on the first FULL REVIEW, "d"
(d)We establish their dispute - by a Sukah which can withstand a regular land wind, but not a land-storm one.
I believe the argument is:
We establish their dispute - by a Sukah which can withstand a regular land wind, but not a SEA one.
NOT LAND STORM
YES?
Rafael Aryeh Smith, ISRAEL
This depends on the two different texts in the Gemara. What we wrote follows the Girsa of our text, "b'Ru'ach she'Einah Metzuyah d'Yabashah" (in an unusual land-storm), before the emendation of the Mesores ha'Shas that it should read "b'Ru'ach Metzuyah d'Yam" (in a regular sea storm).
Actually, these two types of wind are identical, as Rashi (DH Yecholah) writes that an unusual land-wind is the same as a usual sea-wind.
So really there is not such a big difference between the two texts.
See the Birkas Avraham (#14, p. 118) who says that it seems that Rashi's text is the same as ours.
Accordingly, what we wrote follows our text (which is Rashi's) before the brackets were added. We did not follow the text of Tosfos, the Rosh, and the Ran cited by the Mesoras ha'Shas.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
I see.
HOWEVER...the point of Rabeinu Tam and Tosefos is dealing with HOW CAN YOU SAY IT'S ABOUT AN AGALAH (wagon) when you bring a MARITIME WIND IN?
The Girsa you explained would negate TOSEFOS'S point (finally arriving at the MOVEMENT on the wagon is what SEEMS TO BE SIMILAR to a SEA WIND)
the point of that was "YOU SEE? IT CANNOT BE ABOUT AN AGALAH...SINCE THERE ARE NO SEA/MARITIME WINDS ON LAND!"
Right?
Tosfos (7b, DH ha'Oseh) writes that it is not logical at all to say that movement on the wagon is similar to a sea wind. He writes in the name of Rabeinu Tam that everyone agrees that a Sukah at the head of a wagon is valid.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom