Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 30, 2021 | 讻状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 30

Today’s daf is sponsored by Hadassah and Michael Fortinsky in honor of Elisheva and Sam Lightstone, on their son Avishai’s wedding today.

There are actions that should be done in a different manner on Yom Tov because they look like actions done normally on a weekday, such as carrying things like jugs of water, etc. However, 聽when it is not possible to do them in a different manner, it can be done in the usual way, provided it is for the holiday. It is forbidden to clap and dance on Shabbat (rabbinic decree so that one doesn鈥檛 come to fix musical instruments), but we see that people do and no one stops them – how can this be explained? The answer is that it is better if they do not know and do things unwittingly than to tell them and since they won鈥檛 listen anyway, they will end up doing it intentionally and that will be much worse (mutav she鈥檡ihyu shogigin v鈥檃l yuhi mezidin). In what circumstances is this principle valid? The Mishnah allows one to take straw from the haystack but not from the trees that were placed in the muktze. Does the Mishnah follow the opinion of Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara brings two versions of Rav Kahana on the matter. According to the Mishnah, wood cannot be taken from the sukkah, but can be taken from next to it. What is “next to it” and why is it permitted? A braita is quoted with a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis, however, they all agree that wood from a sukkah on the holiday of Sukkot is muktze unless one stipulated before. First, the Gemara questions whether one can stipulate on Sukkot and concludes that one cannot. Then a difficulty is raised from a source that says it is possible to make a condition on a sukkah of Sukkot. How is this explained? Another difficulty is raised from a source about etrogs where one can dedicate an etrog for only one day! How can one explain the difference between a sukkah and an etrog?

讘注专诪转 讛转讘谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘注爪讬诐 砖讘诪讜拽爪讛

from the pile of straw, although he did not designate the pile for this purpose the day before; but one may not begin to take from the wood in the wood storage, a small yard behind the house where people store various items that they do not intend to use in the near future.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讗诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜转 诪讜转专

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: If it is impossible to modify the manner in which one carries a vessel, whether due to the vessel or due to time constraints, it is permitted to act in the typical weekday manner.

讗转拽讬谉 专讘讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讚讚专讜 讘讚讜讞拽讗 诇讚专讜 讘专讙诇讗 讚讚专讜 讘专讙诇讗 诇讚专讜 讘讗讙专讗 讚讚专讜 讘讗讙专讗 诇讚专讜 讘讗讻驻讗 讚讚专讜 讘讗讻驻讗 谞驻专讜住 住讜讚专讗 注诇讜讬讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗驻砖专 砖专讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜转 诪讜转专

The Gemara relates that Rava instituted the following in his city, Me岣za: One who usually carries his burden with difficulty on a weekday should modify his habit on a Festival and carry it on a pitchfork. One who usually carries it on a pitchfork should carry it on a carrying pole held by two people on their shoulders. One who carries it on a carrying pole held by two people on their shoulders should carry it on a carrying pole in his hands, although he is not thereby making it easier for himself. One who carries burdens on a carrying pole in his hands should spread a scarf [sudara] over it. And if it is not possible to make these modifications due to time constraints, it is permitted to proceed in the usual manner, as the Master said above: If it is impossible to modify, it is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讜讛讗 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚拽讗 诪诇讬讬谉 讞爪讘讬讬讛讜 诪讬讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪砖谞讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rav 岣nan bar Rava said to Rav Ashi: The Sages said: As much as it is possible to modify the weekday manner, one should modify on a Festival. A question was asked of Rav Ashi: But don鈥檛 those women fill their jugs with water on a Festival without modifying, and we say nothing to them by way of protest; why do we not instruct them to alter their usual manner?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讗 诇讬注讘讚 讚诪诇讬讗 讘讞爪讘讗 专讘讛 转诪诇讬 讘讞爪讘讗 讝讜讟讗 拽讗 诪驻砖讗 讘讛诇讜讻讗

He said to him: It is because it is not possible for them to fill their jugs any other way. How should they act? She who is accustomed to filling a large jug, should she instead fill a small jug? Won鈥檛 this mean that she increases her walking, since she has to make more than one trip to bring home more than one jug, and she will thereby perform unnecessary labor on the Festival?

