Can one change the status of handles of items from being susceptible to impurity to not being susceptible to impurity by rendering it useless through one’s thoughts or is it necessary to do an action? Can one use wooden boards for sechach? Did the rabbis forbid it as it looks like a ceiling and people may come to think they can use their house for a sukkah? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding the case in which Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree – were they referring to boards that are four handbreadths wide, but all would agree that less than four handbreadths would be allowed? Or do they disagree regarding boards that are 3-4 handbreadths but ones that are four are forbidden by all? The gemara brings tannaitic sources and tries to see how they fit with Rav and Shmuel’s opinions.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Sukkah 14
יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין עוֹלִין מִטּוּמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְּשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה. מַעֲשֶׂה מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחְשָׁבָה. מַחְשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחְשָׁבָה.
descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought? Although an unfinished vessel ordinarily cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided to leave it in its unfinished state, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. However, they ascend from their state of ritual impurity only by means of a change resulting from an action. Merely deciding to complete the unfinished vessel does not alter its status. It loses its status as a vessel only when he takes action to complete it. Action negates status created by action and status created by thought; however, thought negates neither status created by action nor status created by thought. Therefore, once the straw of the grain harvested for food is considered a handle and is susceptible to ritual impurity, its status cannot be negated by thought alone.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי כֵּלִים דַּחֲשִׁיבִי, אֲבָל יָדוֹת, דִּלְצוֹרֶךְ אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ — בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נַעֲשֶׂה וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה סָלְקָא. וְהָתְנַן: כָּל יְדוֹת הָאוֹכָלִין שֶׁבְּסָסָן בַּגּוֹרֶן — טְהוֹרוֹת (וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא).
And if you say: There is a distinction between the cases, as this principle applies only to vessels, which are significant, but with regard to handles that are not independently significant but are merely for the purpose of handling food, perhaps by means of thought they become handles and by means of thought they emerge from that status; but didn’t we learn in the mishna to the contrary? All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, as through one’s actions he indicated that has no use for them and does not consider them significant. And Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּסָסָן״ — הִתִּיר אִגּוּדָן, שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַאי ״בְּסָסָן״ — בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to the one who said that besasan means that one untied their binding, it works out well. Although no action was performed on the sheaves, nevertheless, since their only purpose is to facilitate binding the sheaves, he indicated by unbinding them that the handles no longer suit his needs. However, according to the one who said: What is the meaning of besasan? It means he actually trampled them, what can be said? According to that opinion, only an action can negate the status of the handles. What, then, is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that thought alone can negate their status?
הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁבְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ. אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דַּאֲחֵרִים? דַּאֲמוּר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא.
The Gemara answers: Here too, the dispute between the Rabbis and Aḥerim with regard to using grain for roofing the sukka is in a case where one actually trampled them, and that is the reason that they are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: If so, and a change was made to the grain itself, what is the rationale for the opinion of Aḥerim, who nevertheless prohibit their use as roofing? The Gemara answers: It is because Aḥerim state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in the previously cited mishna: Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure even after trampling.
הַאי מַאי?! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם — טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי חַזְיָא לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיוֹת לְהוֹפְכָן בְּעֶתֶר.
The Gemara asks: What is the basis of this comparison between the cases? Granted, there, in the dispute concerning the ritual impurity of the grain on the threshing floor, the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that the handles remain susceptible to ritual impurity, is that they are suitable for use. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork, as the straw prevents the grain from falling between the prongs of the pitchfork.
אֶלָּא הָכָא לְמַאי חַזְיָא? חַזְיָא לְכִי סָתַר לְמִנְקַט לְהוּ בְּגִילַיְיהוּ.
However, here, where one needs the straw only for roofing the sukka, for what are the handles suited after they have been trampled? They serve no purpose in terms of handling the grain. The Gemara answers: They are suited when one dismantles the roofing, in order to hold the grain by the straw, so that it will scatter. Therefore, Aḥerim hold that the straw remains capable of contracting ritual impurity.
גּוּפָא, כָּל יְדוֹת הָאוֹכָלִין שֶׁבְּסָסָן בַּגּוֹרֶן — טְהוֹרוֹת, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא. מַאי ״בְּסָסָן״? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ. רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) אוֹמֵר: הִתִּיר אַגְדָּן.
