Skip to content

September 24, 2021 | י״ח בתשרי תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Beitzah 24

Today's Daf Yomi

July 22, 2021 | י״ג באב תשפ״א

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

Sukkah 15

Today’s daf is dedicated by Lisa Kolodny in memory of Marjorie Glick, Miriam Chana bat Rachel, and in honor of her loving daughter Emma Rinberg who learns the daf. Miriam recently passed away and was a bright, intelligent woman who loved learning and always had a smile for everyone. May her Neshama have an aliya from our learning.

If there are beams on a ceiling that are not connected by tar or cement, what can be done to make these usable as s’chach? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda debate whether or not this is a subject of debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. How is this different from their debate in the previous mishna regarding whether or not one can use wooden beams for s’chach? If the s’chach is made from metal skewers or beams from a bed, the sukkah is disqualified. But one fills in the space between the beams or skewers with good s’chach, and it is equal in size to the disqualified s’chach, then the sukkah is a good sukkah. How could this be if regarding walls for Shabbat we say that if the part that is breached is equal to the part that is standing, the wall is not a good wall? Why are beams of a bed susceptible to impurity (and therefore not able to be used as s’chach?

מתני׳ תקרה שאין עליה מעזיבה רבי יהודה אומר בית שמאי אומרים מפקפק ונוטל אחת מבינתים ובית הלל אומרים מפקפק או נוטל אחת מבינתים רבי מאיר אומר נוטל אחת מבינתים ואינו מפקפק

MISHNA: In the case of a roof made of boards that are four handbreadths wide upon which there is no coat of plaster, Rabbi Yehuda says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the manner in which to render it fit. Beit Shammai say: One moves each board, and then it is considered as though he placed the board there for the sake of the mitzva of sukka, and one then removes one board from among the boards and replaces it with fit roofing. Beit Hillel say: One need not perform both actions; rather, one must either move the boards or remove one from among them. Rabbi Meir says: One only removes one from among them and does not move the others.

גמ׳ בשלמא בית הלל טעמייהו משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי אי מפקפק עביד ליה מעשה אי נוטל אחת מבינתים עבד בה מעשה אלא בית שמאי מאי טעמייהו אי משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי בחדא סגי אי משום גזרת תקרה בנוטל אחת מבינתים סגי

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Beit Hillel, their reason for initially prohibiting this roof is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. If one moves the boards, he performs an action. Likewise, if he removes one of the boards from among them, he also performs an action. Therefore, in both cases, he prepared the roofing and the sukka is fit. However, with regard to the opinion of Beit Shammai, what is the rationale for their prohibition against using the original ceiling for a sukka? If the rationale is also due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, one action should suffice. Or if the rationale is due to the decree of the roof, lest one come to reside beneath a regular plastered ceiling inside a house, removing one board from among them should suffice.

לעולם משום גזרת תקרה והכי קאמרי אף על פי שמפקפק אי נוטל אחת מבינתים אין אי לא לא

The Gemara answers: Actually, the rationale is due to the decree of the roof, and this is what they are saying: Although one moves the boards, if he removes one board from among them, yes, it is fit; if not, no, it is unfit. Moving the boards is inconsequential. Removing one board from among them is all that is necessary.

אי הכי אימא סיפא רבי מאיר אומר נוטל אחת מבינתים אבל לא יפקפק רבי מאיר היינו בית שמאי

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Meir says: One removes one from among them but does not move the others. This indicates that the opinion of Rabbi Meir is identical to the opinion of Beit Shammai, as according to the above explanation, Beit Shammai also hold that removing one of the boards and replacing it with fit roofing can render the sukka fit. It is unreasonable to say that Rabbi Meir would hold in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, which is rejected.

הכי קאמר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה

The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Meir is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree on this matter. They agree that the boards are prohibited due to the decree of the roof and that only by removing one of the boards is the sukka rendered fit. Rabbi Meir disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

מאי קא משמע לן דרבי מאיר אית ליה גזרת תקרה ורבי יהודה לית ליה גזרת תקרה והא אפליגו בה חדא זימנא דתנן מסככין בנסרים דברי רבי יהודה ורבי מאיר אוסר

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the mishna teaching us? Is it that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof and Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that the Sages did not issue the decree of the roof? But didn’t they disagree about this once, as we learned in the mishna above: One may roof the sukka with boards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir prohibits their use. The Gemara explained that the dispute is whether or not the Sages issued the decree of the roof.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן רישא בנסרים משופין עסקינן ומשום גזרת כלים נגעו בה

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is not the dispute, as in the first clause, i.e., in the earlier mishna, we are dealing with the case of planed boards. The rationale for their disagreement is not due to the decree of the roof; but it is due to the decree of the vessels that they touched upon it. The dispute is whether or not the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of planed beams in roofing the sukka, although as flat wooden vessels they are not susceptible to ritual impurity, lest one come to roof the sukka with vessels that are susceptible to ritual impurity.

ולרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר סככה בחיצין זכרים כשרה בנקבות פסולה ולא גזר זכרים אטו נקבות הכא נמי לא נגזר נסרים משופין אטו כלים

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav said: If one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, the sukka is fit, but if he roofed his sukka with concave arrow shafts, the sukka is unfit; and he did not issue a decree and prohibit roofing with convex shafts due to the prohibition against roofing with concave shafts, here too, let us not issue a decree and prohibit roofing with planed boards, due to the prohibition against roofing with actual vessels.

אלא על כרחך רישא פליגי בגזרת תקרה וסיפא פליגי בגזרת תקרה ואפליגי בתרתי זימני למה לי

Rather, according to Rav, perforce you must say that in the first clause of the mishna they disagree with regard to the decree of the roof, and in the latter clause, i.e., this mishna as well, they disagree with regard to the decree of the roof. Once again, the question arises: Why do I need them to disagree about the same issue twice?

סיפא רבי יהודה (היא) דקא אמר ליה לרבי מאיר אמאי קא אסרת בנסרים משום גזרת תקרה האי סברא לבית שמאי הוא דאית להו ובית הלל לא גזרי ואמר רבי מאיר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה

The Gemara answers: Rather, the latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is saying to Rabbi Meir: Why do you prohibit roofing with boards? Is it due to the decree of the roof? That is the reason according to Beit Shammai, who are of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree. But, contrary to your opinion, Beit Hillel do not issue the decree. And Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Yehuda: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter at all. These are not two separate disputes; rather, it is one extended dispute.

הניחא לרב דאמר מחלוקת בשיש בהן ארבעה דרבי מאיר אית ליה גזרת תקרה ורבי יהודה לית ליה גזרת תקרה אלא שמואל דאמר בשאין בהן ארבעה מחלוקת אבל יש בהן ארבעה דברי הכל פסולה סיפא במאי פליגי

The Gemara continues to ask: This works out well according to Rav, who said that the dispute is specifically in a case where the boards have four handbreadths in their width. He says that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof, and Rabbi Yehuda is not of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. However, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute is specifically in a case where the boards do not have four handbreadths in their width, but where they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit, and both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the Sages issued the decree of the roof; if so, in the latter clause of the mishna, with regard to what matter do they disagree?

בביטולי תקרה קא מיפלגי מר סבר בטלה בהכי ומר סבר בהכי לא בטלה

The Gemara answers: One may not use boards of this sort for roofing his sukka. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda, a sukka roofed in that manner is unfit, due to the decree of the roof. However, here, in the latter clause, it is with regard to negating an existing roof that consists of boards of this sort, in order to render the sukka fit that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The ceiling is thereby negated, by moving the boards, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the ceiling is not thereby negated unless he also removes one beam from among them.

מתני׳ המקרה סוכתו בשפודין או בארוכות המטה אם יש ריוח ביניהן כמותן כשרה החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה אינה סוכה

MISHNA: In the case of one who roofs his sukka with metal skewers or with the long boards of the bed, which compose its frame, if there is space between each one of them equal to the width of the skewers or the boards, and if he places fit roofing in those spaces, the sukka is fit. In the case of one who hollows out and creates a space inside a stack of grain to establish a sukka for him, it is not a sukka.

גמ׳ לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע דאתמר פרוץ כעומד רב פפא אמר מותר ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר אסור

GEMARA: Let us say, based on the mishna, that this will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as it is stated that the amora’im disagreed concerning the following matter: With regard to the domains of Shabbat, if the breached segment is equal to the standing segment, is it deemed a partition or not? Rav Pappa said: It is permitted to carry within the partition; as long as the breached segment is not greater, it is considered a solid partition. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited to carry within the partition, unless the standing portion is greater. Apparently, from the mishna, even if the fit roofing is equal to the unfit skewers and boards, the sukka is fit, contrary to the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.

אמר לך רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מאי כמותן בנכנס ויוצא

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, could have said to you: What is the meaning of: Like the skewers and the boards? It does not mean that the space between the skewers and boards equals the width of the skewers and boards themselves. It is referring to a case where the space is large enough so that the fit roofing can enter and emerge easily, i.e., it is wider than the unfit roofing. According to this interpretation, the mishna can be explained according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as well. The mishna agrees that even if the standing and breached areas are equal, the sukka is unfit.