讚诪诇讬讗 讘讞爪讘讗 讝讜讟讗 转诪诇讬 讘讞爪讘讗 专讘讛 拽讗 诪驻砖讬 讘诪砖讜讬 转讻住讬讬讛 讘谞讻转诪讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 转拽讟专讬讛 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪驻住讬拽 讜讗转讬 诇诪拽讟专讬讛 转驻专讜住 住讜讚专讗 注诇讜讬讛 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讟诪讬砖 讘诪讬讗 讜讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 住讞讬讟讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

If one were to suggest the opposite, that one who fills a small jug should fill a large jug, won鈥檛 this mean that she increases her load? Furthermore, if one were to suggest that she should cover the jug with a wooden cover, sometimes it falls and she might come to bring it by hand, in the manner of a burden. Should she tie the cover to the jug, the rope might occasionally break, and she might come to tie it, a prohibited labor. Finally, should she spread a scarf over it, it occasionally falls off and becomes soaked in water, and she might come to transgress the prohibition against squeezing. Therefore, it is not possible to make a modification, and those women may act in the regular manner.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬讬 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪住驻拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪专拽讚讬谉 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚注讘讚谉 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rava bar Rav 岣nin said to Abaye: We learned in a mishna: The Rabbis decreed that one may not clap, nor strike a hand on his thigh, nor dance on a Festival, lest he come to repair musical instruments. But nowadays we see that women do so, and yet we do not say anything to them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讟注诪讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 (专讘讗) 诇讗 诇讬转讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诇讞讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讙谞讚专 诇讬讛 讞驻抓 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 (讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐) 讜讛讗 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚砖拽诇谉 讞爪讘讬讬讛讜 讜讗讝诇谉 讜讬转讘谉 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诪讘讜讗讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

He said to him: And according to your reasoning, how do you explain that which Rava said: A person should not sit at the entrance to an alleyway, next to the side post that has been placed at the edge of an alleyway in order for it to be considered a private domain, as perhaps an object will roll away from him and he will come to carry it four cubits in the public domain, thereby transgressing a biblical prohibition? But don鈥檛 these women take their jugs, and go, and sit at the entrance to an alleyway, and we do not say anything to them?

讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讗诇 讬讛讬讜 诪讝讬讚讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛谞讞 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讗诇 讬讛讬讜 诪讝讬讚讬谉

Rather, the accepted principle is: Leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners. If people engage in a certain behavior that cannot be corrected, it is better not to reprove them, as they are likely to continue regardless of the reproof, and then they will be sinning intentionally. It is therefore preferable for them to be unaware that they are violating a prohibition and remain merely unwitting sinners. Here, too, with regard to clapping and dancing, leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讗 转讜住驻转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讜 注讚 砖讞砖讻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara comments: There were those who understood that this principle applies only to rabbinic prohibitions but not to Torah prohibitions, with regard to which the transgressors must be reprimanded. However, this is not so; it is no different whether the prohibition is by Torah law or whether it is by rabbinic law, we do not say anything to them. For example, on the eve of Yom Kippur, there is an obligation that one begin the fast while it is still day, before sunset, as the extension of Yom Kippur. During this time, one must observe all the halakhot. This mitzva of extending Yom Kippur is by Torah law, and yet people eat and drink until darkness falls but we do not say anything to them, as we know they will pay no attention.

讜诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘注专诪转 讛转讘谉 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘讗讜爪专 转讞诇讛 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛

It is taught in the mishna: And one may begin taking straw from the pile of straw. Rav Kahana said: That is to say that one may begin removing items from a storeroom on a Festival ab initio. Although the items in this storeroom are designated for other purposes, it is not assumed that one put them out of his mind. If so, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside [muktze]. According to him, on Shabbat and Festivals it is not prohibited to handle items that one has removed from his mind.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘注爪讬诐 砖讘诪讜拽爪讛 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讻讗 讘讗专讝讬 讜讗砖讜讞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讞住专讜谉 讻讬住 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛

The Gemara challenges: Say the latter clause of the same mishna as follows: But not wood in the wood storage. If so, we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is of the opinion that there is a prohibition of muktze. The Gemara answers: Here, we are dealing with wood of cedars and firs, which are expensive and used only in the construction of important buildings, not for kindling; the wood storage is therefore considered muktze due to potential monetary loss. With regard to an item that one removes from his mind due to the financial loss he might suffer were he to use it, but not due to any prohibition involved, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it may not be handled due to the prohibition of muktze.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘注爪讬诐 砖讘诪讜拽爪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘讗讜爪专 转讞诇讛 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘注专诪转 讛转讘谉 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讛转诐 讘转讘谞讗 住专讬讗

