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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 20, 2021 | 讬状讗 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 13

Today’s daf is dedicated by Valerie Adler in honor of her daughter, Anoushka Adler on her wedding. “Dedicated to my darling daughter on her wedding day. May you be blessed to continue in your path and be a wonderful partner to Sagi in good health and happiness. Mazal tov – Ima and Abba.”

Different rabbis mention different items that can be used for sechach as they are not susceptible to impurity. Even though bundles can’t be used, items that are bound by nature are permitted. Also one item that is bound is permitted. Regarding two items, there is a tannitic debate. The gemara discusses different types of bindings and whether or not they are permitted to use as sechach. Can one use maror as sechach? Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Menashia disagree regarding a law that Rav Huna said regarding handles of fruit and cases where they would not be susceptible to impurity in a way that handles of fruit usually are. Is it only regarding grapes in a winepress or also in stalks of grain used for sechach?

讚住专讬 专讬讞讬讬讛讜 砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 讜谞驻讬拽

their odor grows offensive over time, one abandons the sukka and exits. It is inappropriate to establish a sukka in which it is impossible to remain.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讛讬讝诪讬 诪住讻讻讬谞谉 讘讛讬讙讬 诇讗 诪住讻讻讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚谞转专讬 讟专驻讬讬讛讜 砖讘讬拽 诇讛 讜谞驻讬拽

Similarly, Rav 岣nan bar Rava said: With regard to these thorns and shrubs, one may roof the sukka with them. Abaye said: With thorns, one may roof his sukka; with shrubs, one may not roof his sukka. What is the reason for this distinction? Since their leaves fall over time and they are apt to fall into the food and disturb those in the sukka, one abandons the sukka and exits.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 讗驻拽讜转讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讙讬讚讬 讗讙讚 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讚专 讗讙讬讚 诇讛讜 讗讬讙讚 讘讞讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to this offshoot of the trunk of the palm tree, from which several branches emerge; one may roof the sukka with it. Although the branches are naturally bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding. Furthermore, although one then binds the branches together at the end removed from the trunk, where they grow apart into separate branches, and roofs with them, the sukka is fit, since if one binds a bundle that is already bound into one unit it is not considered a binding.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讛谞讬 讚讜拽专讬 讚拽谞讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讙讬讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讙讚 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讚专 讗讙讬讚 诇讛讜 讗讬讙讚 讘讞讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚

Likewise, Rav 岣sda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With regard to these offshoots of reeds, one may roof the sukka with them. Although the branches are naturally bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding. Furthermore, although one then binds the reeds together at the other end, the sukka is fit, since if one binds a bundle that is already bound into one unit it is not considered a binding.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽谞讬诐 讜讚讜拽专谞讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 拽谞讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬诪讗 拽谞讬诐 砖诇 讚讜拽专谞讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉

The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to reeds and spades, one may roof a sukka with them. The Gemara asks: The fact that one may roof his sukka with reeds is obvious. After all, they meet all the criteria of fit roofing. Rather, say: With regard to these offshoots of reeds, one may roof the sukka with them.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讛谞讬 诪专专讬转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞

搂 Apropos the above halakha, the Gemara cites another statement that Rav 岣sda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With these bitter herbs of a marsh, a person fulfills his obligation on Passover.

诪讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讝讜讘 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 讬讜谉 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 讻讜讞诇讬 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 诪讚讘专讬 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 专讜诪讬 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖诐 诇讜讜讬

The Gemara raises an objection to his opinion. With regard to every mitzva that requires use of hyssop, one takes standard hyssop and neither a hyssop that grows in Greece, nor stibium hyssop, nor desert hyssop, nor Roman hyssop, nor any other kind of hyssop whose name is accompanied by a modifier. The same should hold true for the mitzva of bitter herbs; bitter herbs of the marsh, whose name is accompanied by a modifier, are not the bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 砖谞砖转谞讛 砖诪讜 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讜讘讗转讛 转讜专讛 讜讛拽驻讬讚讛 注诇讬讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 谞砖转谞讛 砖诪讬讬讛讜 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讻诇诇