Apropos the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, and Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of besasan? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It means that one actually trampled them under foot. Rabbi Elazar says: It means he untied their binding.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר), דְּאָמַר ״בְּסָסָן״ — הִתִּיר אַגְדָּן, הַיְינוּ דִּמְטַמֵּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיוֹת לְהוֹפְכָן בְּעֶתֶר.
The Gemara notes: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who said that besasan means that he untied their binding, this is the reason that Rabbi Yosei deems the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that besasan means that one actually trampled them, why does Rabbi Yosei deem the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity? Didn’t one thereby render them insignificant? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled, the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork.
אָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר): לָמָּה נִמְשְׁלָה תְּפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים כְּעֶתֶר — לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה עֶתֶר זֶה מְהַפֵּךְ אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה בַּגּוֹרֶן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, אַף תְּפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים מְהַפֶּכֶת דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִמִּדַּת אַכְזָרִיּוּת לְמִדַּת רַחֲמָנוּת.
Apropos a pitchfork, the Gemara cites a related aggadic teaching: Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork [eter]? It is written: “And Isaac entreated [vayetar] the Lord for his wife, because she was barren” (Genesis 25:21), to say to you: Just as this pitchfork overturns the grain on the threshing floor from place to place, so too, the prayers of the righteous overturn the mind of the Holy One, Blessed be He, from the attribute of cruelty to the attribute of mercy, and He accepts their prayers.
מַתְנִי׳ מְסַכְּכִין בִּנְסָרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו.
MISHNA: One may roof the sukka with boards like those used in the ceiling of a house; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir prohibits their use. If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּנְסָרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אִית לֵיהּ גְּזֵרַת תִּקְרָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֵית לֵיהּ גְּזֵרַת תִּקְרָה. אֲבָל בִּנְסָרִין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחֲלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה.
GEMARA: Rav said: The dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, the standard size for boards used in house ceilings, as Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. In that case, the roofing of the sukka with boards that wide could be confused with a ceiling. If it were permitted to roof the sukka with a board that size, one might come to sleep beneath the ceiling of his own home during the Festival. And Rabbi Yehuda is not of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. However, with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. And Shmuel said: The dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width; however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit.
אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, הָא קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ?
The Gemara asks: According to Shmuel, the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, and apparently the same would hold true even if their width were less than three handbreadths. In that case, aren’t they merely reeds; why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, מַאי טַעְמָא — קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עַד אַרְבָּעָה. מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ שִׁיעוּר מָקוֹם, לָא גָּזְרִינַן. וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי לְהוּ מִתּוֹרַת לָבוּד, גָּזְרִינַן.
Rav Pappa said that this is what Shmuel is saying: If they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If their width is less than three handbreadths, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason? It is because they are merely reeds. When they disagree in the mishna, their disagreement pertains to a case where the boards are from three to four handbreadths wide. In that case, one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that since they are not the measure of a significant place, we do not issue a decree prohibiting their use. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that since they have departed from the halakhic status of being joined [lavud], which applies only to gaps of less than three handbreadths, we issue a decree prohibiting their use as roofing.
תְּנַן: נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו. בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו. אֶלָּא לְרַב דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַמַּאי לֹא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו?
The Gemara cites proof with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that one should not sleep beneath the board. However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit, according to Rabbi Yehuda, why may one not sleep beneath it?
מִי סָבְרַתְּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא? סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this last halakha in the mishna, about not sleeping beneath the board, is a ruling with which everyone, including Rabbi Yehuda agrees? Rather, in the latter clause of the mishna we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. He alone, not Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one may not sleep beneath the board. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the mishna.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנֵי סְדִינִין מִצְטָרְפִין.
The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together to constitute four handbreadths, the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit.
שְׁנֵי נְסָרִין אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף נְסָרִין כִּסְדִינִין.
However, two boards placed on the sukka do not combine. Rabbi Meir says: Even boards are like sheets, in that they join together to constitute the measure of unfitness.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבָּעָה.
The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, but if they have four handbreadths in their width everyone agrees that it is unfit; what is the meaning of that which Rabbi Meir said: Boards join together? It means that boards less than four handbreadths wide combine to measure four handbreadths, which renders the sukka unfit.
אֶלָּא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, לְמָה לְהוּ לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, אַמַּאי? וְהָא קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ?