There are those who taught the statement of Rav Kahana as referring to the latter clause of the mishna, as follows: But not wood from the wood storage area. Rav Kahana said: That is to say that one may not begin removing items from a storeroom ab initio. If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is maintains that there is a prohibition of muktze. The Gemara challenges: Say the first clause of the mishna, which states that one may begin taking from the pile of straw. If so, we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of muktze. The Gemara answers: There, in the first clause of the mishna, it is dealing with straw that has rotted and become rancid. Since it is no longer fit as animal fodder, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that it will be used for kindling and is not muktze.

转讘谞讗 住专讬讗 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讟讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽讜爪讬诐

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 rancid straw fit for clay in the making of bricks; why can one assume that it will be used as fuel? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to straw that has thorns, which cannot be kneaded into clay. It will certainly be used only for kindling.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇讛

MISHNA: One may not take wood from a sukka on any Festival, not only on the festival of Sukkot, because this is considered dismantling, but one may take from near it.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讚诇讗 讚拽讗 住转专 讗讛诇讗 诪谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇讛 谞诪讬 拽讗 住转专 讗讛诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question with regard to the mishna: In what way is this case different? Why did the mishna teach that from the sukka itself one may not remove wood? It is because one thereby dismantles a tent, which is a prohibited labor. But if so, if one takes wood from near it, too, doesn鈥檛 he thereby dismantle a tent? Why, then, does the mishna permit him to do so?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 住诪讜讱 住诪讜讱 诇讚驻谞讜转 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖讗讬谉 住诪讜讱 诇讚驻谞讜转 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讗住讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: What is the meaning of: Near it? It means near the walls. Wood placed near the walls may be removed because it is not part of the sukka itself; the walls themselves may not be removed. Rav Menashya said: Even if you say that it is referring to a case where the wood is not near the walls but is part of the roof of the sukka itself, when that baraita was taught, it was with regard to bundles of reeds that are not considered part of the roof of the sukka, as they have not been untied. Therefore, one may remove them.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜砖讜讬谉 讘住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 砖讗住讜专讛 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: One may not take wood from the sukka itself but only from the nearby wood. And Rabbi Shimon permits one to take wood from the sukka as well. And all agree, even Rabbi Shimon, that with regard to the sukka that was built for the festival ofSukkot, during the Festival it is prohibited to remove wood from it. But if at the outset one stipulated a condition with regard to it allowing him to use it for other purposes, it is all according to his stipulation.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讛讗 拽讗 住转专 讗讛诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘住讜讻讛 谞讜驻诇转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜转专 讛砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讜砖讘拽注专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

The Gemara questions this baraita: And does Rabbi Shimon permit one to take wood from the sukka itself? But isn鈥檛 one dismantling a tent, which is a prohibited labor? The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that has already collapsed. Therefore, the only potential concern is muktze, not dismantling. And Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of muktze, as it is taught in a baraita: If a wick in oil was lit before Shabbat, and it went out on Shabbat, the remainder of the oil in a lamp or in a bowl is prohibited for use, as it is muktze. And Rabbi Shimon permits one to use it. Consequently, Rabbi Shimon also permits one to take wood from the sukka.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 讗讬诪转讬 转讻讘讛 谞专讜 讛讻讗 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 讗讬诪转讬 转驻讜诇 住讜讻转讜

The Gemara rejects this claim: Is it comparable? There, in the case of oil in a lamp, a person sits and anticipates when his lamp will be extinguished. It is clear to him that it will be extinguished, and he can safely assume that a certain amount of oil will remain in the lamp or the bowl. Here, however, can it be said that a person sits and anticipates when his sukka will fall? He cannot know ahead of time that his sukka will collapse.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘住讜讻讛 专注讜注讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讗转诪讜诇 讚注转讬讛 注诇讜讬讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that is not sturdy, as from yesterday, the Festival eve, one already had his mind on it. He thought it might collapse, and therefore he did not remove the possibility of using its wood from his mind.

