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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 17, 2021 | 讞壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

  • 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.

Sukkah 10

What was Rabbi Yirmia trying to teach by bringing all four cases of a sukkah on top of a sukkah? What is the minimum height needed for the upper sukkah in order for the sukkah to be considered a sukkah on top of a sukkah. Three opinions are brought and the gemara raises questions on Shmuel. Can one put a sheet on top of or below the sechach. On what does it depend?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛转讞转讜谞讛 爪诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转讛 讜拽讬讬诪讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐

What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in the lower sukka, its shade is greater than its sunlight, rendering the sukka fit, and in the upper sukka, its sunlight is greater than its shade and it is therefore insignificant, and the roofing of both is within twenty cubits of the ground.

讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讻砖专讛 讜转讞转讜谞讛 驻住讜诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 爪诇转谉 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转谉 讜拽讬讬诪讗 注诇讬讜谞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐

And there are times when the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in both sukkot their shade is greater than their sunlight, and the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the roofing of the lower one. In this case the upper sukka is fit, while the lower sukka is a sukka beneath a sukka and is unfit.

驻砖讬讟讗 转讞转讜谞讛 讻砖专讛 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讙讝专 讚讬诇诪讗 诪爪讟专祝 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讘讛讚讬 住讻讱 讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. There is nothing novel in any of these scenarios. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the case where the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit, as it contains a novel element. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree and deem the lower sukka unfit, as perhaps the unfit roofing of the upper sukka joins together with the fit roofing of the lower sukka and renders it unfit as well; therefore, the tanna teaches us that the two roofings do not join together and the upper roofing does not render the lower sukka unfit.

讻诪讛 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 住讜讻讛 诇住讜讻讛 讜转讛讗 转讞转讜谞讛 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara elucidates this halakha. How much space shall there be between the roofing of the upper sukka and the roofing of the lower sukka for the lower sukka to be considered a discrete entity and therefore disqualified as a sukka beneath a sukka?

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟驻讞 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗讛诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讟驻讞 (讚转谞讬讗) 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 讘专讜诐 讟驻讞 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪专讜诐 讟驻讞 诇讗 诪讘讬讗 讜诇讗 讞讜爪抓

Rav Huna said: There must be a handbreadth of space, as we likewise find in tents of ritual impurity the measure of a handbreadth. With regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, the legal status of the space of one handbreadth beneath a roof is that of a tent, as we learned in a mishna: A space measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth with a height of one handbreadth transmits ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse is in that space, the impurity is transmitted to all people, vessels, and food in that space. And a space that size serves as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity beyond that space. However, if the space measures less than the height of one handbreadth, it does not transmit impurity to the objects in that space, and it does not serve as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity. The impurity breaches the confining walls and rises upward as if there were no covering over it.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讗专讘注讛 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪拽讜诐 [讞砖讜讘] 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛

Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: For this to be considered a sukka beneath a sukka, the space between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least four handbreadths, as we do not find a significant area that measures less than four handbreadths, e.g., with regard to the domains of Shabbat.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注砖专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛讻砖专讛 讻讱 驻住讜诇讛 诪讛 讛讻砖专讛 讘注砖专讛 讗祝 驻住讜诇讛 讘注砖专讛

And Shmuel said: The space between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least ten handbreadths. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara explains: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness; just as its fitness is only in a sukka ten handbreadths high, so too, its unfitness as a sukka is engendered only by a sukka ten handbreadths high.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻砖专讛

The Gemara questions Shmuel鈥檚 statement: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no residents in the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit.

诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 诪诪砖 讗讟讜 讚讬讜专讬谉 拽讗 讙专诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诇讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: There are no residents? If we say that it means that there are no actual residents, the question arises: Is that to say that residents cause it to be unfit? If the upper sukka is a fit sukka, is there any difference whether or not people reside there? Rather, what is the meaning of: There are no residents? Is it not referring to any sukka that is not suitable to serve as a residence? And what are the circumstances of that case? It is a case where the sukka is not ten handbreadths high, as anything less than ten handbreadths high is not considered a residence. From the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda who distinguishes between whether or not the upper sukka is at least ten handbreadths high, conclude by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that the lower sukka is unfit even if the upper sukka is less than ten handbreadths high and therefore not suitable to serve as a residence. This is contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诐 讗讬谉 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇拽讘诇 讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 砖诇 注诇讬讜谞讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻砖专讛

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that the Sages say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in explanation of the mishna: If the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, then the lower sukka is fit, as the upper sukka is not suitable to serve as an independent residence. According to this explanation, the mishna does not discuss the height of the upper sukka; it discusses the quality of the roofing.

诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讘诇 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara notes: Is that to say by inference that the first tanna holds that even though the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, the lower sukka is unfit? In that case, the upper sukka is not a suitable residence. Why should the lower sukka be unfit?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讬讻讜诇讛 诇拽讘诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽

The Gemara answers: The first tanna agrees that if the roofing of the lower sukka is unable to support the cushions and the blankets at all, the upper sukka is not considered a sukka and the lower sukka is fit. However, there is a practical difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda in a case where the roofing of the lower sukka is able to support the cushions and the blankets of the upper sukka with difficulty and there is a concern that the roofing might collapse. In that case, the first tanna holds that since the roofing is capable of supporting the cushions and blankets, the upper sukka is considered a separate sukka and renders the lower sukka unfit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, since the roofing is able to support the weight of the cushions and blankets only with difficulty, the upper sukka is not fit. Therefore, the lower sukka is fit.

诪转谞讬壮 驻讬专住 注诇讬讛 住讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讗讜 转讞转讬讛 诪驻谞讬 讛谞砖专 讗讜 砖驻讬专住 注诇 讙讘讬 讛拽讬谞讜祝 驻住讜诇讛 讗讘诇 驻讜专住 讛讜讗 注诇 讙讘讬 谞拽诇讬讟讬 讛诪讟讛

MISHNA: If one spread a sheet over the roofing as protection for those sitting in the sukka due to the sun, or if one spread a sheet beneath the roofing as protection due to the falling leaves, or if one spread a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post [kinof] bed, the area in the sukka beneath the sheets is unfit. In the first two cases, because the sheet is susceptible to ritual impurity, it renders the otherwise fit roofing unfit. In the case of the canopy, one is not sitting under the roofing of the sukka; rather, he is sitting inside a tent. However, one may spread the sheet over the frame of a two-post [naklitei] bed, which has one post in the middle of each end of the bed. When spreading the sheet over the posts it forms an inclined rather than a flat roof, and a tent with an inclined roof is not considered a significant structure.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讛谞砖专 讗讘诇 诇谞讗讜转讛 讻砖专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪驻谞讬 讛谞砖专 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇谞讗讜转讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪驻谞讬 讛谞砖专 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 拽转谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda said: The Sages taught the ruling that the sheet renders the sukka unfit only when it is placed underneath the roofing due to the falling leaves; however, if his intent was to spread the sheet for decorative purposes to beautify the sukka, it is not in the category of roofing and the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as: Due to the falling leaves, is what we learned in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the same is true, i.e., the sukka is unfit, even when the sheet was spread to beautify the sukka, and the reason that the mishna teaches specifically the case where one spread the sheet due to the falling leaves is that the mishna teaches the matter, spreading a sheet in the sukka, in the manner in which it typically occurs. Rav 岣sda teaches us that the formulation of the mishna is precise and the halakha applies specifically to the case cited. If one spread the sheet for decorative purposes, it does not render the sukka unfit.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 住讬讻讻讛 讻讛诇讻转讛 讜注讬讟专讛 讘拽专诪讬谉 讜讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬专讬谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讗讙讜讝讬谉 砖拽讚讬诐 讗驻专住拽讬谉 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘讜诇讬谉 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讗住讜专 诇讛住转驻拽 诪讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following Tosefta supports the opinion of Rav 岣sda. If one roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to derive benefit and use them

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 讚诇诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讚

until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everything is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. Apparently, sheets may indeed be spread in the sukka for decorative purposes. The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from the Tosefta, as perhaps the reference is to sheets spread on the side of the sukka. However, if they are spread beneath the roofing, it renders the sukka unfit.

讗转诪专 谞讜讬讬 住讜讻讛 讗讬谉 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘住讜讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪谉 讛爪讚 诪诪注讟讬谉

搂 Apropos decorations, it was stated: Sukka decorations do not diminish the height of the sukka. Decorations hanging from the roofing are not considered part of the structure and therefore do not diminish the height of the sukka. If the roofing is more than twenty cubits above the ground, the decorations hanging within twenty cubits of the ground do not render the sukka fit. Rav Ashi said: However, if the decorations are spread on the side of the roof, they are considered part of the structure and diminish the area. If the decorations render the interior of the sukka less than seven by seven handbreadths, the sukka is unfit.

