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 – 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’s 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.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Sukkah 12
אִי: מָה חֲגִיגָה בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, אַף סוּכָּה נָמֵי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים!
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.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּאׇסְפְּךָ מִגׇּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ״, בִּפְסוֹלֶת גּוֹרֶן וָיֶקֶב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara cites a different source: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days as you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress” (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.
וְאֵימָא גּוֹרֶן עַצְמוֹ וָיֶקֶב עַצְמוֹ! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״יֶקֶב״ כְּתִיב כָּאן, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְסַכֵּךְ בּוֹ.
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’s criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: “Winepress” 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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: וְאֵימָא יַיִן קָרוּשׁ הַבָּא מִשְּׂנִיר שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְעִיגּוּלֵי דְּבֵילָה! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא מִלְּתָא הֲוָה בִּידַן, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וּשְׁדָא בַּיהּ נַרְגָּא.
Rabbi Yirmeya strongly objects to this: Why can’t 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’s 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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״מִגׇּרְנְךָ״ וְלֹא גּוֹרֶן עַצְמוֹ, ״מִיִּקְבֶךָ״ וְלֹא יֶקֶב עַצְמוֹ.
Rav Ashi said: One may nevertheless derive the ruling of the mishna from this verse: “From your threshing floor,” indicating an item that comes from the threshing floor, but not the items placed on the threshing floor, i.e., grain, itself; “from your winepress,” but not the items placed in the winepress, i.e., grapes, itself. The verse is referring to the waste products of the produce placed on the threshing floor and in the winepress.
רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי זַיִת וַעֲלֵי עֵץ שֶׁמֶן וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבוֹת״.
Rav Ḥisda said that proof can be cited from here: “Go 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” (Nehemiah 8:15). From this verse, the materials for sukka roofing can be derived.
הַיְינוּ ״הֲדַס״, הַיְינוּ ״עֵץ עָבוֹת״! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הֲדַס שׁוֹטֶה — לְסוּכָּה, וְעֵץ עָבוֹת — לְלוּלָב.
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 Ḥisda said that this is how it is to be understood. The term “myrtle branches” 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 “boughs of a dense-leaved tree” is referring to the myrtle, whose leaves overlie each other, to be used for the lulav, the mitzva of the four species.
מַתְנִי׳ חֲבִילֵי קַשׁ וַחֲבִילֵי עֵצִים וַחֲבִילֵי זְרָדִין — אֵין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁהִתִּירָן — כְּשֵׁרוֹת. וְכוּלָּן כְּשֵׁרוֹת לִדְפָנוֹת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּרְתֵּי: חֲדָא — הָא, וְאִידַּךְ — הַחוֹטֵט בַּגָּדִישׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ סוּכָּה — אֵינָהּ סוּכָּה.
GEMARA: Rabbi Ya’akov said: I heard explanations from Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
חֲדָא: מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר. וַחֲדָא מִשּׁוּם: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״, וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי. וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מִשּׁוּם אוֹצָר וְהֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מִשּׁוּם תַּעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ חֲבִילֵי קַשׁ וַחֲבִילֵי עֵצִים וַחֲבִילֵי זְרָדִין אֵין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן? פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם בָּא מִן הַשָּׂדֶה בָּעֶרֶב וַחֲבִילָתוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, וּמַעֲלָהּ וּמַנִּיחָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי סוּכָּתוֹ כְּדֵי לְיַבְּשָׁהּ, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְסִיכּוּךְ, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״, וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי. מִדְּהָא מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר, הָא מִשּׁוּם ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.
Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see and determine which rationale Rabbi Yoḥanan applied to each halakha; as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan’s 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.
וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב? הָךְ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And why was Rabbi Ya’akov unable to arrive at Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion based on the halakha cited in his name? The Gemara explains: It is because he did not hear this statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and there was no other proof.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַטּוּ חֲבִילֵי קַשׁ וַחֲבִילֵי עֵצִים מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי לֵיכָּא? וְהַחוֹטֵט בְּגָדִישׁ, מִשּׁוּם ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר לֵיכָּא?