However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, but if they do not have four handbreadths in their width everyone agrees that it is fit, what are the circumstances? If each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, why must they join together to render the sukka unfit? If each board is four handbreadths wide, each is capable of rendering the sukka unfit on its own. And if each of the boards does not have four handbreadths in its width, why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use? But aren’t they merely reeds according to Rav? Just as one may roof the sukka with reeds, one should be permitted to roof the sukka with these narrow boards.
לְעוֹלָם דְּאִית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, וּמַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד.
The Gemara answers: Actually, explain that there are four handbreadths in the width of each board and each renders the sukka unfit on its own. However, what is the meaning of: Boards join together? It is with regard to a completely different matter. They join together to constitute four cubits from the side. If one placed these unfit boards adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka, they do not render the sukka unfit, due to the halakhic principle of curved wall, which views that roofing as an extension of that wall. However, that principle applies only up to four cubits of unfit roofing. If these boards join together to measure four cubits, the sukka is unfit according to Rabbi Meir. According to this explanation, the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav as well.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד.
There is another version of the above exchange. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, but if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit, what is the meaning of that which Rabbi Meir said: Boards join together? It means that they join together to constitute four cubits from the side, which renders the sukka unfit.
אֶלָּא לְרַב: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה כְּשֵׁרָה, מַאי ״אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין״? קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר ״מִצְטָרְפִין״, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין״.
However, according to Rav, granted, according to Rabbi Meir, what is the meaning of: Boards join together? It means that they join together to constitute four cubits from the side. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that even if they have four handbreadths in their width, the sukka is fit, what is the meaning of: Boards do not join together? They are merely reeds, which is fit roofing and fit roofing that joins together remains fit roofing. The Gemara answers: Since Rabbi Meir used the phrase: Join together, Rabbi Yehuda, although it is irrelevant according to his opinion, also said: Do not join together.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: סִכְּכָהּ בִּנְסָרִים שֶׁל אֶרֶז שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה. יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one roofed the sukka with cedar boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit. If there are four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה שֶׁהֵבֵיאנוּ נְסָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה וְסִיכַּכְנוּ עַל גַּבֵּי מִרְפֶּסֶת, וְיָשַׁבְנוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה?! אֵין שְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה רְאָיָה.
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger, when the gentiles decreed that it is prohibited for Jews to construct a sukka, at which point we brought boards that had four handbreadths in their width, and we roofed the porch with them so that it would not appear to be a sukka, and we sat beneath them. Evidently, boards four handbreadths wide are fit roofing for a sukka. They said to him: Is there proof to be cited from there? There is no proof from actions performed during a time of danger. It is possible that the sukka that they built on the porch was unfit, and they built it merely to commemorate the mitzva that they were unable to fulfill. From this baraita, it is apparent that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is in a case of boards that are four handbreadths wide, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: סִכְּכָהּ בִּנְסָרִים שֶׁל אֶרֶז שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה. אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ בֵּין נֶסֶר לְנֶסֶר כִּמְלֹא נֶסֶר — שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ פְּסָל בֵּינֵיהֶם, וּכְשֵׁרָה. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאֵין יְשֵׁנִים תַּחְתָּיו, וְהַיָּשֵׁן תַּחְתָּיו — לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If one roofed the sukka with cedar boards that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If there are not four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. And Rabbi Meir concedes that, if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if one roofed the sukka with a board that is four handbreadths wide adjacent to one of the walls, the sukka is fit based on the principle of curved wall; and, nevertheless, one may not sleep beneath that board, and one who sleeps beneath it does not fulfill his obligation. In any event, there are two baraitot, each in accordance with one of the two views presented.
אִתְּמַר: הֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶן, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, וְרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי: כְּשֵׁרָה.
§ It is stated that there is an amoraic dispute: If one turned the unfit boards on their sides, and the width of the side is less than the measure that renders them unfit, do the boards remain unfit, or are they fit because in their current placement their width is narrower? Rav Huna said: The sukka is unfit, and Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is fit.
אִיקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: פְּסוּלָה, נַעֲשׂוּ כְּשַׁפּוּדִין שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.
The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna entered before him. They said to him: If one turned these boards on their sides and roofed the sukka, what is the halakha? They sought to ascertain whether his ruling is in accordance with their opinion or in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. He said to them: The sukka is unfit; since the boards are unfit roofing when placed flat, their legal status became like that of skewers [shapudin] of metal, which are unfit under all circumstances.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא: לָא אֲמַרִי לְכוּ אֱמַרוּ כְּווֹתִי? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וּמִי אָמַר לַן מָר טַעְמָא וְלָא קַבֵּלְינַן מִינֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: וּמִי בְּעֵיתוּ מִינַּאי טַעְמָא וְלָא אֲמַרִי לְכוּ?