诪谞讬诪讬谉 注讘讚讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讟诪讬砖讗 诇讬讛 讻转讜谞转讗 讘诪讬讗 讜讗砖转讟讞讗 讗诪讟诇诇转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讚诇讬讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬诪专讜 拽讗 诪住讻讻讬 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讚专讟讬讘讗 诇讻讬 讬讘砖讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱

The Gemara relates with regard to Minyamin, the servant of Rav Ashi, that his shirt became wet [itamisha], and he spread it over the sukka to dry it. Rav Ashi said to him: Take it down so that people will not say that they are roofing the sukka with an item susceptible to ritual impurity. The servant said to him: But don鈥檛 they see that it is wet and understand that I placed it there to dry? Rav Ashi replied: Take it down once it is dry is what I am saying to you, as then people are apt to think that it is part of the roofing.

讗转诪专 谞讜讬讬 住讜讻讛 讛诪讜驻诇讙讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讗专讘注讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 驻住讜诇讛

It was stated with regard to sukka decorations, e.g., sheets spread beneath the roofing to decorate the sukka, that are removed from the roofing four handbreadths, the amora鈥檌m disagreed whether they interpose between the roofing and the sukka. Rav Na岣an said: The sukka remains fit. Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is unfit.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗讙谞讬谞讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘住讜讻讛 砖谞讜讬讬讛 诪讜驻诇讙讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗砖转讬拽讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讚讜专 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 诪砖诪注转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗谞谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. Rav Na岣an, who was the official in charge of the Exilarch鈥檚 household, lodged them in a sukka whose decorations were removed from the roofing four handbreadths. They were silent and did not say anything to him, even though in their opinion the sukka was unfit. Rav Na岣an said to them: Did the Sages retract their halakhic ruling? Does your silence indicate that you concede to my ruling? They said to him: We are on the path to perform a mitzva and, therefore, we are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Therefore, it is permitted for us to sleep in this sukka. In terms of the halakha, our ruling is unchanged.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜转专 诇讬砖谉 讘讻讬诇讛 讘住讜讻讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讛 讙讙 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讬谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to sleep in a bed with netting inside the sukka, even though the bed has a roof, provided that the netting is not more than ten handbreadths higher than the bed. In that case, the netting is not considered a tent in and of itself.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬砖谉 讘讻讬诇讛 讘住讜讻讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛

Come and hear: One who sleeps in a bed with netting inside the sukka did not fulfill his obligation, contrary to the statement that Rav Yehuda cited in the name of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the netting is more than ten handbreadths higher than the bed and is considered a tent in and of itself.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬砖谉 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讘住讜讻讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讛讗 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讟讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna: One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukka did not fulfill his obligation. As the height of a typical bed is less than ten handbreadths, apparently, even if the covering beneath which one is sleeping in less than ten handbreadths high, it is a tent in and of itself and he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Shmuel interpret the mishna as referring to the case of a bed ten handbreadths high? Therefore, one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讜 砖驻讬专住 注诇 讙讘讬 拽讬谞讜驻讜转 驻住讜诇讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讙讘讬讛讬 注砖专讛

Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: Or if one spread a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post bed, the area in the sukka beneath the sheet is unfit. Apparently, a bed with certain types of netting is unfit. The Gemara answers: There, too, it is a case where the posts are ten handbreadths high.

讜讛讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 讚转谞讬讗 谞拽诇讬讟讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜拽讬谞讜驻讜转 讗专讘注讛 驻讬专住 注诇 讙讘讬 拽讬谞讜驻讜转 驻住讜诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 谞拽诇讬讟讬谉 讻砖专讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 谞拽诇讬讟讬谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 注砖专讛 诪讻诇诇 讚拽讬谞讜驻讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: But that is not the way it is taught, as it is taught in the baraita: Naklitin are two posts and kinofot are four posts. If one spread a sheet over four posts, the area in the sukka beneath the sheet is unfit; if one did so over two posts the entire sukka is fit, provided the two posts are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed. This proves by inference that a sheet spread over four posts renders the area in the sukka beneath the sheet unfit even if it is not ten handbreadths high.

砖讗谞讬 拽讬谞讜驻讜转 讚拽讘讬注讬 讜讛专讬 住讜讻讛 注诇 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 讚拽讘讬注讗 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛讻砖专讛 讻讱 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讚诇诪驻住诇 住讜讻讛 讘注砖专讛 讛讻讗 讚诇砖讜讬讬 讗讜讛诇讗 讘爪讬专 诪注砖专讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 讗讜讛诇讗

The Gemara answers: Four posts are different because they are fixed in the bed and constitute a significant space even without the requisite height. The Gemara asks: But a sukka atop another sukka is fixed, and yet Shmuel said: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness. The upper sukka renders the lower sukka unfit only if it is ten handbreadths high. The Sages say in distinguishing between the cases: There, in the case of a sukka atop another sukka, where the measurement is in order to disqualify the lower sukka, ten handbreadths are required to render the upper sukka a separate entity. However, here, in the case of the four-post bed, in order to consider the covering a tent, less than ten handbreadths is also considered to be a tent, as it is fixed.

讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬砖谉 讘讻讬诇讛 注专讜诐 诪讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇讻讬诇讛 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

Rav Ta岣lifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: One who sleeps naked in a bed with netting and is required to recite Shema moves his head out from beneath the netting and recites Shema. Although he is naked, the netting is considered like a garment; therefore, it is permitted to recite Shema.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬砖谉 讘讻讬诇讛 注专讜诐 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇讻讬诇讛 讜讬拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who sleeps naked in a bed with netting may not move his head out from beneath the netting and recite Shema. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the netting is ten handbreadths high. In that case, it is considered a tent and not a garment.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇注讜诪讚 讘讘讬转 注专讜诐 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇讞诇讜谉 讜讬拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in that manner from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of that baraita: To what is this comparable? It is comparable to one standing naked in his house, that he may not move his head out the window and recite Shema. That is certainly ineffective. The fact that the baraita likens the bed with netting to a house indicates that it is netting at least ten handbreadths high. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct understanding.

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • 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

Sukkah 7 – 13 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the minimum number of walls to make a valid Sukka. We will also see the...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 10: Sukkah Decorations

[Some wonky audio from the app. Not throughout. With our apologies nonetheless.] What can't go over the schach: for example,...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

The Philosophy of Esthetics: Sukkah – Gefet 1

Gefet: Gemara Rashi and Tosafot. Delve into commentaries on the daf in this advanced level shiur with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni....

Sukkah 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 10

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛转讞转讜谞讛 爪诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转讛 讜拽讬讬诪讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐

What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in the lower sukka, its shade is greater than its sunlight, rendering the sukka fit, and in the upper sukka, its sunlight is greater than its shade and it is therefore insignificant, and the roofing of both is within twenty cubits of the ground.

讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讻砖专讛 讜转讞转讜谞讛 驻住讜诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 爪诇转谉 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转谉 讜拽讬讬诪讗 注诇讬讜谞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐

And there are times when the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in both sukkot their shade is greater than their sunlight, and the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the roofing of the lower one. In this case the upper sukka is fit, while the lower sukka is a sukka beneath a sukka and is unfit.

驻砖讬讟讗 转讞转讜谞讛 讻砖专讛 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讙讝专 讚讬诇诪讗 诪爪讟专祝 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讘讛讚讬 住讻讱 讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. There is nothing novel in any of these scenarios. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the case where the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit, as it contains a novel element. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree and deem the lower sukka unfit, as perhaps the unfit roofing of the upper sukka joins together with the fit roofing of the lower sukka and renders it unfit as well; therefore, the tanna teaches us that the two roofings do not join together and the upper roofing does not render the lower sukka unfit.

讻诪讛 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 住讜讻讛 诇住讜讻讛 讜转讛讗 转讞转讜谞讛 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara elucidates this halakha. How much space shall there be between the roofing of the upper sukka and the roofing of the lower sukka for the lower sukka to be considered a discrete entity and therefore disqualified as a sukka beneath a sukka?

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟驻讞 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗讛诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讟驻讞 (讚转谞讬讗) 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 讘专讜诐 讟驻讞 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪专讜诐 讟驻讞 诇讗 诪讘讬讗 讜诇讗 讞讜爪抓

Rav Huna said: There must be a handbreadth of space, as we likewise find in tents of ritual impurity the measure of a handbreadth. With regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, the legal status of the space of one handbreadth beneath a roof is that of a tent, as we learned in a mishna: A space measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth with a height of one handbreadth transmits ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse is in that space, the impurity is transmitted to all people, vessels, and food in that space. And a space that size serves as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity beyond that space. However, if the space measures less than the height of one handbreadth, it does not transmit impurity to the objects in that space, and it does not serve as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity. The impurity breaches the confining walls and rises upward as if there were no covering over it.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讗专讘注讛 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪拽讜诐 [讞砖讜讘] 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛

Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: For this to be considered a sukka beneath a sukka, the space between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least four handbreadths, as we do not find a significant area that measures less than four handbreadths, e.g., with regard to the domains of Shabbat.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注砖专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛讻砖专讛 讻讱 驻住讜诇讛 诪讛 讛讻砖专讛 讘注砖专讛 讗祝 驻住讜诇讛 讘注砖专讛

And Shmuel said: The space between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least ten handbreadths. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara explains: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness; just as its fitness is only in a sukka ten handbreadths high, so too, its unfitness as a sukka is engendered only by a sukka ten handbreadths high.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻砖专讛

The Gemara questions Shmuel鈥檚 statement: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no residents in the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit.

诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 诪诪砖 讗讟讜 讚讬讜专讬谉 拽讗 讙专诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诇讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: There are no residents? If we say that it means that there are no actual residents, the question arises: Is that to say that residents cause it to be unfit? If the upper sukka is a fit sukka, is there any difference whether or not people reside there? Rather, what is the meaning of: There are no residents? Is it not referring to any sukka that is not suitable to serve as a residence? And what are the circumstances of that case? It is a case where the sukka is not ten handbreadths high, as anything less than ten handbreadths high is not considered a residence. From the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda who distinguishes between whether or not the upper sukka is at least ten handbreadths high, conclude by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that the lower sukka is unfit even if the upper sukka is less than ten handbreadths high and therefore not suitable to serve as a residence. This is contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诐 讗讬谉 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇拽讘诇 讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 砖诇 注诇讬讜谞讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻砖专讛

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that the Sages say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in explanation of the mishna: If the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, then the lower sukka is fit, as the upper sukka is not suitable to serve as an independent residence. According to this explanation, the mishna does not discuss the height of the upper sukka; it discusses the quality of the roofing.

诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讘诇 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara notes: Is that to say by inference that the first tanna holds that even though the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, the lower sukka is unfit? In that case, the upper sukka is not a suitable residence. Why should the lower sukka be unfit?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讬讻讜诇讛 诇拽讘诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽

The Gemara answers: The first tanna agrees that if the roofing of the lower sukka is unable to support the cushions and the blankets at all, the upper sukka is not considered a sukka and the lower sukka is fit. However, there is a practical difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda in a case where the roofing of the lower sukka is able to support the cushions and the blankets of the upper sukka with difficulty and there is a concern that the roofing might collapse. In that case, the first tanna holds that since the roofing is capable of supporting the cushions and blankets, the upper sukka is considered a separate sukka and renders the lower sukka unfit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, since the roofing is able to support the weight of the cushions and blankets only with difficulty, the upper sukka is not fit. Therefore, the lower sukka is fit.

诪转谞讬壮 驻讬专住 注诇讬讛 住讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讗讜 转讞转讬讛 诪驻谞讬 讛谞砖专 讗讜 砖驻讬专住 注诇 讙讘讬 讛拽讬谞讜祝 驻住讜诇讛 讗讘诇 驻讜专住 讛讜讗 注诇 讙讘讬 谞拽诇讬讟讬 讛诪讟讛

MISHNA: If one spread a sheet over the roofing as protection for those sitting in the sukka due to the sun, or if one spread a sheet beneath the roofing as protection due to the falling leaves, or if one spread a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post [kinof] bed, the area in the sukka beneath the sheets is unfit. In the first two cases, because the sheet is susceptible to ritual impurity, it renders the otherwise fit roofing unfit. In the case of the canopy, one is not sitting under the roofing of the sukka; rather, he is sitting inside a tent. However, one may spread the sheet over the frame of a two-post [naklitei] bed, which has one post in the middle of each end of the bed. When spreading the sheet over the posts it forms an inclined rather than a flat roof, and a tent with an inclined roof is not considered a significant structure.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讛谞砖专 讗讘诇 诇谞讗讜转讛 讻砖专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪驻谞讬 讛谞砖专 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇谞讗讜转讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪驻谞讬 讛谞砖专 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 拽转谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda said: The Sages taught the ruling that the sheet renders the sukka unfit only when it is placed underneath the roofing due to the falling leaves; however, if his intent was to spread the sheet for decorative purposes to beautify the sukka, it is not in the category of roofing and the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as: Due to the falling leaves, is what we learned in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the same is true, i.e., the sukka is unfit, even when the sheet was spread to beautify the sukka, and the reason that the mishna teaches specifically the case where one spread the sheet due to the falling leaves is that the mishna teaches the matter, spreading a sheet in the sukka, in the manner in which it typically occurs. Rav 岣sda teaches us that the formulation of the mishna is precise and the halakha applies specifically to the case cited. If one spread the sheet for decorative purposes, it does not render the sukka unfit.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 住讬讻讻讛 讻讛诇讻转讛 讜注讬讟专讛 讘拽专诪讬谉 讜讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬专讬谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讗讙讜讝讬谉 砖拽讚讬诐 讗驻专住拽讬谉 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘讜诇讬谉 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讗住讜专 诇讛住转驻拽 诪讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following Tosefta supports the opinion of Rav 岣sda. If one roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to derive benefit and use them

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 讚诇诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讚

until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everything is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. Apparently, sheets may indeed be spread in the sukka for decorative purposes. The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from the Tosefta, as perhaps the reference is to sheets spread on the side of the sukka. However, if they are spread beneath the roofing, it renders the sukka unfit.

讗转诪专 谞讜讬讬 住讜讻讛 讗讬谉 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘住讜讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪谉 讛爪讚 诪诪注讟讬谉

搂 Apropos decorations, it was stated: Sukka decorations do not diminish the height of the sukka. Decorations hanging from the roofing are not considered part of the structure and therefore do not diminish the height of the sukka. If the roofing is more than twenty cubits above the ground, the decorations hanging within twenty cubits of the ground do not render the sukka fit. Rav Ashi said: However, if the decorations are spread on the side of the roof, they are considered part of the structure and diminish the area. If the decorations render the interior of the sukka less than seven by seven handbreadths, the sukka is unfit.

诪谞讬诪讬谉 注讘讚讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讟诪讬砖讗 诇讬讛 讻转讜谞转讗 讘诪讬讗 讜讗砖转讟讞讗 讗诪讟诇诇转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讚诇讬讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬诪专讜 拽讗 诪住讻讻讬 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讚专讟讬讘讗 诇讻讬 讬讘砖讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱

The Gemara relates with regard to Minyamin, the servant of Rav Ashi, that his shirt became wet [itamisha], and he spread it over the sukka to dry it. Rav Ashi said to him: Take it down so that people will not say that they are roofing the sukka with an item susceptible to ritual impurity. The servant said to him: But don鈥檛 they see that it is wet and understand that I placed it there to dry? Rav Ashi replied: Take it down once it is dry is what I am saying to you, as then people are apt to think that it is part of the roofing.

讗转诪专 谞讜讬讬 住讜讻讛 讛诪讜驻诇讙讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讗专讘注讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 驻住讜诇讛

It was stated with regard to sukka decorations, e.g., sheets spread beneath the roofing to decorate the sukka, that are removed from the roofing four handbreadths, the amora鈥檌m disagreed whether they interpose between the roofing and the sukka. Rav Na岣an said: The sukka remains fit. Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is unfit.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗讙谞讬谞讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘住讜讻讛 砖谞讜讬讬讛 诪讜驻诇讙讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗砖转讬拽讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讚讜专 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 诪砖诪注转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗谞谉 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. Rav Na岣an, who was the official in charge of the Exilarch鈥檚 household, lodged them in a sukka whose decorations were removed from the roofing four handbreadths. They were silent and did not say anything to him, even though in their opinion the sukka was unfit. Rav Na岣an said to them: Did the Sages retract their halakhic ruling? Does your silence indicate that you concede to my ruling? They said to him: We are on the path to perform a mitzva and, therefore, we are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Therefore, it is permitted for us to sleep in this sukka. In terms of the halakha, our ruling is unchanged.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜转专 诇讬砖谉 讘讻讬诇讛 讘住讜讻讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讛 讙讙 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讬谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to sleep in a bed with netting inside the sukka, even though the bed has a roof, provided that the netting is not more than ten handbreadths higher than the bed. In that case, the netting is not considered a tent in and of itself.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬砖谉 讘讻讬诇讛 讘住讜讻讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛

Come and hear: One who sleeps in a bed with netting inside the sukka did not fulfill his obligation, contrary to the statement that Rav Yehuda cited in the name of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the netting is more than ten handbreadths higher than the bed and is considered a tent in and of itself.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬砖谉 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讘住讜讻讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讛讗 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讟讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna: One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukka did not fulfill his obligation. As the height of a typical bed is less than ten handbreadths, apparently, even if the covering beneath which one is sleeping in less than ten handbreadths high, it is a tent in and of itself and he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Shmuel interpret the mishna as referring to the case of a bed ten handbreadths high? Therefore, one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讜 砖驻讬专住 注诇 讙讘讬 拽讬谞讜驻讜转 驻住讜诇讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讙讘讬讛讬 注砖专讛

Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: Or if one spread a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post bed, the area in the sukka beneath the sheet is unfit. Apparently, a bed with certain types of netting is unfit. The Gemara answers: There, too, it is a case where the posts are ten handbreadths high.

讜讛讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 讚转谞讬讗 谞拽诇讬讟讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜拽讬谞讜驻讜转 讗专讘注讛 驻讬专住 注诇 讙讘讬 拽讬谞讜驻讜转 驻住讜诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 谞拽诇讬讟讬谉 讻砖专讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 谞拽诇讬讟讬谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 注砖专讛 诪讻诇诇 讚拽讬谞讜驻讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: But that is not the way it is taught, as it is taught in the baraita: Naklitin are two posts and kinofot are four posts. If one spread a sheet over four posts, the area in the sukka beneath the sheet is unfit; if one did so over two posts the entire sukka is fit, provided the two posts are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed. This proves by inference that a sheet spread over four posts renders the area in the sukka beneath the sheet unfit even if it is not ten handbreadths high.

砖讗谞讬 拽讬谞讜驻讜转 讚拽讘讬注讬 讜讛专讬 住讜讻讛 注诇 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 讚拽讘讬注讗 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛讻砖专讛 讻讱 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讚诇诪驻住诇 住讜讻讛 讘注砖专讛 讛讻讗 讚诇砖讜讬讬 讗讜讛诇讗 讘爪讬专 诪注砖专讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 讗讜讛诇讗

The Gemara answers: Four posts are different because they are fixed in the bed and constitute a significant space even without the requisite height. The Gemara asks: But a sukka atop another sukka is fixed, and yet Shmuel said: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness. The upper sukka renders the lower sukka unfit only if it is ten handbreadths high. The Sages say in distinguishing between the cases: There, in the case of a sukka atop another sukka, where the measurement is in order to disqualify the lower sukka, ten handbreadths are required to render the upper sukka a separate entity. However, here, in the case of the four-post bed, in order to consider the covering a tent, less than ten handbreadths is also considered to be a tent, as it is fixed.

讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬砖谉 讘讻讬诇讛 注专讜诐 诪讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇讻讬诇讛 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

Rav Ta岣lifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: One who sleeps naked in a bed with netting and is required to recite Shema moves his head out from beneath the netting and recites Shema. Although he is naked, the netting is considered like a garment; therefore, it is permitted to recite Shema.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬砖谉 讘讻讬诇讛 注专讜诐 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇讻讬诇讛 讜讬拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who sleeps naked in a bed with netting may not move his head out from beneath the netting and recite Shema. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the netting is ten handbreadths high. In that case, it is considered a tent and not a garment.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇注讜诪讚 讘讘讬转 注专讜诐 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇讞诇讜谉 讜讬拽专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in that manner from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of that baraita: To what is this comparable? It is comparable to one standing naked in his house, that he may not move his head out the window and recite Shema. That is certainly ineffective. The fact that the baraita likens the bed with netting to a house indicates that it is netting at least ten handbreadths high. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct understanding.

Scroll To Top