והא אפשר לצמצם אמר רבי אמי במעדיף

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it possible to be precise? The mishna need not be understood in that manner, since it is possible to calibrate the width of the spaces to equal the width of the unfit roofing, as the mishna required no more than that. Rabbi Ami said: The mishna is referring to a case where one extends the width of the spaces beyond the width of the unfit roofing. The mishna deems the sukka fit only if the width of the spaces is greater than the width of the unfit roofing.

רבא אמר אפילו תימא בשאין מעדיף אם היו נתונים שתי נותנן ערב ערב נותנן שתי

Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna is referring to a case where one does not extend the width of the spaces, and nevertheless, the fit roofing is greater than the unfit roofing, if the skewers were placed lengthwise across the sukka, one places the fit roofing widthwise, and if the skewers were placed widthwise, one places the fit roofing lengthwise. By doing so, the fit roofing overlaps the skewers at least somewhat; otherwise it would fall between the unfit roofing. Consequently, even if the space equals the unfit roofing, the fit roofing is greater than the unfit roofing.

או בארוכות המטה לימא מסייע ליה לרבי אמי בר טביומי דאמר רבי אמי בר טביומי סככה בבלאי כלים פסולה

§ The mishna continues: Or with the long boards of the bed, which compose its frame, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei, as Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei said: If one roofed the sukka with worn, incomplete, vessels, the sukka is unfit. Although these incomplete vessels are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity, they remain unfit because they were initially unfit for roofing. Proof can be adduced from the mishna: The long boards of the bed are no longer vessels but rather pieces from broken vessels; still, they may not be used for roofing the sukka.

כדאמר רבי חנן אמר רבי בארוכה ושתי כרעים בקצרה ושתי כרעים הכא נמי בארוכה ושתי כרעים בקצרה ושתי כרעים

The Gemara rejects this: The mishna is referring to a case similar to that which Rabbi Ḥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in another context: It is not referring to the long boards alone. Rather, it is referring to a case with the long board of the bed and two of the legs attached to it or to a case with the short board of the bed with two legs attached to it. In this case, the structure could be propped up against a wall and used as a bed. Here too, the mishna is referring to roofing with the long board and two legs or with the short board and two legs, which are still considered complete vessels.

היכא איתמר דרבי חנן אמר רבי אהא דתנן

The Gemara asks: Where is it stated that which Rabbi Ḥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna:

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

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 14 – 20 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what materials are valid to cover the Sukka and what materials make the Sukka invalid....
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Gefet – When does a Person’s Unique Da’at Have Significance? – Sukkah 2

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

A Sukkah Tale

Today when we hear the word “sukkah” one image pops into the mind of Jewishly knowledgeable people – a temporary...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 15: Structural Incongruities

A daf with 2 mishnayot. The first has 3 different disputes in the span of the one mishnah, which focuses...

Sukkah 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 15

מתני׳ תקרה שאין עליה מעזיבה רבי יהודה אומר בית שמאי אומרים מפקפק ונוטל אחת מבינתים ובית הלל אומרים מפקפק או נוטל אחת מבינתים רבי מאיר אומר נוטל אחת מבינתים ואינו מפקפק

MISHNA: In the case of a roof made of boards that are four handbreadths wide upon which there is no coat of plaster, Rabbi Yehuda says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the manner in which to render it fit. Beit Shammai say: One moves each board, and then it is considered as though he placed the board there for the sake of the mitzva of sukka, and one then removes one board from among the boards and replaces it with fit roofing. Beit Hillel say: One need not perform both actions; rather, one must either move the boards or remove one from among them. Rabbi Meir says: One only removes one from among them and does not move the others.

גמ׳ בשלמא בית הלל טעמייהו משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי אי מפקפק עביד ליה מעשה אי נוטל אחת מבינתים עבד בה מעשה אלא בית שמאי מאי טעמייהו אי משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי בחדא סגי אי משום גזרת תקרה בנוטל אחת מבינתים סגי

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Beit Hillel, their reason for initially prohibiting this roof is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. If one moves the boards, he performs an action. Likewise, if he removes one of the boards from among them, he also performs an action. Therefore, in both cases, he prepared the roofing and the sukka is fit. However, with regard to the opinion of Beit Shammai, what is the rationale for their prohibition against using the original ceiling for a sukka? If the rationale is also due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, one action should suffice. Or if the rationale is due to the decree of the roof, lest one come to reside beneath a regular plastered ceiling inside a house, removing one board from among them should suffice.

לעולם משום גזרת תקרה והכי קאמרי אף על פי שמפקפק אי נוטל אחת מבינתים אין אי לא לא

The Gemara answers: Actually, the rationale is due to the decree of the roof, and this is what they are saying: Although one moves the boards, if he removes one board from among them, yes, it is fit; if not, no, it is unfit. Moving the boards is inconsequential. Removing one board from among them is all that is necessary.

אי הכי אימא סיפא רבי מאיר אומר נוטל אחת מבינתים אבל לא יפקפק רבי מאיר היינו בית שמאי

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Meir says: One removes one from among them but does not move the others. This indicates that the opinion of Rabbi Meir is identical to the opinion of Beit Shammai, as according to the above explanation, Beit Shammai also hold that removing one of the boards and replacing it with fit roofing can render the sukka fit. It is unreasonable to say that Rabbi Meir would hold in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, which is rejected.

הכי קאמר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה

The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Meir is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree on this matter. They agree that the boards are prohibited due to the decree of the roof and that only by removing one of the boards is the sukka rendered fit. Rabbi Meir disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

מאי קא משמע לן דרבי מאיר אית ליה גזרת תקרה ורבי יהודה לית ליה גזרת תקרה והא אפליגו בה חדא זימנא דתנן מסככין בנסרים דברי רבי יהודה ורבי מאיר אוסר

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the mishna teaching us? Is it that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof and Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that the Sages did not issue the decree of the roof? But didn’t they disagree about this once, as we learned in the mishna above: One may roof the sukka with boards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir prohibits their use. The Gemara explained that the dispute is whether or not the Sages issued the decree of the roof.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן רישא בנסרים משופין עסקינן ומשום גזרת כלים נגעו בה

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is not the dispute, as in the first clause, i.e., in the earlier mishna, we are dealing with the case of planed boards. The rationale for their disagreement is not due to the decree of the roof; but it is due to the decree of the vessels that they touched upon it. The dispute is whether or not the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of planed beams in roofing the sukka, although as flat wooden vessels they are not susceptible to ritual impurity, lest one come to roof the sukka with vessels that are susceptible to ritual impurity.

ולרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר סככה בחיצין זכרים כשרה בנקבות פסולה ולא גזר זכרים אטו נקבות הכא נמי לא נגזר נסרים משופין אטו כלים

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav said: If one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, the sukka is fit, but if he roofed his sukka with concave arrow shafts, the sukka is unfit; and he did not issue a decree and prohibit roofing with convex shafts due to the prohibition against roofing with concave shafts, here too, let us not issue a decree and prohibit roofing with planed boards, due to the prohibition against roofing with actual vessels.

אלא על כרחך רישא פליגי בגזרת תקרה וסיפא פליגי בגזרת תקרה ואפליגי בתרתי זימני למה לי

Rather, according to Rav, perforce you must say that in the first clause of the mishna they disagree with regard to the decree of the roof, and in the latter clause, i.e., this mishna as well, they disagree with regard to the decree of the roof. Once again, the question arises: Why do I need them to disagree about the same issue twice?

סיפא רבי יהודה (היא) דקא אמר ליה לרבי מאיר אמאי קא אסרת בנסרים משום גזרת תקרה האי סברא לבית שמאי הוא דאית להו ובית הלל לא גזרי ואמר רבי מאיר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה

The Gemara answers: Rather, the latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is saying to Rabbi Meir: Why do you prohibit roofing with boards? Is it due to the decree of the roof? That is the reason according to Beit Shammai, who are of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree. But, contrary to your opinion, Beit Hillel do not issue the decree. And Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Yehuda: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter at all. These are not two separate disputes; rather, it is one extended dispute.

הניחא לרב דאמר מחלוקת בשיש בהן ארבעה דרבי מאיר אית ליה גזרת תקרה ורבי יהודה לית ליה גזרת תקרה אלא שמואל דאמר בשאין בהן ארבעה מחלוקת אבל יש בהן ארבעה דברי הכל פסולה סיפא במאי פליגי

The Gemara continues to ask: This works out well according to Rav, who said that the dispute is specifically in a case where the boards have four handbreadths in their width. He says that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof, and Rabbi Yehuda is not of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. However, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute is specifically in a case where the boards do not have four handbreadths in their width, but where they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit, and both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the Sages issued the decree of the roof; if so, in the latter clause of the mishna, with regard to what matter do they disagree?

