.): That being the case, in the case of the Lechi, even if it was a Safek d'Oraysa, it ought to be permitted, seeing as whether the Parutz or the Omeid is the majority, it is permitted?

Refuted Question #1: One cannot ask a Kashya from what the Gemara asks in our Sugya 've'Ha Efshar Letzamtzem?' ...

Refutation: Since Rabeiunu Chananel and Rabeinu Tam have the text 've'Ha I Efshar Letzamtzem?'.

Refuted Question #2: Nor can one prove from this text that that is the Halachah, since it is not comparable to the regular 'I EFshar Letzamtzem' ...

Refutation: But what it means is - It is absolutely impossible for there not to be minimal space between the S'chach and the spit-rod, when he fills in the section which protrudes with Kasher S'chach ...

Refutation (cont.): Since one does not tend to squash the Kasher S'chach into the gaps next to the Pasul S'chach, until not even one iota of air remains between the two ...

Refutation (concl.): It therefore transpires that the Kasher S'chach is not more than the air and the Pasul S'chach combined.

Continuation of Sugya: And the Gemara answers 'be'Ma'adif' - meaning that he added S'chach to the point that it covers the spit-rods on both sides including the air.

Rava: Explanation #1: Rava answers that even if we say that he did not add S'chach in that way, if, assuming it was placed 'Sh'si', he placed it 'Areiv' (or vice-versa - in criss-cross fashion), it is impossible for all the air not to be covered, seeing as the Kasher S'chach is supported by the Pasul S'chach.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is specifically Sh'si va'Areiv that helps, according to Rava, but not in any other way ...

Reason: Since the Chachamim decreed that he might not add enough - whereas 'Sh'si va'Areiv' cannot be done without covering it, for fear that the Kasher S'chach will fall down.

Explanation #2 (cont.): In that case, we cannot accept the text that is written in most Sefarim 'Amar Rava, Afilu Teima be'she'Eino Ma'adif' - Indeed, in the first Perek of Eruvin (Daf 15b) it does not appear in any Seifer.

Observation: And in the case at the end of B'choros (Daf 60b) where two animals left the pen as number ten and he declared them 'the Tenth', it implies that the Gemara holds like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who says 'Efshar Letzamtzem, even bi'Yedei Shamayim' ...

Proof: Because as far as the Rabanan, who hold 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' are concerned - the one that emerged first would be the tenth, even if the owner was silent, and it would be as if he declared both the tenth one and the eleventh ones 'the tenth', in which case the eleventh one would not be Kadosh, seeing as the name 'Tenth' was not removed from it.

Precedent #1: And similarly, in the case cited at the endof the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 38b) "Tachas Imo", 'to preclude an orphan', which the Gemara establishes where 'the one died and the other one lived (simultaneously) ...

Precedent #2: And in Perek Beheimah ha'Makshah (Chulin, Daf 70a) where Rava asked whether one goes after the majority with regard to limbs.

Refutation: One can refute the proof from the end of Bechoros however - inasmuch as even if the Gemara holds 'I Efshar Letzamtzem', since as one is unable to discern which one emerged first, and he had in mind to declare them both 'the Tenth', which he did simultaneously, it cannot be compared to where 'One called, first the tenth, and then the eleventh, 'the Tenth'.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says there 'But simultaneously, they are both Kodesh' ...

Answer: 'Simultaneously' is La'av Davka, but as Tosfos explained (in Bechoros, See Maharsha).

Introduction to Question: The Gemara in Perek Mi she'Hotzi'uhu (Eruvin, Daf 50a) and in the second Perek of Kidushin (Daf 51a) asks from the case where 'Two animals leave the pen in tenth place' on Rabah, who says that 'If two things cannot take effect one after the other, they cannot take effect simultaneously either' ...

Introduction to Question: The Kashya seems to be that seeing as, by one after the other, the latter is not Kadosh, simultaneously too, neither is Kadosh, as in the case of someone who betrothes a woman and her sister ...