Abaye said in response: There is a distinction between the cases. Every species whose name was differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah, i.e., the distinction between its different subspecies predated the Revelation at Sinai, and the Torah then came and was particular about one specific subspecies, it is known that the species has other subspecies identified with a modifier that are unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. And these bitter herbs, their names were not differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah at all; all the subspecies were known simply as bitter herbs. Therefore, when the Torah requires bitter herbs, one may fulfill the mitzva with all subspecies of bitter herbs.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛谞讬 诪专专讬转讗 住转诪讗 砖诪讬讬讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽专讬 诇讛讜 诪专专讬转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖转讻讞 讘讗讙诪讗

Rava said a different explanation. Actually, the name of this plant is merely bitter herbs without a modifier. And the fact that one calls them bitter herbs of the marsh is because they are typically found in the marsh. Therefore, there is no reason that they may not be used to fulfill the mitzva on Passover.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讙讚 讘讞讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚 砖诇砖 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚 砖谞讬诐 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 诪爪讜转 讗讝讜讘 砖诇砖讛 拽诇讞讬诐 讜讘讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讙讘注讜诇讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜转 讗讝讜讘 砖诇砖讛 讙讘注讜诇讬谉 讜砖讬专讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗

Rav 岣sda said: If one bound one item, even if he did so with a knot, it is not considered a binding. If one bound three items together, everyone agrees that it is considered a binding. If one bound two items, it is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to all matters that involve the mitzva of hyssop, the requirement is to have three stalks with their roots, and on them three stems, one on each stalk. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva of hyssop fundamentally requires three stems. If the bundle of hyssop was rendered incomplete, its remnants are fit for use with two stems. If all the stems broke, the hyssop is fit for use, as long as the stumps of its central stem remain any size.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 诪讚砖讬专讬讜 砖谞讬诐 转讞讬诇转讜 谞诪讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖诇砖讛 诇诪爪讜讛 讜诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诇砖讛 诇诪爪讜讛 诇专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 诇注讻讘

It enters our minds to say: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said that for the bundle of hyssop to be fit for the mitzva after the fact its remnants are two, apparently its origins were also two stalks. And the fact that the mishna teaches that the binding includes three plants, that is the requirement for the mitzva to be performed ab initio. And from the fact that Rabbi Yosei requires three plants only for the mitzva to be performed ab initio, conclude that the Rabbis, who disagree with him, hold that failure to include three stalks in the bundle renders it unfit for the mitzva. Apparently, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei dispute whether it is two or three items that are necessary to be considered a binding.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讝讜讘 转讞讬诇转讜 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 转讞讬诇转讜 砖诇砖讛 讜砖讬专讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讬驻讜讱 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诇砖讛 诇注讻讘 诇专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 诇诪爪讜讛

The Gemara questions that understanding of the dispute. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: With regard to the hyssop bundle, if its origins were two stalks and its remnants are one, it is unfit. And it is fit only when its origins were three and its remnants are two. Rather, reverse the opinions in the mishna: According to Rabbi Yosei, failure to include three stalks in the bundle renders it unfit for the mitzva; according to the Rabbis, three is the requirement for the mitzva to be performed ab initio.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讝讜讘 转讞讬诇转讜 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚 讻砖专 讜讗讬谞讜 驻住讜诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 转讞诇转讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚

The Gemara cites a baraita supporting this understanding. And this was taught in a baraita: With regard to the hyssop bundle, if its origins were two stalks and its remnants are one, it is fit. And it is unfit only when its origins and its remnants are one. Clearly, this is the opinion of the Rabbis.

砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚 驻住讜诇 讛讗 讗诪专转 砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚 讻砖专

The Gemara questions the end of the baraita: If its remnants are one, it is unfit? Didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the baraita that if its remnants are one it is fit?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转讜 讻砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚

Rather, emend the baraita and say: It is unfit only when its origins, like its remnants, are one.

讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 讛谞讬 讗讬住讜专讬讬转讗 讚住讜专讗 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讙讚谉 诇诪谞讬谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讙讚谉

Mareimar taught: With regard to these bundles of reeds from Sura that are bound for sale, one may roof the sukka with them. Although the seller bound them, he bound them merely to ascertain the number more readily, and they will not remain bound.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛谞讬 爪专讬驻讬 讚讗讜专讘谞讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讜转专讛 专讗砖讬 诪注讚谞讬诐 砖诇讛谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讙讬讚讬 诪转转讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚砖专讬 诇讛讜

Rabbi Abba said: With regard to these huts made of willow branches, once their upper ties holding them together are undone, they are fit roofing. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 they still tied from below? Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Abba is referring to a case where he unties them from below as well.

(讜讗诪专) 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚诇讗 砖专讬 诇讛讜 讻诇 讗讙讚 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 诇讟诇讟诇讜 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if you say that Rabbi Abba is referring to a case where one does not untie them from below, they are fit for sukka roofing, as any binding that is not destined to be moved is not considered a binding. Since these huts are untied from above, were one to attempt to move them, they would fall apart.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬专拽讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜驻讜住诇讬谉 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讻讬 讬讘砖讬 驻专讻讬 讜谞驻诇讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讚诪讬

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: With regard to vegetables about which the Sages said: One fulfills his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover, if they are spread over a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, they transmit ritual impurity, and the impurity spreads to objects beneath them. And, nevertheless, the Sages decreed that they do not serve as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity. The impurity breaches roofing made of these vegetables and rises upward, as if there were no covering over it. If one roofs a sukka with these vegetables, it is as if they were not there at all, and they render a sukka unfit due to the unfitness of airspace. Just as three handbreadths of airspace in the roofing renders a sukka unfit, so too, three handbreadths of these vegetables in the roofing renders a sukka unfit. What is the reason for this halakha? Since when they dry they crumble and fall, even while fresh, they are as one that is not there.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讘讜爪专 诇讙转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讚讜转

Apropos the statements of Rabbi Abba, the Gemara cites another. Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who harvests bunches of grapes for the winepress, these bunches do not have handles. The stems, which connect the grapes to the clusters, are not required for the production of wine. Therefore, their legal status is not that of a handle in terms of ritual impurity; they are merely waste. Consequently, if these stems come into contact with a source of ritual impurity, they do not become impure and they do not transmit impurity to the attached grapes.

讜专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛拽讜爪专 诇住讻讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讚讜转

And Rav Menashya bar Gadda said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who harvests grain for roofing a sukka, the grain has no handles. The legal status of the straw is not that of a handle for the grain. Since his interest is roofing his sukka, he wants only the straw, which is fit roofing, and not the grain, which is unfit. Therefore, in this context, the straw does not facilitate moving the grain.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讜爪专 讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讜爪专 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 谞讬诪爪讬讬讛 诇讞诪专讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜爪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讚讜转 讗讘诇 拽讜爪专 讬砖 诇讜 讬讚讜转 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬住讻讱 讘讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讘讚专谉

The Gemara notes: The one who said that in the case of one who harvests grain, the straw is not a handle, all the more so would he say so in the case of one who harvests grapes, since the stems are not suitable for his needs. Stems are not wanted in the winepress, so that they will not absorb wine. By contrast, the one who said in the case of one who harvests grapes that it has no handles, he said so only in that case; however, in the case of one who harvests grain, he would say that it has handles, since the grain attached to the straw is suitable for his needs. He can roof the sukka with them and weigh down the straw, so that it does not scatter in the wind.

谞讬诪讗 讚专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 住讜讻讬 转讗谞讬诐 讜讘讛谉 转讗谞讬诐 驻专讻讬诇讬谉 讜讘讛谉 注谞讘讬诐 拽砖讬谉 讜讘讛谉 砖讘诇讬诐 诪讻讘讚讜转 讜讘讛谉 转诪专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讗诐 驻住讜诇转 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讛 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 拽砖讬谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 注诇 讛讬讚讜转 讜注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Menashya bar Gadda is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: Fig branches, and there are figs on them; vines, and there are grapes on them; straw, and there are stalks of grain on them; palm branches, and there are dates on them, with regard to them all, if the amount of waste is greater than the amount of the food, a sukka roofed with them is fit. And if not, the sukka is unfit. A岣rim say: The sukka is unfit until the amount of straw is greater than the combined amount of the handbreadth of the handles attached to the food that is susceptible to ritual impurity and the food.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬砖 诇讛谉 讬讚讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讬讚讜转

The Gemara continues: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, A岣rim, who said that the straw must be greater than the handles as well, holds that the produce designated for roofing have handles; and one Sage, the first tanna, who disagrees, holds that they do not have handles?

诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讘专讬 讛拽讜爪专 住讻讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讚讜转 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讜爪爪谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇住讬讻讜讱

The Gemara notes: According to the opinion of Rabbi Abba, who says that grape clusters harvested for the winepress do not have handles, but grain harvested for roofing does, it is certainly a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. Clearly, he holds in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, who hold that grain harvested for roofing has handles. However, according to the opinion of Rav Menashya bar Gadda, who says that grain harvested for roofing does not have handles, shall we say that it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and that he holds in accordance with the first tanna of the baraita? Rav Menashya could have said to you that everyone agrees: With regard to one who harvests grain for roofing, the grain does not have handles. And here in the baraita, with what are we dealing? It is a case where one initially cut the stalks for food, and reconsidered his plan for them, and decided to use them for roofing. Since initially, as food, the grain had handles, its status does not change despite his change of intent.

讗讬 拽讜爪爪谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇住讬讻讜讱 讘讟诇讛 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 讜诪讬 讘讟诇讛 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讘讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: If he cut them for food, what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis that the grain has no handles? As a rule, grain has handles. And if you say that the Rabbis hold that once he reconsidered his plan for them and decided to use them for roofing, his initial intent was negated and their legal status is like any other inedible roofing, and they consequently have no handles, the Gemara asks: And was his initial intent negated in that manner? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: All vessels

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...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 13: Grapes and Their Branches

Binding things together entails more than one thing! Also, the hyssop (or "eizov"), and its uses in the process of...

Sukkah 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 13

讚住专讬 专讬讞讬讬讛讜 砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 讜谞驻讬拽

their odor grows offensive over time, one abandons the sukka and exits. It is inappropriate to establish a sukka in which it is impossible to remain.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讛讬讝诪讬 诪住讻讻讬谞谉 讘讛讬讙讬 诇讗 诪住讻讻讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚谞转专讬 讟专驻讬讬讛讜 砖讘讬拽 诇讛 讜谞驻讬拽

Similarly, Rav 岣nan bar Rava said: With regard to these thorns and shrubs, one may roof the sukka with them. Abaye said: With thorns, one may roof his sukka; with shrubs, one may not roof his sukka. What is the reason for this distinction? Since their leaves fall over time and they are apt to fall into the food and disturb those in the sukka, one abandons the sukka and exits.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 讗驻拽讜转讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讙讬讚讬 讗讙讚 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讚专 讗讙讬讚 诇讛讜 讗讬讙讚 讘讞讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to this offshoot of the trunk of the palm tree, from which several branches emerge; one may roof the sukka with it. Although the branches are naturally bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding. Furthermore, although one then binds the branches together at the end removed from the trunk, where they grow apart into separate branches, and roofs with them, the sukka is fit, since if one binds a bundle that is already bound into one unit it is not considered a binding.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讛谞讬 讚讜拽专讬 讚拽谞讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讙讬讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讙讚 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讚专 讗讙讬讚 诇讛讜 讗讬讙讚 讘讞讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚

Likewise, Rav 岣sda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With regard to these offshoots of reeds, one may roof the sukka with them. Although the branches are naturally bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding. Furthermore, although one then binds the reeds together at the other end, the sukka is fit, since if one binds a bundle that is already bound into one unit it is not considered a binding.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽谞讬诐 讜讚讜拽专谞讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉 拽谞讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬诪讗 拽谞讬诐 砖诇 讚讜拽专谞讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉

The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to reeds and spades, one may roof a sukka with them. The Gemara asks: The fact that one may roof his sukka with reeds is obvious. After all, they meet all the criteria of fit roofing. Rather, say: With regard to these offshoots of reeds, one may roof the sukka with them.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讛谞讬 诪专专讬转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞

搂 Apropos the above halakha, the Gemara cites another statement that Rav 岣sda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With these bitter herbs of a marsh, a person fulfills his obligation on Passover.

诪讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讝讜讘 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 讬讜谉 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 讻讜讞诇讬 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 诪讚讘专讬 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 专讜诪讬 讜诇讗 讗讝讜讘 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖诐 诇讜讜讬

The Gemara raises an objection to his opinion. With regard to every mitzva that requires use of hyssop, one takes standard hyssop and neither a hyssop that grows in Greece, nor stibium hyssop, nor desert hyssop, nor Roman hyssop, nor any other kind of hyssop whose name is accompanied by a modifier. The same should hold true for the mitzva of bitter herbs; bitter herbs of the marsh, whose name is accompanied by a modifier, are not the bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 砖谞砖转谞讛 砖诪讜 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讜讘讗转讛 转讜专讛 讜讛拽驻讬讚讛 注诇讬讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 谞砖转谞讛 砖诪讬讬讛讜 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讻诇诇

Abaye said in response: There is a distinction between the cases. Every species whose name was differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah, i.e., the distinction between its different subspecies predated the Revelation at Sinai, and the Torah then came and was particular about one specific subspecies, it is known that the species has other subspecies identified with a modifier that are unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. And these bitter herbs, their names were not differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah at all; all the subspecies were known simply as bitter herbs. Therefore, when the Torah requires bitter herbs, one may fulfill the mitzva with all subspecies of bitter herbs.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛谞讬 诪专专讬转讗 住转诪讗 砖诪讬讬讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽专讬 诇讛讜 诪专专讬转讗 讚讗讙诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖转讻讞 讘讗讙诪讗

Rava said a different explanation. Actually, the name of this plant is merely bitter herbs without a modifier. And the fact that one calls them bitter herbs of the marsh is because they are typically found in the marsh. Therefore, there is no reason that they may not be used to fulfill the mitzva on Passover.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讙讚 讘讞讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚 砖诇砖 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚 砖谞讬诐 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 诪爪讜转 讗讝讜讘 砖诇砖讛 拽诇讞讬诐 讜讘讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讙讘注讜诇讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜转 讗讝讜讘 砖诇砖讛 讙讘注讜诇讬谉 讜砖讬专讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗

Rav 岣sda said: If one bound one item, even if he did so with a knot, it is not considered a binding. If one bound three items together, everyone agrees that it is considered a binding. If one bound two items, it is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to all matters that involve the mitzva of hyssop, the requirement is to have three stalks with their roots, and on them three stems, one on each stalk. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva of hyssop fundamentally requires three stems. If the bundle of hyssop was rendered incomplete, its remnants are fit for use with two stems. If all the stems broke, the hyssop is fit for use, as long as the stumps of its central stem remain any size.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 诪讚砖讬专讬讜 砖谞讬诐 转讞讬诇转讜 谞诪讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖诇砖讛 诇诪爪讜讛 讜诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诇砖讛 诇诪爪讜讛 诇专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 诇注讻讘