Rav Ashi said: The distinction of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לָךְ, הָכָא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֵין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן״, לְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא
The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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
דְּאֵין מְסַכְּכִין מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר, הָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. הָתָם דְּקָתָנֵי ״אֵינָהּ סוּכָּה״ אֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד — מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי אֵינָהּ סוּכָּה.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: סִכְּכָהּ בְּחִיצִּין זְכָרִים — כְּשֵׁרָה. בִּנְקֵבוֹת — פְּסוּלָה.
§ 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.
זְכָרִים כְּשֵׁרָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִיגְזוֹר זְכָרִים אַטּוּ נְקֵבוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
(אָמַר מָר:) בִּנְקֵבוֹת פְּסוּלָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בֵּית קִבּוּל הֶעָשׂוּי לְמַלּאוֹת לָא שְׁמֵיהּ קִיבּוּל, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סִכְּכָהּ בַּאֲנִיצֵי פִשְׁתָּן — פְּסוּלָה. בְּהוּצְנֵי פִשְׁתָּן — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהוּשְׁנֵי פִשְׁתָּן, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
וְהוּשְׁנֵי עַצְמָן אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי דְּיִיק וְלָא נְפִיץ — הוּשְׁנֵי קָרֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל תְּרֵי וְלָא דְּיִיק — הוּצְנֵי קָרֵי לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: תְּרֵי וְלָא דְּיִיק נָמֵי הוּשְׁנֵי קָרֵי לֵיהּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana added: And when Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan calls it hoshen, but if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan calls it hoshen, while hotzen is reserved for flax that was not processed at all.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי שׁוּשֵׁי וּשְׁווֹצְרֵי — מְסַכְּכִין בְּהוּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּשׁוּשֵׁי מְסַכְּכִין, בִּשְׁווֹצְרֵי לָא מְסַכְּכִין. מַאי טַעְמָא, כֵּיוָן
§ 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
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Sukkah 12
אִי: מָה חֲגִיגָה בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, אַף סוּכָּה נָמֵי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים!
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.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּאׇסְפְּךָ מִגׇּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ״, בִּפְסוֹלֶת גּוֹרֶן וָיֶקֶב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara cites a different source: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days as you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress” (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.
וְאֵימָא גּוֹרֶן עַצְמוֹ וָיֶקֶב עַצְמוֹ! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״יֶקֶב״ כְּתִיב כָּאן, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְסַכֵּךְ בּוֹ.
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’s criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: “Winepress” 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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: וְאֵימָא יַיִן קָרוּשׁ הַבָּא מִשְּׂנִיר שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְעִיגּוּלֵי דְּבֵילָה! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא מִלְּתָא הֲוָה בִּידַן, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וּשְׁדָא בַּיהּ נַרְגָּא.
Rabbi Yirmeya strongly objects to this: Why can’t 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’s 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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״מִגׇּרְנְךָ״ וְלֹא גּוֹרֶן עַצְמוֹ, ״מִיִּקְבֶךָ״ וְלֹא יֶקֶב עַצְמוֹ.
Rav Ashi said: One may nevertheless derive the ruling of the mishna from this verse: “From your threshing floor,” indicating an item that comes from the threshing floor, but not the items placed on the threshing floor, i.e., grain, itself; “from your winepress,” but not the items placed in the winepress, i.e., grapes, itself. The verse is referring to the waste products of the produce placed on the threshing floor and in the winepress.
רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי זַיִת וַעֲלֵי עֵץ שֶׁמֶן וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבוֹת״.
Rav Ḥisda said that proof can be cited from here: “Go 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” (Nehemiah 8:15). From this verse, the materials for sukka roofing can be derived.
הַיְינוּ ״הֲדַס״, הַיְינוּ ״עֵץ עָבוֹת״! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הֲדַס שׁוֹטֶה — לְסוּכָּה, וְעֵץ עָבוֹת — לְלוּלָב.
