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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 19, 2021 | 讬壮 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 12

Today’s daf is sponsored by Zichron Yaakov women鈥檚 daf yomi group, “in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and gratitude for her inspiration and her seemingly infinite willingness to be there for us, to share of her wisdom and time to enrich and encourage. Thank you for being part of our local siyum.” And anonymously in memory of Yssaschar the son of Yaakov Avinu and in memory of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Yehuda the Abarbanel.

From where do we derive that the criteria for sechach are that it cannot be susceptible to impurity and must grow from the ground. The gemara brings four different suggested derivations. One cannot use bundles of straw, wood or reeds for sechach. Rabbi Yochanan gave the reason for this mishna (about the bundles) and another mishna about hollowing out a pile of straw 鈥 one was because the sukkah needs to be made and not from something already made, and one because of a rabbinic ordinance so that one not come to think one can use one鈥檚 storage house for a sukkah. Rabbi Yaakov did not know which reason corresponded to which mishna, but Rabbi Yirmia explained it based on a statement of Rabbi Yochanan that was passed down by Rabbi Chiya bar Abba. The gemara brings other statements of Amoraim regarding items that are able to be/not to be used for sechach.

讗讬 诪讛 讞讙讬讙讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗祝 住讜讻讛 谞诪讬 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: If that juxtaposition is the source of the halakha, say: Just as the Festival peace-offering is brought from animals, so too the sukka roofing should consist of animals. As that is clearly not the case, that verse cannot be the source for the roofing of the sukka.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讗住驻讱 诪讙专谞讱 讜诪讬拽讘讱 讘驻住讜诇转 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara cites a different source: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days as you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:13), and the Sages interpreted that it is with regard to the waste of the threshing floor and of the winepress that the verse is speaking. One uses grain stalks and vines for roofing the sukka, materials that are not susceptible to ritual impurity and grow from the ground.

讜讗讬诪讗 讙讜专谉 注爪诪讜 讜讬拽讘 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬拽讘 讻转讬讘 讻讗谉 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇住讻讱 讘讜

The Gemara asks: And say that the verse teaches that one uses the items placed on the threshing floor itself, i.e., stalks with the grain still attached to them, and the items placed in the winepress itself, i.e., vines with the grapes still attached, as roofing. Grain and grapes, like all foods, are susceptible to ritual impurity. If the verse is interpreted in this manner, the mishna鈥檚 criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: 鈥淲inepress鈥 is written in the verse here, referring to the wine, and it is impossible to roof with wine. Apparently, the verse is referring to stalks and sheaves but not to produce.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讬讬谉 拽专讜砖 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬专 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诪讛 诇注讬讙讜诇讬 讚讘讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 诪诇转讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚谉 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜砖讚讗 讘讬讛 谞专讙讗

Rabbi Yirmeya strongly objects to this: Why can鈥檛 a sukka be roofed with wine? Say that it is referring to congealed wine that comes from Senir, from Mount Hermon, which is similar to a cake of figs. Since it is possible to interpret the verse as referring to the use of food for roofing, the mishna鈥檚 criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: This matter was in our hands, as we assumed that we found the source in the Torah for the materials fit for roofing, and Rabbi Yirmeya came and took an axe to it. He destroyed the proof by raising the matter of congealed wine.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讙专谞讱 讜诇讗 讙讜专谉 注爪诪讜 诪讬拽讘讱 讜诇讗 讬拽讘 注爪诪讜

Rav Ashi said: One may nevertheless derive the ruling of the mishna from this verse: 鈥淔rom your threshing floor,鈥 indicating an item that comes from the threshing floor, but not the items placed on the threshing floor, i.e., grain, itself; 鈥渇rom your winepress,鈥 but not the items placed in the winepress, i.e., grapes, itself. The verse is referring the waste products of the produce placed on threshing floor and in the winepress.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 爪讗讜 讛讛专 讜讛讘讬讗讜 注诇讬 讝讬转 讜注诇讬 注抓 砖诪谉 讜注诇讬 讛讚住 讜注诇讬 转诪专讬诐 讜注诇讬 注抓 注讘讜转

Rav 岣sda said that proof can be cited from here: 鈥淕o forth to the mount and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and the boughs of a dense-leaved tree in order to make sukkot as written鈥 (Nehemiah 8:15). From this verse, the materials for sukka roofing can be derived.

讛讬讬谞讜 讛讚住 讛讬讬谞讜 注抓 注讘讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讚住 砖讜讟讛 诇住讜讻讛 讜注抓 注讘讜转 诇诇讜诇讘

Apropos this verse, the Gemara asks: These myrtle branches are the same as those boughs of a dense-leaved tree; why does the verse mention both? Rav 岣sda said that this is how it is to be understood. The term 鈥渕yrtle branches鈥 is referring to a wild myrtle, unfit for use as one of the four species, to be used for the roofing of the sukka. And the term 鈥渂oughs of a dense-leaved tree鈥 is referring to the myrtle, whose leaves overlie each other, to be used for the lulav, the mitzva of the four species.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讘讬诇讬 拽砖 讜讞讘讬诇讬 注爪讬诐 讜讞讘讬诇讬 讝专讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讛转讬专谉 讻砖专讜转 讜讻讜诇谉 讻砖专讜转 诇讚驻谞讜转

MISHNA: One may not roof a sukka with bundles of straw tied with rope, or bundles of wood, or bundles of twigs. And with regard to all of the bundles, if one untied them, they are fit for use in roofing the sukka, as their lack of fitness is due to the fact that the bundles are tied. And even when tied, all of the bundles are fit for use in constructing the walls of the sukka.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 讞讚讗 讛讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 住讜讻讛 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said: I heard explanations from Rabbi Yo岣nan for two similar halakhot of sukka: One with regard to the halakha in this mishna that bundles may not be used in roofing the sukka, and the other with regard to the mishna below, pertaining to one who hollows out space in a stack of grain by removing sheaves from the bottom of the stack to establish a sukka for him. In that case, the space is surrounded by grain on the sides and above, and therefore it is not a sukka.

讞讚讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 讜讞讚讗 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讜爪专 讜讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

The rationale for one of the halakhot is due to the decree of the storehouse. Although, fundamentally, the sukka is fit, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting its use, lest one come to use his storehouse as a sukka and fail to establish it properly. And the rationale for one of the halakhot is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, as no active preparation was performed. And I do not know at present which of the halakhot is due to the decree of the storehouse and which of them is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讞讘讬诇讬 拽砖 讜讞讘讬诇讬 注爪讬诐 讜讞讘讬诇讬 讝专讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讘讗 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 讘注专讘 讜讞讘讬诇转讜 注诇 讻转驻讜 讜诪注诇讛 讜诪谞讬讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 住讜讻转讜 讻讚讬 诇讬讘砖讛 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诪讚讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 讛讗 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see and determine which rationale Rabbi Yo岣nan applied to each halakha; as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: For what reason did they say that one may not roof a sukka with bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of twigs? It is because sometimes a person comes from the field in the evening, and he has his bundle of wood or straw on his shoulder, and he lifts it and places it atop his storage shed to dry it. And, when the festival of Sukkot arrives, he reconsiders and decides to use the shed as a sukka and the bundle on top of it for roofing. And in that case the roofing would be unfit, as the Torah said: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. From Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 formulation, apparently it is unfit due to the decree lest one come to use his storehouse as a sukka and fail to establish it properly, not due to some fundamental prohibition. From the fact that this case of the bundles is prohibited due to the decree of the storehouse, that case of the stack of grain must be prohibited due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讱 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And why was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov unable to arrive at Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion based on the halakha cited in his name? The Gemara explains: It is because he did not hear this statement of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, and there was no other proof.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讟讜 讞讘讬诇讬 拽砖 讜讞讘讬诇讬 注爪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 诇讬讻讗

Rav Ashi said: The distinction of Rabbi Yo岣nan between these two cases is difficult. Is that to say that bundles of straw and bundles of wood are unfit roofing due to the decree of the storehouse and not due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared? Is that ultimately the principle underlying the decree of the storehouse? And on the other hand, in the case of one who hollows a stack of grain, is the sukka unfit due only to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, but not due to the decree of the storehouse? Rather, there is no distinction between the halakhot and both reasons apply to both.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you, in response to Rav Ashi, that it is not so because the halakhot are formulated differently in the respective mishnayot. Here, in the mishna pertaining to bundles, where it teaches: One may not roof with them, it is ab initio

讚讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 讛讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛

that one may not roof, due to the decree of the storehouse issued by the Sages; but by Torah law, it seems well to do so. There, in the mishna pertaining to the stack of grain, where it teaches: It is not a sukka, it means that not only by rabbinic decree, but even after the fact, by Torah law as well, it is not a sukka.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 住讻讻讛 讘讞讬爪讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 讻砖专讛 讘谞拽讘讜转 驻住讜诇讛

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, which are made of wood with a protrusion on the end that is fitted into the socket of the metal arrowhead, the sukka is fit. These shafts are flat wooden utensils, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, they are fit roofing for a sukka. If, however, one roofed his sukka with concave arrow shafts, which have a socket into which a protrusion from the metal arrowhead is inserted, the sukka is unfit. Since these shafts are wooden utensils with a receptacle, they are susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, they are unfit roofing for a sukka.

讝讻专讬诐 讻砖专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讙讝讜专 讝讻专讬诐 讗讟讜 谞拽讘讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: The fact that if one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, the sukka is fit is obvious. It is no different from roofing with straight, smooth reeds. The Gemara answers: Stating this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree and prohibit roofing with convex shafts due to the prohibition against roofing with concave shafts, therefore Rav teaches us that no decree is issued, and convex shafts are fit roofing.

(讗诪专 诪专) 讘谞拽讘讜转 驻住讜诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘讬转 拽讘讜诇 讛注砖讜讬 诇诪诇讗讜转 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 拽讬讘讜诇 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Master said: If one roofed a sukka with concave arrows, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. All wooden receptacles are susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Stating this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: A receptacle that is designated to be permanently filled, its status is not that of a receptacle, as a receptacle is typically filled and emptied; in this case, once the arrowhead fills the receptacle, it remains there, therefore Rav teaches us that it is deemed a receptacle and is not fit roofing.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讻讻讛 讘讗谞讬爪讬 驻砖转谉 驻住讜诇讛 讘讛讜爪谞讬 驻砖转谉 讻砖专讛 讜讛讜砖谞讬 驻砖转谉 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one roofed a sukka with bundles of combed flax, the sukka is unfit, as flax at that stage of processing is the raw material from which threads are spun, and it is susceptible to ritual impurity. If one roofed a sukka with stalks of flax, the sukka is fit. Since they remain in their natural state and have not been processed in any way, their legal status is that of any tree, and they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. And if one roofed with the hoshen of flax, stalks at an intermediate stage of processing, I do not know what their status is, i.e., whether or not they are fit for roofing.

讜讛讜砖谞讬 注爪诪谉 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讚讬讬拽 讜诇讗 谞驻讬抓 讛讜砖谞讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 转专讬 讜诇讗 讚讬讬拽 讛讜爪谞讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转专讬 讜诇讗 讚讬讬拽 谞诪讬 讛讜砖谞讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛

Rabba bar bar 岣na added: And when Rabbi Yo岣nan used the term hoshen of flax itself, I do not know to what stage of processing the flax he was referring. Which way do you look at it? Is it that if one crushed the flax and did not comb it, Rabbi Yo岣nan calls it hoshen, but if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yo岣nan calls it hotzen, because he has not actually begun processing the flax itself? Or, perhaps if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yo岣nan calls it hoshen, while hotzen is reserved for flax that was not processed at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讬 砖讜砖讬 讜砖讜讜爪专讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘砖讜砖讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘砖讜讜爪专讬 诇讗 诪住讻讻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉

Rav Yehuda said: With regard to these wide licorice and wormwood leaves, one may roof his sukka with them, since these are not consumed by people. Their legal status is that of any other plant; they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Abaye said: With licorice leaves, one may roof his sukka; with wormwood leaves, one may not roof his sukka. What is the reason for this distinction? Since

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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...
alon shvut women

Sukkah 12

Daf 12 Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/OCLkMe3xIrA
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 12: Male and Female Arrow Shafts

Schach - what can be used for it: the specific examples of the leavings from the threshing floor and the...

Sukkah 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 12

讗讬 诪讛 讞讙讬讙讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗祝 住讜讻讛 谞诪讬 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: If that juxtaposition is the source of the halakha, say: Just as the Festival peace-offering is brought from animals, so too the sukka roofing should consist of animals. As that is clearly not the case, that verse cannot be the source for the roofing of the sukka.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讗住驻讱 诪讙专谞讱 讜诪讬拽讘讱 讘驻住讜诇转 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara cites a different source: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days as you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:13), and the Sages interpreted that it is with regard to the waste of the threshing floor and of the winepress that the verse is speaking. One uses grain stalks and vines for roofing the sukka, materials that are not susceptible to ritual impurity and grow from the ground.

讜讗讬诪讗 讙讜专谉 注爪诪讜 讜讬拽讘 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬拽讘 讻转讬讘 讻讗谉 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇住讻讱 讘讜

The Gemara asks: And say that the verse teaches that one uses the items placed on the threshing floor itself, i.e., stalks with the grain still attached to them, and the items placed in the winepress itself, i.e., vines with the grapes still attached, as roofing. Grain and grapes, like all foods, are susceptible to ritual impurity. If the verse is interpreted in this manner, the mishna鈥檚 criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: 鈥淲inepress鈥 is written in the verse here, referring to the wine, and it is impossible to roof with wine. Apparently, the verse is referring to stalks and sheaves but not to produce.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讬讬谉 拽专讜砖 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬专 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诪讛 诇注讬讙讜诇讬 讚讘讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 诪诇转讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚谉 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜砖讚讗 讘讬讛 谞专讙讗

Rabbi Yirmeya strongly objects to this: Why can鈥檛 a sukka be roofed with wine? Say that it is referring to congealed wine that comes from Senir, from Mount Hermon, which is similar to a cake of figs. Since it is possible to interpret the verse as referring to the use of food for roofing, the mishna鈥檚 criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: This matter was in our hands, as we assumed that we found the source in the Torah for the materials fit for roofing, and Rabbi Yirmeya came and took an axe to it. He destroyed the proof by raising the matter of congealed wine.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讙专谞讱 讜诇讗 讙讜专谉 注爪诪讜 诪讬拽讘讱 讜诇讗 讬拽讘 注爪诪讜

Rav Ashi said: One may nevertheless derive the ruling of the mishna from this verse: 鈥淔rom your threshing floor,鈥 indicating an item that comes from the threshing floor, but not the items placed on the threshing floor, i.e., grain, itself; 鈥渇rom your winepress,鈥 but not the items placed in the winepress, i.e., grapes, itself. The verse is referring the waste products of the produce placed on threshing floor and in the winepress.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 爪讗讜 讛讛专 讜讛讘讬讗讜 注诇讬 讝讬转 讜注诇讬 注抓 砖诪谉 讜注诇讬 讛讚住 讜注诇讬 转诪专讬诐 讜注诇讬 注抓 注讘讜转

Rav 岣sda said that proof can be cited from here: 鈥淕o forth to the mount and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and the boughs of a dense-leaved tree in order to make sukkot as written鈥 (Nehemiah 8:15). From this verse, the materials for sukka roofing can be derived.

讛讬讬谞讜 讛讚住 讛讬讬谞讜 注抓 注讘讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讚住 砖讜讟讛 诇住讜讻讛 讜注抓 注讘讜转 诇诇讜诇讘

Apropos this verse, the Gemara asks: These myrtle branches are the same as those boughs of a dense-leaved tree; why does the verse mention both? Rav 岣sda said that this is how it is to be understood. The term 鈥渕yrtle branches鈥 is referring to a wild myrtle, unfit for use as one of the four species, to be used for the roofing of the sukka. And the term 鈥渂oughs of a dense-leaved tree鈥 is referring to the myrtle, whose leaves overlie each other, to be used for the lulav, the mitzva of the four species.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讘讬诇讬 拽砖 讜讞讘讬诇讬 注爪讬诐 讜讞讘讬诇讬 讝专讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讛转讬专谉 讻砖专讜转 讜讻讜诇谉 讻砖专讜转 诇讚驻谞讜转

MISHNA: One may not roof a sukka with bundles of straw tied with rope, or bundles of wood, or bundles of twigs. And with regard to all of the bundles, if one untied them, they are fit for use in roofing the sukka, as their lack of fitness is due to the fact that the bundles are tied. And even when tied, all of the bundles are fit for use in constructing the walls of the sukka.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 讞讚讗 讛讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 住讜讻讛 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said: I heard explanations from Rabbi Yo岣nan for two similar halakhot of sukka: One with regard to the halakha in this mishna that bundles may not be used in roofing the sukka, and the other with regard to the mishna below, pertaining to one who hollows out space in a stack of grain by removing sheaves from the bottom of the stack to establish a sukka for him. In that case, the space is surrounded by grain on the sides and above, and therefore it is not a sukka.

讞讚讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 讜讞讚讗 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讜爪专 讜讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

The rationale for one of the halakhot is due to the decree of the storehouse. Although, fundamentally, the sukka is fit, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting its use, lest one come to use his storehouse as a sukka and fail to establish it properly. And the rationale for one of the halakhot is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, as no active preparation was performed. And I do not know at present which of the halakhot is due to the decree of the storehouse and which of them is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讞讘讬诇讬 拽砖 讜讞讘讬诇讬 注爪讬诐 讜讞讘讬诇讬 讝专讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讘讗 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 讘注专讘 讜讞讘讬诇转讜 注诇 讻转驻讜 讜诪注诇讛 讜诪谞讬讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 住讜讻转讜 讻讚讬 诇讬讘砖讛 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诪讚讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 讛讗 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see and determine which rationale Rabbi Yo岣nan applied to each halakha; as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: For what reason did they say that one may not roof a sukka with bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of twigs? It is because sometimes a person comes from the field in the evening, and he has his bundle of wood or straw on his shoulder, and he lifts it and places it atop his storage shed to dry it. And, when the festival of Sukkot arrives, he reconsiders and decides to use the shed as a sukka and the bundle on top of it for roofing. And in that case the roofing would be unfit, as the Torah said: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. From Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 formulation, apparently it is unfit due to the decree lest one come to use his storehouse as a sukka and fail to establish it properly, not due to some fundamental prohibition. From the fact that this case of the bundles is prohibited due to the decree of the storehouse, that case of the stack of grain must be prohibited due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讱 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And why was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov unable to arrive at Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion based on the halakha cited in his name? The Gemara explains: It is because he did not hear this statement of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, and there was no other proof.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讟讜 讞讘讬诇讬 拽砖 讜讞讘讬诇讬 注爪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 诇讬讻讗

Rav Ashi said: The distinction of Rabbi Yo岣nan between these two cases is difficult. Is that to say that bundles of straw and bundles of wood are unfit roofing due to the decree of the storehouse and not due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared? Is that ultimately the principle underlying the decree of the storehouse? And on the other hand, in the case of one who hollows a stack of grain, is the sukka unfit due only to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, but not due to the decree of the storehouse? Rather, there is no distinction between the halakhot and both reasons apply to both.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you, in response to Rav Ashi, that it is not so because the halakhot are formulated differently in the respective mishnayot. Here, in the mishna pertaining to bundles, where it teaches: One may not roof with them, it is ab initio