It enters our minds to say: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said that for the bundle of hyssop to be fit for the mitzva after the fact its remnants are two, apparently its origins were also two stalks. And the fact that the mishna teaches that the binding includes three plants, that is the requirement for the mitzva to be performed ab initio. And from the fact that Rabbi Yosei requires three plants only for the mitzva to be performed ab initio, conclude that the Rabbis, who disagree with him, hold that failure to include three stalks in the bundle renders it unfit for the mitzva. Apparently, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei dispute whether it is two or three items that are necessary to be considered a binding.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讝讜讘 转讞讬诇转讜 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 转讞讬诇转讜 砖诇砖讛 讜砖讬专讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讬驻讜讱 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诇砖讛 诇注讻讘 诇专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 诇诪爪讜讛

The Gemara questions that understanding of the dispute. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: With regard to the hyssop bundle, if its origins were two stalks and its remnants are one, it is unfit. And it is fit only when its origins were three and its remnants are two. Rather, reverse the opinions in the mishna: According to Rabbi Yosei, failure to include three stalks in the bundle renders it unfit for the mitzva; according to the Rabbis, three is the requirement for the mitzva to be performed ab initio.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讝讜讘 转讞讬诇转讜 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚 讻砖专 讜讗讬谞讜 驻住讜诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 转讞诇转讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚

The Gemara cites a baraita supporting this understanding. And this was taught in a baraita: With regard to the hyssop bundle, if its origins were two stalks and its remnants are one, it is fit. And it is unfit only when its origins and its remnants are one. Clearly, this is the opinion of the Rabbis.

砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚 驻住讜诇 讛讗 讗诪专转 砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚 讻砖专

The Gemara questions the end of the baraita: If its remnants are one, it is unfit? Didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the baraita that if its remnants are one it is fit?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转讜 讻砖讬专讬讜 讗讞讚

Rather, emend the baraita and say: It is unfit only when its origins, like its remnants, are one.

讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 讛谞讬 讗讬住讜专讬讬转讗 讚住讜专讗 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讙讚谉 诇诪谞讬谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讙讚谉

Mareimar taught: With regard to these bundles of reeds from Sura that are bound for sale, one may roof the sukka with them. Although the seller bound them, he bound them merely to ascertain the number more readily, and they will not remain bound.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛谞讬 爪专讬驻讬 讚讗讜专讘谞讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讜转专讛 专讗砖讬 诪注讚谞讬诐 砖诇讛谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讙讬讚讬 诪转转讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚砖专讬 诇讛讜

Rabbi Abba said: With regard to these huts made of willow branches, once their upper ties holding them together are undone, they are fit roofing. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 they still tied from below? Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Abba is referring to a case where he unties them from below as well.

(讜讗诪专) 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚诇讗 砖专讬 诇讛讜 讻诇 讗讙讚 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 诇讟诇讟诇讜 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讙讚

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if you say that Rabbi Abba is referring to a case where one does not untie them from below, they are fit for sukka roofing, as any binding that is not destined to be moved is not considered a binding. Since these huts are untied from above, were one to attempt to move them, they would fall apart.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬专拽讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜驻讜住诇讬谉 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讻讬 讬讘砖讬 驻专讻讬 讜谞驻诇讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讚诪讬

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: With regard to vegetables about which the Sages said: One fulfills his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover, if they are spread over a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, they transmit ritual impurity, and the impurity spreads to objects beneath them. And, nevertheless, the Sages decreed that they do not serve as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity. The impurity breaches roofing made of these vegetables and rises upward, as if there were no covering over it. If one roofs a sukka with these vegetables, it is as if they were not there at all, and they render a sukka unfit due to the unfitness of airspace. Just as three handbreadths of airspace in the roofing renders a sukka unfit, so too, three handbreadths of these vegetables in the roofing renders a sukka unfit. What is the reason for this halakha? Since when they dry they crumble and fall, even while fresh, they are as one that is not there.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讘讜爪专 诇讙转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讚讜转

Apropos the statements of Rabbi Abba, the Gemara cites another. Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who harvests bunches of grapes for the winepress, these bunches do not have handles. The stems, which connect the grapes to the clusters, are not required for the production of wine. Therefore, their legal status is not that of a handle in terms of ritual impurity; they are merely waste. Consequently, if these stems come into contact with a source of ritual impurity, they do not become impure and they do not transmit impurity to the attached grapes.