讜砖讜讬谉 讘住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 砖讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜 讜诪讬 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 转谞讗讬

搂 The above baraita states: All agree with regard to the sukka that was built for the festival of Sukkot, that during the Festival it is prohibited to remove wood from it, but if one stipulated a condition with regard to it, it is all according to his condition. The Gemara asks: And is a condition effective with regard to it?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪谞讬谉 诇注爪讬 住讜讻讛 砖讗住讜专讬谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诇讛壮 讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讻砖诐 砖讞诇 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 注诇 讛讞讙讬讙讛 讻讱 讞诇 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 注诇 讛住讜讻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诇讛壮 诪讛 讞讙 诇讛壮 讗祝 住讜讻讛 诇讛壮

But didn鈥檛 Rav Sheshet say in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From where is it derived that the wood of a sukka is prohibited to be used for any other use all seven days of the Festival? It is as it is stated: 鈥淭he festival of Sukkot to the Lord, seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:34). And it is taught in a different baraita in explanation of this that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that just as the name of Heaven takes effect upon the Festival peace-offering, so too, does the name of Heaven take effect upon the sukka? The verse states: 鈥淭he festival of Sukkot to the Lord, seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:34), from which it is learned: Just as the Festival offering is consecrated to the Lord, so too, the sukka is consecrated to the Lord. Since the wood of the sukka is compared to consecrated objects, how may one stipulate a condition with regard to it?

讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇住讜讻讛 讚注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 住讜讻讛 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 转谞讗讛

Rav Menashya, son of Rava, said: In the latter clause, where the stipulation is mentioned, we have arrived at the case of a regular sukka, a hut used throughout the year, not specifically for the Festival. With regard to such a sukka, one may stipulate to use the wood as he wishes; but as for a sukka of mitzva, used for the Festival, a condition is not effective with regard to it.

讜住讜讻讛 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讻讻讛 讻讛诇讻转讛 讜注讟专讛 讘拽专诪讬诐 讜讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讗讙讜讝讬诐 砖拽讚讬诐 讗驻专住拽讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 讜驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜注讟专讜转 砖讘诇讬诐 讗住讜专 诇讛住转驻拽 诪讛谉 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛诐 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜

The Gemara asks a question from a different angle: And is a condition not effective for a sukka of mitzva? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the Tosefta: In the case of a sukka that one roofed in accordance with its halakha, and decorated it with embroidered clothes and with patterned sheets, and hung on it nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, and vines [parkilei], of grapes and glass containers filled with wine, oil, and flour, and wreaths of ears of corn for decoration, it is prohibited to derive benefit from any of these until the conclusion of the last Festival day. But if one stipulated a condition with regard to them whereby he allows himself to use them, it is all according to his condition. This shows that conditions are effective even with regard to a sukka of mitzva.

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讘讜讚诇 诪讛诐 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚诇讗 讞诇讛 拽讚讜砖讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 注爪讬 住讜讻讛 讚讞诇讛 拽讚讜砖讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗转拽爪讗讬 诇砖讘注讛

The Gemara answers based on the opinion of Abaye and Rava, who both say that this is referring to a case where one says: I am not removing myself from them throughout twilight. In other words, he announces from the outset that he will not set them aside as sukka decorations, but rather he will use them for other purposes as well. In that case, no sanctity devolves upon them at all, and he may therefore use them throughout the Festival. However, as for the actual wood of a sukka, sanctity devolves upon it through the very construction of the sukka, and it has therefore been set aside from use for the entire seven days.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚讗转诪专 讛驻专讬砖 砖讘注讛 讗转专讜讙讬诐 诇砖讘注转 讛讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讜讗讜讻诇讛 诇讗诇转专 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讗讞转 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讜讗讜讻诇讛 诇诪讞专

The Gemara asks: And in what way is it different from that which was stated with regard to a different halakha: In the case of one who separated seven etrogim for each of the seven Festival days, one for each day, Rav said: He fulfills his obligation through each and every one of them when he recites the blessing over the lulav and etrog, and if he so desires he may eat it immediately after the blessing. And Rav Asi said: He fulfills his obligation through each one, and he may eat it the following day, as it retains its sanctity for the duration of that entire day. In any case, all agree that the sanctity of each etrog does not extend to the following day. If so, why does the sanctity of the sukka extend through all seven days?