When they related this encounter to Rav Huna, Rav Huna said to them: Didn’t I tell you that you should say the halakha in accordance with my opinion? Even Rav Naḥman agrees with me. They said to him: And did the Master actually say a reason for this ruling to us, and we did not accept it from him? Rav Naḥman not only issued a ruling, he also explained his ruling to us. He said to them: And did you ask me for the reason and I did not say it to you?
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: אֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת כְּדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה בָּהּ פִּרְצָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְדַּקֵּר בָּהּ גְּדִי בְּבַת רֹאשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara notes: Let us say that this baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna: With regard to a sukka that does not hold one’s head, most of his body, and his table; a sukka whose wall was breached with a breach large enough for a goat to jump through headlong, i.e., three handbreadths; a sukka that one placed atop it a board that is four handbreadths wide, even if he only introduced three handbreadths of the board into the sukka, in all these cases, the sukka is unfit.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי, (מַאי) לָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶם? לָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּאַנְּחַהּ אַפּוּמָּא דִמְטַלַּלְתָּא, דְּעָיֵיל תְּלָתָא לְגָיו וְאַפֵּיק חַד לְבַר, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ פְּסָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַסּוּכָּה, וְכׇל פְּסָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַסּוּכָּה — נִידּוֹן כַּסּוּכָּה.
What are the circumstances of the case where one introduces only three handbreadths of a board that is four handbreadths wide? What, is it not that he turned the board on its side, thereby diminishing its width from four to three handbreadths, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? The Gemara rejects this: No, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where one placed the board over the entrance of the sukka, where there is no wall. He introduced three handbreadths into the sukka and took one handbreadth out of the sukka, so that the legal status of that part of the board would be like that of roofing that protrudes from the sukka, and the halakha is that the legal status of any roofing that protrudes from the sukka is considered like that of the sukka. However, since this board is not adjacent to the wall of a sukka, the principle of curved wall does not apply. Therefore, it is four handbreadths of unfit roofing; it is prohibited to sleep beneath that board, and the entire sukka is rendered unfit. Consequently, there is no support for or against the opinion of Rav Huna from this baraita.
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.
Richmond, CA, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Minnesota, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
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
Minneapolis, MN, United States
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
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, 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
Raanana, Israel
Sukkah 14
יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין עוֹלִין מִטּוּמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְּשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה. מַעֲשֶׂה מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחְשָׁבָה. מַחְשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחְשָׁבָה.
descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought? Although an unfinished vessel ordinarily cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided to leave it in its unfinished state, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. However, they ascend from their state of ritual impurity only by means of a change resulting from an action. Merely deciding to complete the unfinished vessel does not alter its status. It loses its status as a vessel only when he takes action to complete it. Action negates status created by action and status created by thought; however, thought negates neither status created by action nor status created by thought. Therefore, once the straw of the grain harvested for food is considered a handle and is susceptible to ritual impurity, its status cannot be negated by thought alone.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי כֵּלִים דַּחֲשִׁיבִי, אֲבָל יָדוֹת, דִּלְצוֹרֶךְ אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ — בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נַעֲשֶׂה וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה סָלְקָא. וְהָתְנַן: כָּל יְדוֹת הָאוֹכָלִין שֶׁבְּסָסָן בַּגּוֹרֶן — טְהוֹרוֹת (וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא).
And if you say: There is a distinction between the cases, as this principle applies only to vessels, which are significant, but with regard to handles that are not independently significant but are merely for the purpose of handling food, perhaps by means of thought they become handles and by means of thought they emerge from that status; but didn’t we learn in the mishna to the contrary? All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, as through one’s actions he indicated that has no use for them and does not consider them significant. And Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּסָסָן״ — הִתִּיר אִגּוּדָן, שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַאי ״בְּסָסָן״ — בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to the one who said that besasan means that one untied their binding, it works out well. Although no action was performed on the sheaves, nevertheless, since their only purpose is to facilitate binding the sheaves, he indicated by unbinding them that the handles no longer suit his needs. However, according to the one who said: What is the meaning of besasan? It means he actually trampled them, what can be said? According to that opinion, only an action can negate the status of the handles. What, then, is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that thought alone can negate their status?
הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁבְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ. אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דַּאֲחֵרִים? דַּאֲמוּר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא.
The Gemara answers: Here too, the dispute between the Rabbis and Aḥerim with regard to using grain for roofing the sukka is in a case where one actually trampled them, and that is the reason that they are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: If so, and a change was made to the grain itself, what is the rationale for the opinion of Aḥerim, who nevertheless prohibit their use as roofing? The Gemara answers: It is because Aḥerim state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in the previously cited mishna: Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure even after trampling.
הַאי מַאי?! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם — טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי חַזְיָא לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיוֹת לְהוֹפְכָן בְּעֶתֶר.
The Gemara asks: What is the basis of this comparison between the cases? Granted, there, in the dispute concerning the ritual impurity of the grain on the threshing floor, the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that the handles remain susceptible to ritual impurity, is that they are suitable for use. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork, as the straw prevents the grain from falling between the prongs of the pitchfork.
אֶלָּא הָכָא לְמַאי חַזְיָא? חַזְיָא לְכִי סָתַר לְמִנְקַט לְהוּ בְּגִילַיְיהוּ.
However, here, where one needs the straw only for roofing the sukka, for what are the handles suited after they have been trampled? They serve no purpose in terms of handling the grain. The Gemara answers: They are suited when one dismantles the roofing, in order to hold the grain by the straw, so that it will scatter. Therefore, Aḥerim hold that the straw remains capable of contracting ritual impurity.
גּוּפָא, כָּל יְדוֹת הָאוֹכָלִין שֶׁבְּסָסָן בַּגּוֹרֶן — טְהוֹרוֹת, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא. מַאי ״בְּסָסָן״? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ. רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) אוֹמֵר: הִתִּיר אַגְדָּן.
Apropos the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, and Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of besasan? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It means that one actually trampled them under foot. Rabbi Elazar says: It means he untied their binding.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר), דְּאָמַר ״בְּסָסָן״ — הִתִּיר אַגְדָּן, הַיְינוּ דִּמְטַמֵּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיוֹת לְהוֹפְכָן בְּעֶתֶר.
The Gemara notes: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who said that besasan means that he untied their binding, this is the reason that Rabbi Yosei deems the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that besasan means that one actually trampled them, why does Rabbi Yosei deem the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity? Didn’t one thereby render them insignificant? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled, the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork.
אָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר): לָמָּה נִמְשְׁלָה תְּפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים כְּעֶתֶר — לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה עֶתֶר זֶה מְהַפֵּךְ אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה בַּגּוֹרֶן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, אַף תְּפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים מְהַפֶּכֶת דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִמִּדַּת אַכְזָרִיּוּת לְמִדַּת רַחֲמָנוּת.
Apropos a pitchfork, the Gemara cites a related aggadic teaching: Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork [eter]? It is written: “And Isaac entreated [vayetar] the Lord for his wife, because she was barren” (Genesis 25:21), to say to you: Just as this pitchfork overturns the grain on the threshing floor from place to place, so too, the prayers of the righteous overturn the mind of the Holy One, Blessed be He, from the attribute of cruelty to the attribute of mercy, and He accepts their prayers.
מַתְנִי׳ מְסַכְּכִין בִּנְסָרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו.
MISHNA: One may roof the sukka with boards like those used in the ceiling of a house; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir prohibits their use. If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּנְסָרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אִית לֵיהּ גְּזֵרַת תִּקְרָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֵית לֵיהּ גְּזֵרַת תִּקְרָה. אֲבָל בִּנְסָרִין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחֲלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה.
GEMARA: Rav said: The dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, the standard size for boards used in house ceilings, as Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. In that case, the roofing of the sukka with boards that wide could be confused with a ceiling. If it were permitted to roof the sukka with a board that size, one might come to sleep beneath the ceiling of his own home during the Festival. And Rabbi Yehuda is not of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. However, with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. And Shmuel said: The dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width; however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit.
אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, הָא קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ?
The Gemara asks: According to Shmuel, the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, and apparently the same would hold true even if their width were less than three handbreadths. In that case, aren’t they merely reeds; why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, מַאי טַעְמָא — קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עַד אַרְבָּעָה. מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ שִׁיעוּר מָקוֹם, לָא גָּזְרִינַן. וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי לְהוּ מִתּוֹרַת לָבוּד, גָּזְרִינַן.