בביטולי תקרה קא מיפלגי מר סבר בטלה בהכי ומר סבר בהכי לא בטלה

The Gemara answers: One may not use boards of this sort for roofing his sukka. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda, a sukka roofed in that manner is unfit, due to the decree of the roof. However, here, in the latter clause, it is with regard to negating an existing roof that consists of boards of this sort, in order to render the sukka fit that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The ceiling is thereby negated, by moving the boards, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the ceiling is not thereby negated unless he also removes one beam from among them.

מתני׳ המקרה סוכתו בשפודין או בארוכות המטה אם יש ריוח ביניהן כמותן כשרה החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה אינה סוכה

MISHNA: In the case of one who roofs his sukka with metal skewers or with the long boards of the bed, which compose its frame, if there is space between each one of them equal to the width of the skewers or the boards, and if he places fit roofing in those spaces, the sukka is fit. In the case of one who hollows out and creates a space inside a stack of grain to establish a sukka for him, it is not a sukka.

גמ׳ לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע דאתמר פרוץ כעומד רב פפא אמר מותר ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר אסור

GEMARA: Let us say, based on the mishna, that this will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as it is stated that the amora’im disagreed concerning the following matter: With regard to the domains of Shabbat, if the breached segment is equal to the standing segment, is it deemed a partition or not? Rav Pappa said: It is permitted to carry within the partition; as long as the breached segment is not greater, it is considered a solid partition. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited to carry within the partition, unless the standing portion is greater. Apparently, from the mishna, even if the fit roofing is equal to the unfit skewers and boards, the sukka is fit, contrary to the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.

אמר לך רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מאי כמותן בנכנס ויוצא

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, could have said to you: What is the meaning of: Like the skewers and the boards? It does not mean that the space between the skewers and boards equals the width of the skewers and boards themselves. It is referring to a case where the space is large enough so that the fit roofing can enter and emerge easily, i.e., it is wider than the unfit roofing. According to this interpretation, the mishna can be explained according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as well. The mishna agrees that even if the standing and breached areas are equal, the sukka is unfit.

והא אפשר לצמצם אמר רבי אמי במעדיף

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it possible to be precise? The mishna need not be understood in that manner, since it is possible to calibrate the width of the spaces to equal the width of the unfit roofing, as the mishna required no more than that. Rabbi Ami said: The mishna is referring to a case where one extends the width of the spaces beyond the width of the unfit roofing. The mishna deems the sukka fit only if the width of the spaces is greater than the width of the unfit roofing.

רבא אמר אפילו תימא בשאין מעדיף אם היו נתונים שתי נותנן ערב ערב נותנן שתי

Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna is referring to a case where one does not extend the width of the spaces, and nevertheless, the fit roofing is greater than the unfit roofing, if the skewers were placed lengthwise across the sukka, one places the fit roofing widthwise, and if the skewers were placed widthwise, one places the fit roofing lengthwise. By doing so, the fit roofing overlaps the skewers at least somewhat; otherwise it would fall between the unfit roofing. Consequently, even if the space equals the unfit roofing, the fit roofing is greater than the unfit roofing.

או בארוכות המטה לימא מסייע ליה לרבי אמי בר טביומי דאמר רבי אמי בר טביומי סככה בבלאי כלים פסולה

§ The mishna continues: Or with the long boards of the bed, which compose its frame, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei, as Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei said: If one roofed the sukka with worn, incomplete, vessels, the sukka is unfit. Although these incomplete vessels are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity, they remain unfit because they were initially unfit for roofing. Proof can be adduced from the mishna: The long boards of the bed are no longer vessels but rather pieces from broken vessels; still, they may not be used for roofing the sukka.

כדאמר רבי חנן אמר רבי בארוכה ושתי כרעים בקצרה ושתי כרעים הכא נמי בארוכה ושתי כרעים בקצרה ושתי כרעים

The Gemara rejects this: The mishna is referring to a case similar to that which Rabbi Ḥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in another context: It is not referring to the long boards alone. Rather, it is referring to a case with the long board of the bed and two of the legs attached to it or to a case with the short board of the bed with two legs attached to it. In this case, the structure could be propped up against a wall and used as a bed. Here too, the mishna is referring to roofing with the long board and two legs or with the short board and two legs, which are still considered complete vessels.

היכא איתמר דרבי חנן אמר רבי אהא דתנן

The Gemara asks: Where is it stated that which Rabbi Ḥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna:

Scroll To Top