讛转诐 讚诪驻住拽讜 诇讬诇讜转 诪讬诪讬诐 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讬讜诪讗 诪爪讜讛 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讬讛 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诪驻住拽讜 诇讬诇讜转 诪讬诪讬诐 讻讜诇讛讜 讬讜诪讬 讻讞讚讗 讬讜诪讗 讗专讬讻转讗 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between an etrog and a sukka. There, with regard to an etrog, the nights are divided from the days, as the mitzva of etrog applies only during the day and not at night. This means that each and every day is its own mitzva, and therefore an item that is sanctified for one day is not necessarily sanctified for the following day. However, here, with regard to a sukka, where the nights are not divided from the days, as the mitzva of sukka applies at night as well, all seven days are considered as one long day. Throughout the Festival, there is no moment during which the sanctity of sukka leaves the wood; it leaves only at the conclusion of the Festival.

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah: 24-30 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn all of the third chapter of Masechet Beitza. We will learn what is...

Beitzah 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 30

讘注专诪转 讛转讘谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘注爪讬诐 砖讘诪讜拽爪讛

from the pile of straw, although he did not designate the pile for this purpose the day before; but one may not begin to take from the wood in the wood storage, a small yard behind the house where people store various items that they do not intend to use in the near future.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讗诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜转 诪讜转专

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: If it is impossible to modify the manner in which one carries a vessel, whether due to the vessel or due to time constraints, it is permitted to act in the typical weekday manner.

讗转拽讬谉 专讘讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讚讚专讜 讘讚讜讞拽讗 诇讚专讜 讘专讙诇讗 讚讚专讜 讘专讙诇讗 诇讚专讜 讘讗讙专讗 讚讚专讜 讘讗讙专讗 诇讚专讜 讘讗讻驻讗 讚讚专讜 讘讗讻驻讗 谞驻专讜住 住讜讚专讗 注诇讜讬讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗驻砖专 砖专讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜转 诪讜转专

The Gemara relates that Rava instituted the following in his city, Me岣za: One who usually carries his burden with difficulty on a weekday should modify his habit on a Festival and carry it on a pitchfork. One who usually carries it on a pitchfork should carry it on a carrying pole held by two people on their shoulders. One who carries it on a carrying pole held by two people on their shoulders should carry it on a carrying pole in his hands, although he is not thereby making it easier for himself. One who carries burdens on a carrying pole in his hands should spread a scarf [sudara] over it. And if it is not possible to make these modifications due to time constraints, it is permitted to proceed in the usual manner, as the Master said above: If it is impossible to modify, it is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讜讛讗 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚拽讗 诪诇讬讬谉 讞爪讘讬讬讛讜 诪讬讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪砖谞讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rav 岣nan bar Rava said to Rav Ashi: The Sages said: As much as it is possible to modify the weekday manner, one should modify on a Festival. A question was asked of Rav Ashi: But don鈥檛 those women fill their jugs with water on a Festival without modifying, and we say nothing to them by way of protest; why do we not instruct them to alter their usual manner?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讗 诇讬注讘讚 讚诪诇讬讗 讘讞爪讘讗 专讘讛 转诪诇讬 讘讞爪讘讗 讝讜讟讗 拽讗 诪驻砖讗 讘讛诇讜讻讗

He said to him: It is because it is not possible for them to fill their jugs any other way. How should they act? She who is accustomed to filling a large jug, should she instead fill a small jug? Won鈥檛 this mean that she increases her walking, since she has to make more than one trip to bring home more than one jug, and she will thereby perform unnecessary labor on the Festival?

讚诪诇讬讗 讘讞爪讘讗 讝讜讟讗 转诪诇讬 讘讞爪讘讗 专讘讛 拽讗 诪驻砖讬 讘诪砖讜讬 转讻住讬讬讛 讘谞讻转诪讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 转拽讟专讬讛 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪驻住讬拽 讜讗转讬 诇诪拽讟专讬讛 转驻专讜住 住讜讚专讗 注诇讜讬讛 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讟诪讬砖 讘诪讬讗 讜讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 住讞讬讟讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