Rav Pappa said that this is what Shmuel is saying: If they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If their width is less than three handbreadths, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason? It is because they are merely reeds. When they disagree in the mishna, their disagreement pertains to a case where the boards are from three to four handbreadths wide. In that case, one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that since they are not the measure of a significant place, we do not issue a decree prohibiting their use. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that since they have departed from the halakhic status of being joined [lavud], which applies only to gaps of less than three handbreadths, we issue a decree prohibiting their use as roofing.
תְּנַן: נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו. בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו. אֶלָּא לְרַב דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַמַּאי לֹא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו?
The Gemara cites proof with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that one should not sleep beneath the board. However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit, according to Rabbi Yehuda, why may one not sleep beneath it?
מִי סָבְרַתְּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא? סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this last halakha in the mishna, about not sleeping beneath the board, is a ruling with which everyone, including Rabbi Yehuda agrees? Rather, in the latter clause of the mishna we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. He alone, not Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one may not sleep beneath the board. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the mishna.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנֵי סְדִינִין מִצְטָרְפִין.
The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together to constitute four handbreadths, the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit.
שְׁנֵי נְסָרִין אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף נְסָרִין כִּסְדִינִין.
However, two boards placed on the sukka do not combine. Rabbi Meir says: Even boards are like sheets, in that they join together to constitute the measure of unfitness.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבָּעָה.
The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, but if they have four handbreadths in their width everyone agrees that it is unfit; what is the meaning of that which Rabbi Meir said: Boards join together? It means that boards less than four handbreadths wide combine to measure four handbreadths, which renders the sukka unfit.
אֶלָּא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, לְמָה לְהוּ לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, אַמַּאי? וְהָא קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ?
However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, but if they do not have four handbreadths in their width everyone agrees that it is fit, what are the circumstances? If each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, why must they join together to render the sukka unfit? If each board is four handbreadths wide, each is capable of rendering the sukka unfit on its own. And if each of the boards does not have four handbreadths in its width, why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use? But aren’t they merely reeds according to Rav? Just as one may roof the sukka with reeds, one should be permitted to roof the sukka with these narrow boards.
לְעוֹלָם דְּאִית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, וּמַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד.
The Gemara answers: Actually, explain that there are four handbreadths in the width of each board and each renders the sukka unfit on its own. However, what is the meaning of: Boards join together? It is with regard to a completely different matter. They join together to constitute four cubits from the side. If one placed these unfit boards adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka, they do not render the sukka unfit, due to the halakhic principle of curved wall, which views that roofing as an extension of that wall. However, that principle applies only up to four cubits of unfit roofing. If these boards join together to measure four cubits, the sukka is unfit according to Rabbi Meir. According to this explanation, the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav as well.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד.
There is another version of the above exchange. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, but if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit, what is the meaning of that which Rabbi Meir said: Boards join together? It means that they join together to constitute four cubits from the side, which renders the sukka unfit.
אֶלָּא לְרַב: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה כְּשֵׁרָה, מַאי ״אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין״? קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר ״מִצְטָרְפִין״, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין״.
However, according to Rav, granted, according to Rabbi Meir, what is the meaning of: Boards join together? It means that they join together to constitute four cubits from the side. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that even if they have four handbreadths in their width, the sukka is fit, what is the meaning of: Boards do not join together? They are merely reeds, which is fit roofing and fit roofing that joins together remains fit roofing. The Gemara answers: Since Rabbi Meir used the phrase: Join together, Rabbi Yehuda, although it is irrelevant according to his opinion, also said: Do not join together.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: סִכְּכָהּ בִּנְסָרִים שֶׁל אֶרֶז שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה. יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one roofed the sukka with cedar boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit. If there are four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה שֶׁהֵבֵיאנוּ נְסָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה וְסִיכַּכְנוּ עַל גַּבֵּי מִרְפֶּסֶת, וְיָשַׁבְנוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה?! אֵין שְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה רְאָיָה.