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 Ḥisda said that this is how it is to be understood. The term “myrtle branches” 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 “boughs of a dense-leaved tree” is referring to the myrtle, whose leaves overlie each other, to be used for the lulav, the mitzva of the four species.
מַתְנִי׳ חֲבִילֵי קַשׁ וַחֲבִילֵי עֵצִים וַחֲבִילֵי זְרָדִין — אֵין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁהִתִּירָן — כְּשֵׁרוֹת. וְכוּלָּן כְּשֵׁרוֹת לִדְפָנוֹת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּרְתֵּי: חֲדָא — הָא, וְאִידַּךְ — הַחוֹטֵט בַּגָּדִישׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ סוּכָּה — אֵינָהּ סוּכָּה.
GEMARA: Rabbi Ya’akov said: I heard explanations from Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
חֲדָא: מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר. וַחֲדָא מִשּׁוּם: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״, וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי. וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מִשּׁוּם אוֹצָר וְהֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מִשּׁוּם תַּעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ חֲבִילֵי קַשׁ וַחֲבִילֵי עֵצִים וַחֲבִילֵי זְרָדִין אֵין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן? פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם בָּא מִן הַשָּׂדֶה בָּעֶרֶב וַחֲבִילָתוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, וּמַעֲלָהּ וּמַנִּיחָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי סוּכָּתוֹ כְּדֵי לְיַבְּשָׁהּ, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְסִיכּוּךְ, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״, וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי. מִדְּהָא מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר, הָא מִשּׁוּם ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.
Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see and determine which rationale Rabbi Yoḥanan applied to each halakha; as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan’s 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.
וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב? הָךְ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And why was Rabbi Ya’akov unable to arrive at Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion based on the halakha cited in his name? The Gemara explains: It is because he did not hear this statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and there was no other proof.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַטּוּ חֲבִילֵי קַשׁ וַחֲבִילֵי עֵצִים מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי לֵיכָּא? וְהַחוֹטֵט בְּגָדִישׁ, מִשּׁוּם ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר לֵיכָּא?
Rav Ashi said: The distinction of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לָךְ, הָכָא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֵין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן״, לְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא
The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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
דְּאֵין מְסַכְּכִין מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרַת אוֹצָר, הָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. הָתָם דְּקָתָנֵי ״אֵינָהּ סוּכָּה״ אֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד — מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי אֵינָהּ סוּכָּה.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: סִכְּכָהּ בְּחִיצִּין זְכָרִים — כְּשֵׁרָה. בִּנְקֵבוֹת — פְּסוּלָה.
§ 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.
זְכָרִים כְּשֵׁרָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִיגְזוֹר זְכָרִים אַטּוּ נְקֵבוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
(אָמַר מָר:) בִּנְקֵבוֹת פְּסוּלָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בֵּית קִבּוּל הֶעָשׂוּי לְמַלּאוֹת לָא שְׁמֵיהּ קִיבּוּל, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סִכְּכָהּ בַּאֲנִיצֵי פִשְׁתָּן — פְּסוּלָה. בְּהוּצְנֵי פִשְׁתָּן — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהוּשְׁנֵי פִשְׁתָּן, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
וְהוּשְׁנֵי עַצְמָן אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי דְּיִיק וְלָא נְפִיץ — הוּשְׁנֵי קָרֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל תְּרֵי וְלָא דְּיִיק — הוּצְנֵי קָרֵי לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: תְּרֵי וְלָא דְּיִיק נָמֵי הוּשְׁנֵי קָרֵי לֵיהּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana added: And when Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan calls it hoshen, but if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan calls it hoshen, while hotzen is reserved for flax that was not processed at all.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי שׁוּשֵׁי וּשְׁווֹצְרֵי — מְסַכְּכִין בְּהוּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּשׁוּשֵׁי מְסַכְּכִין, בִּשְׁווֹצְרֵי לָא מְסַכְּכִין. מַאי טַעְמָא, כֵּיוָן
§ 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