If one were to suggest the opposite, that one who fills a small jug should fill a large jug, won鈥檛 this mean that she increases her load? Furthermore, if one were to suggest that she should cover the jug with a wooden cover, sometimes it falls and she might come to bring it by hand, in the manner of a burden. Should she tie the cover to the jug, the rope might occasionally break, and she might come to tie it, a prohibited labor. Finally, should she spread a scarf over it, it occasionally falls off and becomes soaked in water, and she might come to transgress the prohibition against squeezing. Therefore, it is not possible to make a modification, and those women may act in the regular manner.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬讬 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪住驻拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪专拽讚讬谉 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚注讘讚谉 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rava bar Rav 岣nin said to Abaye: We learned in a mishna: The Rabbis decreed that one may not clap, nor strike a hand on his thigh, nor dance on a Festival, lest he come to repair musical instruments. But nowadays we see that women do so, and yet we do not say anything to them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讟注诪讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 (专讘讗) 诇讗 诇讬转讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诇讞讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讙谞讚专 诇讬讛 讞驻抓 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 (讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐) 讜讛讗 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚砖拽诇谉 讞爪讘讬讬讛讜 讜讗讝诇谉 讜讬转讘谉 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诪讘讜讗讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

He said to him: And according to your reasoning, how do you explain that which Rava said: A person should not sit at the entrance to an alleyway, next to the side post that has been placed at the edge of an alleyway in order for it to be considered a private domain, as perhaps an object will roll away from him and he will come to carry it four cubits in the public domain, thereby transgressing a biblical prohibition? But don鈥檛 these women take their jugs, and go, and sit at the entrance to an alleyway, and we do not say anything to them?

讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讗诇 讬讛讬讜 诪讝讬讚讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛谞讞 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讗诇 讬讛讬讜 诪讝讬讚讬谉

Rather, the accepted principle is: Leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners. If people engage in a certain behavior that cannot be corrected, it is better not to reprove them, as they are likely to continue regardless of the reproof, and then they will be sinning intentionally. It is therefore preferable for them to be unaware that they are violating a prohibition and remain merely unwitting sinners. Here, too, with regard to clapping and dancing, leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讗 转讜住驻转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讜 注讚 砖讞砖讻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara comments: There were those who understood that this principle applies only to rabbinic prohibitions but not to Torah prohibitions, with regard to which the transgressors must be reprimanded. However, this is not so; it is no different whether the prohibition is by Torah law or whether it is by rabbinic law, we do not say anything to them. For example, on the eve of Yom Kippur, there is an obligation that one begin the fast while it is still day, before sunset, as the extension of Yom Kippur. During this time, one must observe all the halakhot. This mitzva of extending Yom Kippur is by Torah law, and yet people eat and drink until darkness falls but we do not say anything to them, as we know they will pay no attention.

讜诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘注专诪转 讛转讘谉 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘讗讜爪专 转讞诇讛 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛

It is taught in the mishna: And one may begin taking straw from the pile of straw. Rav Kahana said: That is to say that one may begin removing items from a storeroom on a Festival ab initio. Although the items in this storeroom are designated for other purposes, it is not assumed that one put them out of his mind. If so, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside [muktze]. According to him, on Shabbat and Festivals it is not prohibited to handle items that one has removed from his mind.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘注爪讬诐 砖讘诪讜拽爪讛 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讻讗 讘讗专讝讬 讜讗砖讜讞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讞住专讜谉 讻讬住 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛

The Gemara challenges: Say the latter clause of the same mishna as follows: But not wood in the wood storage. If so, we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is of the opinion that there is a prohibition of muktze. The Gemara answers: Here, we are dealing with wood of cedars and firs, which are expensive and used only in the construction of important buildings, not for kindling; the wood storage is therefore considered muktze due to potential monetary loss. With regard to an item that one removes from his mind due to the financial loss he might suffer were he to use it, but not due to any prohibition involved, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it may not be handled due to the prohibition of muktze.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘注爪讬诐 砖讘诪讜拽爪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘讗讜爪专 转讞诇讛 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘注专诪转 讛转讘谉 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讛转诐 讘转讘谞讗 住专讬讗

There are those who taught the statement of Rav Kahana as referring to the latter clause of the mishna, as follows: But not wood from the wood storage area. Rav Kahana said: That is to say that one may not begin removing items from a storeroom ab initio. If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is maintains that there is a prohibition of muktze. The Gemara challenges: Say the first clause of the mishna, which states that one may begin taking from the pile of straw. If so, we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of muktze. The Gemara answers: There, in the first clause of the mishna, it is dealing with straw that has rotted and become rancid. Since it is no longer fit as animal fodder, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that it will be used for kindling and is not muktze.

