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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 22, 2021 | 讬状讙 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 15

Today鈥檚 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?

诪转谞讬壮 转拽专讛 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注讝讬讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻拽驻拽 讜谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻拽驻拽 讗讜 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪驻拽驻拽

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.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 讗讬 诪驻拽驻拽 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗讬 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 注讘讚 讘讛 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 讘讞讚讗 住讙讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讘谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 住讙讬

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.

诇注讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪驻拽驻拽 讗讬 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬驻拽驻拽 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜讛讗 讗驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘谞住专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讬砖讗 讘谞住专讬诐 诪砖讜驻讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讻诇讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 住讻讻讛 讘讞讬爪讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 讻砖专讛 讘谞拽讘讜转 驻住讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专 讝讻专讬诐 讗讟讜 谞拽讘讜转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讙讝专 谞住专讬诐 诪砖讜驻讬谉 讗讟讜 讻诇讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 注诇 讻专讞讱 专讬砖讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜住讬驻讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜讗驻诇讬讙讬 讘转专转讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

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?

住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 (讛讬讗) 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 讗住专转 讘谞住专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讙讝专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 住讬驻讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

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?

讘讘讬讟讜诇讬 转拽专讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讟诇讛 讘讛讻讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讛讻讬 诇讗 讘讟诇讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽专讛 住讜讻转讜 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜 讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 讗诐 讬砖 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讻诪讜转谉 讻砖专讛 讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 住讜讻讛 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛

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.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗转诪专 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗住讜专

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鈥檌m 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讗讬 讻诪讜转谉 讘谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗

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.

讜讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘诪注讚讬祝

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖讗讬谉 诪注讚讬祝 讗诐 讛讬讜 谞转讜谞讬诐 砖转讬 谞讜转谞谉 注专讘 注专讘 谞讜转谞谉 砖转讬

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.

讗讜 讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讟讘讬讜诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讟讘讬讜诪讬 住讻讻讛 讘讘诇讗讬 讻诇讬诐 驻住讜诇讛

搂 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.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘讗专讜讻讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐 讘拽爪专讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讗专讜讻讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐 讘拽爪专讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: The mishna is referring to a case similar to that which Rabbi 岣nan 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.

讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讬 讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讛讗 讚转谞谉

The Gemara asks: Where is it stated that which Rabbi 岣nan 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).
  • 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 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

When does a Person鈥檚 Unique Da鈥檃t Have Significance? – Sukkah – Gefet 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 鈥渟ukkah鈥 one image pops into the mind of Jewishly knowledgeable people 鈥 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

诪转谞讬壮 转拽专讛 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注讝讬讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻拽驻拽 讜谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻拽驻拽 讗讜 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪驻拽驻拽

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.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 讗讬 诪驻拽驻拽 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗讬 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 注讘讚 讘讛 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 讘讞讚讗 住讙讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讘谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 住讙讬

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.

诇注讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪驻拽驻拽 讗讬 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇 讗讞转 诪讘讬谞转讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬驻拽驻拽 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜讛讗 讗驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘谞住专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讬砖讗 讘谞住专讬诐 诪砖讜驻讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 讻诇讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 住讻讻讛 讘讞讬爪讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 讻砖专讛 讘谞拽讘讜转 驻住讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专 讝讻专讬诐 讗讟讜 谞拽讘讜转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讙讝专 谞住专讬诐 诪砖讜驻讬谉 讗讟讜 讻诇讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 注诇 讻专讞讱 专讬砖讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜住讬驻讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜讗驻诇讬讙讬 讘转专转讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

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?

住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 (讛讬讗) 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 讗住专转 讘谞住专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讙讝专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝专转 转拽专讛 讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 住讬驻讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

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?

讘讘讬讟讜诇讬 转拽专讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讟诇讛 讘讛讻讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讛讻讬 诇讗 讘讟诇讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽专讛 住讜讻转讜 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜 讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 讗诐 讬砖 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讻诪讜转谉 讻砖专讛 讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 住讜讻讛 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛

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.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗转诪专 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗住讜专

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鈥檌m 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讗讬 讻诪讜转谉 讘谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗

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.

讜讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘诪注讚讬祝

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖讗讬谉 诪注讚讬祝 讗诐 讛讬讜 谞转讜谞讬诐 砖转讬 谞讜转谞谉 注专讘 注专讘 谞讜转谞谉 砖转讬

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.

讗讜 讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讟讘讬讜诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讟讘讬讜诪讬 住讻讻讛 讘讘诇讗讬 讻诇讬诐 驻住讜诇讛

搂 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.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘讗专讜讻讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐 讘拽爪专讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讗专讜讻讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐 讘拽爪专讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: The mishna is referring to a case similar to that which Rabbi 岣nan 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.

讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讬 讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讛讗 讚转谞谉

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

Scroll To Top