讚讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讗讜爪专 讛讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛

that one may not roof, due to the decree of the storehouse issued by the Sages; but by Torah law, it seems well to do so. There, in the mishna pertaining to the stack of grain, where it teaches: It is not a sukka, it means that not only by rabbinic decree, but even after the fact, by Torah law as well, it is not a sukka.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 住讻讻讛 讘讞讬爪讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 讻砖专讛 讘谞拽讘讜转 驻住讜诇讛

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, which are made of wood with a protrusion on the end that is fitted into the socket of the metal arrowhead, the sukka is fit. These shafts are flat wooden utensils, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, they are fit roofing for a sukka. If, however, one roofed his sukka with concave arrow shafts, which have a socket into which a protrusion from the metal arrowhead is inserted, the sukka is unfit. Since these shafts are wooden utensils with a receptacle, they are susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, they are unfit roofing for a sukka.

讝讻专讬诐 讻砖专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讙讝讜专 讝讻专讬诐 讗讟讜 谞拽讘讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: The fact that if one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, the sukka is fit is obvious. It is no different from roofing with straight, smooth reeds. The Gemara answers: Stating this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree and prohibit roofing with convex shafts due to the prohibition against roofing with concave shafts, therefore Rav teaches us that no decree is issued, and convex shafts are fit roofing.

(讗诪专 诪专) 讘谞拽讘讜转 驻住讜诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘讬转 拽讘讜诇 讛注砖讜讬 诇诪诇讗讜转 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 拽讬讘讜诇 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Master said: If one roofed a sukka with concave arrows, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. All wooden receptacles are susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Stating this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: A receptacle that is designated to be permanently filled, its status is not that of a receptacle, as a receptacle is typically filled and emptied; in this case, once the arrowhead fills the receptacle, it remains there, therefore Rav teaches us that it is deemed a receptacle and is not fit roofing.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讻讻讛 讘讗谞讬爪讬 驻砖转谉 驻住讜诇讛 讘讛讜爪谞讬 驻砖转谉 讻砖专讛 讜讛讜砖谞讬 驻砖转谉 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one roofed a sukka with bundles of combed flax, the sukka is unfit, as flax at that stage of processing is the raw material from which threads are spun, and it is susceptible to ritual impurity. If one roofed a sukka with stalks of flax, the sukka is fit. Since they remain in their natural state and have not been processed in any way, their legal status is that of any tree, and they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. And if one roofed with the hoshen of flax, stalks at an intermediate stage of processing, I do not know what their status is, i.e., whether or not they are fit for roofing.

讜讛讜砖谞讬 注爪诪谉 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讚讬讬拽 讜诇讗 谞驻讬抓 讛讜砖谞讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 转专讬 讜诇讗 讚讬讬拽 讛讜爪谞讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转专讬 讜诇讗 讚讬讬拽 谞诪讬 讛讜砖谞讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛

Rabba bar bar 岣na added: And when Rabbi Yo岣nan used the term hoshen of flax itself, I do not know to what stage of processing the flax he was referring. Which way do you look at it? Is it that if one crushed the flax and did not comb it, Rabbi Yo岣nan calls it hoshen, but if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yo岣nan calls it hotzen, because he has not actually begun processing the flax itself? Or, perhaps if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yo岣nan calls it hoshen, while hotzen is reserved for flax that was not processed at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讬 砖讜砖讬 讜砖讜讜爪专讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘砖讜砖讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘砖讜讜爪专讬 诇讗 诪住讻讻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉

Rav Yehuda said: With regard to these wide licorice and wormwood leaves, one may roof his sukka with them, since these are not consumed by people. Their legal status is that of any other plant; they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Abaye said: With licorice leaves, one may roof his sukka; with wormwood leaves, one may not roof his sukka. What is the reason for this distinction? Since

Scroll To Top