讜专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛拽讜爪专 诇住讻讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讚讜转

And Rav Menashya bar Gadda said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who harvests grain for roofing a sukka, the grain has no handles. The legal status of the straw is not that of a handle for the grain. Since his interest is roofing his sukka, he wants only the straw, which is fit roofing, and not the grain, which is unfit. Therefore, in this context, the straw does not facilitate moving the grain.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讜爪专 讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讜爪专 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 谞讬诪爪讬讬讛 诇讞诪专讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讜爪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讚讜转 讗讘诇 拽讜爪专 讬砖 诇讜 讬讚讜转 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬住讻讱 讘讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讘讚专谉

The Gemara notes: The one who said that in the case of one who harvests grain, the straw is not a handle, all the more so would he say so in the case of one who harvests grapes, since the stems are not suitable for his needs. Stems are not wanted in the winepress, so that they will not absorb wine. By contrast, the one who said in the case of one who harvests grapes that it has no handles, he said so only in that case; however, in the case of one who harvests grain, he would say that it has handles, since the grain attached to the straw is suitable for his needs. He can roof the sukka with them and weigh down the straw, so that it does not scatter in the wind.

谞讬诪讗 讚专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 住讜讻讬 转讗谞讬诐 讜讘讛谉 转讗谞讬诐 驻专讻讬诇讬谉 讜讘讛谉 注谞讘讬诐 拽砖讬谉 讜讘讛谉 砖讘诇讬诐 诪讻讘讚讜转 讜讘讛谉 转诪专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讗诐 驻住讜诇转 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讛 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 拽砖讬谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 注诇 讛讬讚讜转 讜注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Menashya bar Gadda is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: Fig branches, and there are figs on them; vines, and there are grapes on them; straw, and there are stalks of grain on them; palm branches, and there are dates on them, with regard to them all, if the amount of waste is greater than the amount of the food, a sukka roofed with them is fit. And if not, the sukka is unfit. A岣rim say: The sukka is unfit until the amount of straw is greater than the combined amount of the handbreadth of the handles attached to the food that is susceptible to ritual impurity and the food.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬砖 诇讛谉 讬讚讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讬讚讜转

The Gemara continues: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, A岣rim, who said that the straw must be greater than the handles as well, holds that the produce designated for roofing have handles; and one Sage, the first tanna, who disagrees, holds that they do not have handles?

诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讘专讬 讛拽讜爪专 住讻讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讚讜转 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讜爪爪谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇住讬讻讜讱

The Gemara notes: According to the opinion of Rabbi Abba, who says that grape clusters harvested for the winepress do not have handles, but grain harvested for roofing does, it is certainly a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. Clearly, he holds in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, who hold that grain harvested for roofing has handles. However, according to the opinion of Rav Menashya bar Gadda, who says that grain harvested for roofing does not have handles, shall we say that it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and that he holds in accordance with the first tanna of the baraita? Rav Menashya could have said to you that everyone agrees: With regard to one who harvests grain for roofing, the grain does not have handles. And here in the baraita, with what are we dealing? It is a case where one initially cut the stalks for food, and reconsidered his plan for them, and decided to use them for roofing. Since initially, as food, the grain had handles, its status does not change despite his change of intent.

讗讬 拽讜爪爪谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇住讬讻讜讱 讘讟诇讛 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 讜诪讬 讘讟诇讛 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讘讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: If he cut them for food, what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis that the grain has no handles? As a rule, grain has handles. And if you say that the Rabbis hold that once he reconsidered his plan for them and decided to use them for roofing, his initial intent was negated and their legal status is like any other inedible roofing, and they consequently have no handles, the Gemara asks: And was his initial intent negated in that manner? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: All vessels

Scroll To Top