转讘谞讗 住专讬讗 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讟讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽讜爪讬诐

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 rancid straw fit for clay in the making of bricks; why can one assume that it will be used as fuel? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to straw that has thorns, which cannot be kneaded into clay. It will certainly be used only for kindling.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇讛

MISHNA: One may not take wood from a sukka on any Festival, not only on the festival of Sukkot, because this is considered dismantling, but one may take from near it.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讚诇讗 讚拽讗 住转专 讗讛诇讗 诪谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇讛 谞诪讬 拽讗 住转专 讗讛诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question with regard to the mishna: In what way is this case different? Why did the mishna teach that from the sukka itself one may not remove wood? It is because one thereby dismantles a tent, which is a prohibited labor. But if so, if one takes wood from near it, too, doesn鈥檛 he thereby dismantle a tent? Why, then, does the mishna permit him to do so?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 住诪讜讱 住诪讜讱 诇讚驻谞讜转 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖讗讬谉 住诪讜讱 诇讚驻谞讜转 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讗住讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: What is the meaning of: Near it? It means near the walls. Wood placed near the walls may be removed because it is not part of the sukka itself; the walls themselves may not be removed. Rav Menashya said: Even if you say that it is referring to a case where the wood is not near the walls but is part of the roof of the sukka itself, when that baraita was taught, it was with regard to bundles of reeds that are not considered part of the roof of the sukka, as they have not been untied. Therefore, one may remove them.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜砖讜讬谉 讘住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 砖讗住讜专讛 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: One may not take wood from the sukka itself but only from the nearby wood. And Rabbi Shimon permits one to take wood from the sukka as well. And all agree, even Rabbi Shimon, that with regard to the sukka that was built for the festival ofSukkot, during the Festival it is prohibited to remove wood from it. But if at the outset one stipulated a condition with regard to it allowing him to use it for other purposes, it is all according to his stipulation.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讛讗 拽讗 住转专 讗讛诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘住讜讻讛 谞讜驻诇转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜转专 讛砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讜砖讘拽注专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

The Gemara questions this baraita: And does Rabbi Shimon permit one to take wood from the sukka itself? But isn鈥檛 one dismantling a tent, which is a prohibited labor? The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that has already collapsed. Therefore, the only potential concern is muktze, not dismantling. And Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of muktze, as it is taught in a baraita: If a wick in oil was lit before Shabbat, and it went out on Shabbat, the remainder of the oil in a lamp or in a bowl is prohibited for use, as it is muktze. And Rabbi Shimon permits one to use it. Consequently, Rabbi Shimon also permits one to take wood from the sukka.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 讗讬诪转讬 转讻讘讛 谞专讜 讛讻讗 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 讗讬诪转讬 转驻讜诇 住讜讻转讜

The Gemara rejects this claim: Is it comparable? There, in the case of oil in a lamp, a person sits and anticipates when his lamp will be extinguished. It is clear to him that it will be extinguished, and he can safely assume that a certain amount of oil will remain in the lamp or the bowl. Here, however, can it be said that a person sits and anticipates when his sukka will fall? He cannot know ahead of time that his sukka will collapse.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘住讜讻讛 专注讜注讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讗转诪讜诇 讚注转讬讛 注诇讜讬讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that is not sturdy, as from yesterday, the Festival eve, one already had his mind on it. He thought it might collapse, and therefore he did not remove the possibility of using its wood from his mind.

讜砖讜讬谉 讘住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 砖讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜 讜诪讬 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 转谞讗讬

搂 The above baraita states: All agree with regard to the sukka that was built for the festival of Sukkot, that during the Festival it is prohibited to remove wood from it, but if one stipulated a condition with regard to it, it is all according to his condition. The Gemara asks: And is a condition effective with regard to it?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪谞讬谉 诇注爪讬 住讜讻讛 砖讗住讜专讬谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诇讛壮 讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讻砖诐 砖讞诇 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 注诇 讛讞讙讬讙讛 讻讱 讞诇 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 注诇 讛住讜讻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诇讛壮 诪讛 讞讙 诇讛壮 讗祝 住讜讻讛 诇讛壮

But didn鈥檛 Rav Sheshet say in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From where is it derived that the wood of a sukka is prohibited to be used for any other use all seven days of the Festival? It is as it is stated: 鈥淭he festival of Sukkot to the Lord, seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:34). And it is taught in a different baraita in explanation of this that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that just as the name of Heaven takes effect upon the Festival peace-offering, so too, does the name of Heaven take effect upon the sukka? The verse states: 鈥淭he festival of Sukkot to the Lord, seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:34), from which it is learned: Just as the Festival offering is consecrated to the Lord, so too, the sukka is consecrated to the Lord. Since the wood of the sukka is compared to consecrated objects, how may one stipulate a condition with regard to it?

讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇住讜讻讛 讚注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 住讜讻讛 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 转谞讗讛

Rav Menashya, son of Rava, said: In the latter clause, where the stipulation is mentioned, we have arrived at the case of a regular sukka, a hut used throughout the year, not specifically for the Festival. With regard to such a sukka, one may stipulate to use the wood as he wishes; but as for a sukka of mitzva, used for the Festival, a condition is not effective with regard to it.

讜住讜讻讛 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讻讻讛 讻讛诇讻转讛 讜注讟专讛 讘拽专诪讬诐 讜讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讗讙讜讝讬诐 砖拽讚讬诐 讗驻专住拽讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 讜驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜注讟专讜转 砖讘诇讬诐 讗住讜专 诇讛住转驻拽 诪讛谉 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛诐 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜

The Gemara asks a question from a different angle: And is a condition not effective for a sukka of mitzva? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the Tosefta: In the case of a sukka that one roofed in accordance with its halakha, and decorated it with embroidered clothes and with patterned sheets, and hung on it nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, and vines [parkilei], of grapes and glass containers filled with wine, oil, and flour, and wreaths of ears of corn for decoration, it is prohibited to derive benefit from any of these until the conclusion of the last Festival day. But if one stipulated a condition with regard to them whereby he allows himself to use them, it is all according to his condition. This shows that conditions are effective even with regard to a sukka of mitzva.

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讘讜讚诇 诪讛诐 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚诇讗 讞诇讛 拽讚讜砖讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 注爪讬 住讜讻讛 讚讞诇讛 拽讚讜砖讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗转拽爪讗讬 诇砖讘注讛

The Gemara answers based on the opinion of Abaye and Rava, who both say that this is referring to a case where one says: I am not removing myself from them throughout twilight. In other words, he announces from the outset that he will not set them aside as sukka decorations, but rather he will use them for other purposes as well. In that case, no sanctity devolves upon them at all, and he may therefore use them throughout the Festival. However, as for the actual wood of a sukka, sanctity devolves upon it through the very construction of the sukka, and it has therefore been set aside from use for the entire seven days.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚讗转诪专 讛驻专讬砖 砖讘注讛 讗转专讜讙讬诐 诇砖讘注转 讛讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讜讗讜讻诇讛 诇讗诇转专 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讗讞转 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讜讗讜讻诇讛 诇诪讞专

The Gemara asks: And in what way is it different from that which was stated with regard to a different halakha: In the case of one who separated seven etrogim for each of the seven Festival days, one for each day, Rav said: He fulfills his obligation through each and every one of them when he recites the blessing over the lulav and etrog, and if he so desires he may eat it immediately after the blessing. And Rav Asi said: He fulfills his obligation through each one, and he may eat it the following day, as it retains its sanctity for the duration of that entire day. In any case, all agree that the sanctity of each etrog does not extend to the following day. If so, why does the sanctity of the sukka extend through all seven days?

讛转诐 讚诪驻住拽讜 诇讬诇讜转 诪讬诪讬诐 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讬讜诪讗 诪爪讜讛 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讬讛 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诪驻住拽讜 诇讬诇讜转 诪讬诪讬诐 讻讜诇讛讜 讬讜诪讬 讻讞讚讗 讬讜诪讗 讗专讬讻转讗 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between an etrog and a sukka. There, with regard to an etrog, the nights are divided from the days, as the mitzva of etrog applies only during the day and not at night. This means that each and every day is its own mitzva, and therefore an item that is sanctified for one day is not necessarily sanctified for the following day. However, here, with regard to a sukka, where the nights are not divided from the days, as the mitzva of sukka applies at night as well, all seven days are considered as one long day. Throughout the Festival, there is no moment during which the sanctity of sukka leaves the wood; it leaves only at the conclusion of the Festival.

Scroll To Top