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger, when the gentiles decreed that it is prohibited for Jews to construct a sukka, at which point we brought boards that had four handbreadths in their width, and we roofed the porch with them so that it would not appear to be a sukka, and we sat beneath them. Evidently, boards four handbreadths wide are fit roofing for a sukka. They said to him: Is there proof to be cited from there? There is no proof from actions performed during a time of danger. It is possible that the sukka that they built on the porch was unfit, and they built it merely to commemorate the mitzva that they were unable to fulfill. From this baraita, it is apparent that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is in a case of boards that are four handbreadths wide, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: סִכְּכָהּ בִּנְסָרִים שֶׁל אֶרֶז שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה. אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ בֵּין נֶסֶר לְנֶסֶר כִּמְלֹא נֶסֶר — שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ פְּסָל בֵּינֵיהֶם, וּכְשֵׁרָה. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאֵין יְשֵׁנִים תַּחְתָּיו, וְהַיָּשֵׁן תַּחְתָּיו — לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If one roofed the sukka with cedar boards that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If there are not four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. And Rabbi Meir concedes that, if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if one roofed the sukka with a board that is four handbreadths wide adjacent to one of the walls, the sukka is fit based on the principle of curved wall; and, nevertheless, one may not sleep beneath that board, and one who sleeps beneath it does not fulfill his obligation. In any event, there are two baraitot, each in accordance with one of the two views presented.
אִתְּמַר: הֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶן, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, וְרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי: כְּשֵׁרָה.
§ It is stated that there is an amoraic dispute: If one turned the unfit boards on their sides, and the width of the side is less than the measure that renders them unfit, do the boards remain unfit, or are they fit because in their current placement their width is narrower? Rav Huna said: The sukka is unfit, and Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is fit.
אִיקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: פְּסוּלָה, נַעֲשׂוּ כְּשַׁפּוּדִין שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.
The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna entered before him. They said to him: If one turned these boards on their sides and roofed the sukka, what is the halakha? They sought to ascertain whether his ruling is in accordance with their opinion or in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. He said to them: The sukka is unfit; since the boards are unfit roofing when placed flat, their legal status became like that of skewers [shapudin] of metal, which are unfit under all circumstances.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא: לָא אֲמַרִי לְכוּ אֱמַרוּ כְּווֹתִי? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וּמִי אָמַר לַן מָר טַעְמָא וְלָא קַבֵּלְינַן מִינֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: וּמִי בְּעֵיתוּ מִינַּאי טַעְמָא וְלָא אֲמַרִי לְכוּ?
When they related this encounter to Rav Huna, Rav Huna said to them: Didn’t I tell you that you should say the halakha in accordance with my opinion? Even Rav Naḥman agrees with me. They said to him: And did the Master actually say a reason for this ruling to us, and we did not accept it from him? Rav Naḥman not only issued a ruling, he also explained his ruling to us. He said to them: And did you ask me for the reason and I did not say it to you?
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: אֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת כְּדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה בָּהּ פִּרְצָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְדַּקֵּר בָּהּ גְּדִי בְּבַת רֹאשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara notes: Let us say that this baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna: With regard to a sukka that does not hold one’s head, most of his body, and his table; a sukka whose wall was breached with a breach large enough for a goat to jump through headlong, i.e., three handbreadths; a sukka that one placed atop it a board that is four handbreadths wide, even if he only introduced three handbreadths of the board into the sukka, in all these cases, the sukka is unfit.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי, (מַאי) לָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶם? לָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּאַנְּחַהּ אַפּוּמָּא דִמְטַלַּלְתָּא, דְּעָיֵיל תְּלָתָא לְגָיו וְאַפֵּיק חַד לְבַר, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ פְּסָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַסּוּכָּה, וְכׇל פְּסָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַסּוּכָּה — נִידּוֹן כַּסּוּכָּה.
What are the circumstances of the case where one introduces only three handbreadths of a board that is four handbreadths wide? What, is it not that he turned the board on its side, thereby diminishing its width from four to three handbreadths, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? The Gemara rejects this: No, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where one placed the board over the entrance of the sukka, where there is no wall. He introduced three handbreadths into the sukka and took one handbreadth out of the sukka, so that the legal status of that part of the board would be like that of roofing that protrudes from the sukka, and the halakha is that the legal status of any roofing that protrudes from the sukka is considered like that of the sukka. However, since this board is not adjacent to the wall of a sukka, the principle of curved wall does not apply. Therefore, it is four handbreadths of unfit roofing; it is prohibited to sleep beneath that board, and the entire sukka is rendered unfit. Consequently, there is no support for or against the opinion of Rav Huna from this baraita.
