Rav on Daf 3

The Gemara asks on rav how he can hold an amlartra allows a higher Kora and also hold the source for the height is from the Haihcul. Rav answers that its not a question on me but rather a machlokes tanaaim, Rashi adds- that Rav will hold like the tana who learns the height from the Haichul. I do not understand then how Rav can still hold an Amlatra works. Even if it is a machlokes Tanaim its a tarta dsasri to hold like the tana that an amlatra allows for the kora to be higher then 20 amos and like the tana that source is from the Haichul?

Hello, R' Doniel! I thought that Rashi was saying in Rav Yosef that Rav wasn't the author of the statement about amalt'ra at all (not like the quote from R' Ilai). Rather, it's from a different source (Chama b'reih d'Rabah bar Avuha), and Rav will disagree with it.

I understand that the gemara changes the source of the Almatra statement from rav to a mishna written by rav chama, but the gemara says after that switch "Vtikshi Lrav..." implying that the gemara still believes Rav agrees with the both statements that the Haichul is the source and the din of Almatra.

R' Doniel, I had not read it that way. When Rav Yosef said his statement, Rashi says, Therefore there is no kashya of Rav on himself, as he only said one of the statements, that we can learn from the mishkan. The gemara then responds, So let it be a mishnah, and we'll still ask on Rav from there. (Rav should not normally argue on a mishnah - of course the gemara would have answered if it needed to, Rav tanna hu upalig.) So we're asking against the original statement of Rav that one can learn from the mishkan, as that is inconsistent with the braisa we brought.

Shkoach, thanks for the help. Regarding the bottom of the amud, the gemara discusses the din of Kalosh. Rashi defines this to mean a halacha of "Royin", however the gemara at the end (based on Rashi) qualifies this a bit more and says it is a din of "royin" but only pretend we do not actually take anything off even if it is higher then 20 amos. Therefore by Succah it is kosher because we are not taking any scach off even the scach higher then 20 amos so there is more shade then sun. The gemara continues that same should be said for the korah that nothing is taken off and it will not blow away and we can consider it "Shpuding Shel Barzel". Why do we have to consider it a thinner Korah of shpuding shel barzel? If klosh does not take anything off then its the same Korah we started out with not thin shpuding shel barzel but a thick Koreh which goes higher then 20 Amos.

R' Doniel, it seems to be an interesting sugya. Tosefos has a different approach, but I guess for the simpler reading one should see the Rashba. Here's my general impression, maybe someone else will explain more clearly.
The idea of k'losh seems to be that we can only use the part of the s'chach or korah that is below twenty. There it must be more shade than sun/strong enough. However, the gemara points out that the part below is insufficient, so it answers that you need to say that the part above twenty can be counted, since it is attached to the part below twenty. I think that's what צלתה מרובה מחמתה / שפודים של ברזל means - the attached part above twenty can help us see the part below twenty as being sufficient.

To me, the surprising thing about the sugya is how it seems to ignore the context we're using all over. For instance, why doesn't it discuss whether korah is היכר or מחיצה - doesn't that (maybe) impact on whether the person can be aware of or use the parts above that are attached to the parts below? Similarly for sukkah; if the height requirement is because of למען ידעו דורותיכם the gemara there says that you can get away with more than twenty because eyes will follow the walls above twenty - shouldn't that have an impact here? Instead, all the gemara suggests is various d'rabbanon type issues of who will fix problems that arise; otherwise, sukkah and mavuy will be the same.
I'd like to understand this better.