Question: But how can that be - take away the declaration from here, seeing as I Efshar Letzamtzem, Mah Nafshach, the first one is automatically Kadosh

Answer: The Kashya is on the latter animal - How can it be Kadosh, since, seeing as I Efshar Letzamtzem, it is only Kadosh on account of his declaration

Explanation #1 (The Havah Amina): The Gemara assumes that when the Gemara answers 'be'Nichnas ve'Yotzei' it means to say that all similar cases speak by 'Nichnas ve'Yotzei', since it is not the way to measure it accurately. Hence it asks ...

Explanation #1 (The Havah Amina cont.): 'But it is possible to measure it accurately, and the Mishnah nevertheless states 'Kamosan Kesheirah', although it is then a case of 'Parutz ke'Omeid?'

Explanation #1 (The Maskanah): And it answers 'Amar Rebbi Ami "be'Ma'adif" ', and the Mishnah is not Machshir a case where it is Metzumtzam (Rashi).

Question: It is not the way of the Gemara, when it comes to answer, it ignores the Kashya, in that it really speaks by 'Nichnas ve'Yotzei'?

Answer: When it says be'Ma'adif', it means where one adds Pesel to the point that he covers the rods, and it emerges that the Kasher S'chach exceeds the Pasul S'chach and negates it.

Support: In fact, this is how Rashi (himself) explains Rava's statement 'If they were placed 'Shesi', he places them Areiv' (criss-cross.

Rava's Chidush: According to this explanation, Rava is coming to teach us that 'Ma'adif' is not effective ...

Reason: Because sometimes one unintentionally fails to place a majority of Kasher S'chach, whereas when he answers 'to place it criss-cross', it is impossible not to do so.

Question: The problem with this explanation is - it is illogical for the Pasul S'chach to become negated b y the Kasher S'chach - despite the fact that the latter is in the majority, seeing as they are not mixed together, and each one is discernable independently? ...

Support: As Rashi (himself) explains earlier (on Daf 9a) in connection with 'Where he beat them (the attached branch and the S'chach') - 'that he mixed them and one cannot discern which one is Pasul and which one is Kasher'.

Alternative Text: Therefore Rabeinu Tam's text 've'Ha I Efshar le'Tzamtzem?' ... is the correct one.

Support: And it goes nicely, according to his text, the fact that Rebbi Ami and Rava are not now coming to answer according to the opinion that holds 'Parutz ke'Omeid Asur' ...

Reason: Since according to everybody the Gemara is now asking the Kashya of 'I Efshar le'Tzamtzem'.

Question on Initial Text: Whereas according to Rashi's Text, they are coming to answer according to the opinion that holds 'Parutz ke'Omeid Asur', which is not like the Halachah ...

Source: Since in the irst Perek of Eruvin (Daf 16b), the Gemara Paskens like the opinion that holds 'Mutar'.

Establishing the Author: This Sugya holds like Rebbi Nechemyah, since the Rabanan do not declare Tamei in the case of the long bed-post together with the two legs ...

Source: As we learned in Keilim (Perek 18, Mishnah 5) 'A bed that was Tamei Medras from which the short bed-post and its two legs were removed, is Tamei; the long bed-post and its two legs ;but Rebbi Nechemyah declares it Tamei.

Clarification: And it speaks specifically when the entire bed is still in existence and when it all belongs to one person ...

Clarification: But if part of it is lost or if it belongs to two different owners, seeing as it does not stand to be re-assembled one more, then even if the long bed-post plus its two legs and the short bed-post and its two legs are still in existence, it is Tahor.

Source: As we learned in Masechta Keilim (Ibid., Mishnah 8), also cited in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 50b) 'A bed half of which got stolen or lost, and which brothers or partners divided, is Tahor ...

Source (cont.): If it is subsequently returned it, it is subject to Tum'ah from on'.

Introduction to Question: And when the Mishnah says there 'A leg that was Tamei Medras and which one fixed to its bed, is Tamei; If it comes apart, it is Tamei Medras, and the bed, Tamei Medras'

Question: From which we see that the leg alone is Tamei?

Answer: That speaks specifically after it has been attached to the bed, in which case it reverts to its previous Tum'ah, even in the casde of a Tahor bed ...

Answer (cont): But as long as it has not been attached, it is Tahor, even though it separated from a Tamei bed.