Skip to content

September 20, 2021 | י״ד בתשרי תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Beitzah 21 - First Day of Sukkot, September 21

Today's Daf Yomi

July 23, 2021 | י״ד באב תשפ״א

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

Sukkah 16

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena Septee Goldstein, on her birthday, “with love to my life chevruta.”

If one uses remnants of clothes or utensils for s’chach, it is invalid as it still retains its status of being susceptible to impurity. What are examples of this? In which case would the sukkah be valid when one hollows out a pile of wheat stalks? The gemara discusses all different types of incomplete walls and whether or not they can be valid based on laws of l’vud and depending on where they are situated. Can a wall that doesn’t reach within three handbreadths of the floor be valid? This is called a hanging wall. The gemara brings a mishna in Eruvin 86 where a debate regarding this issue is raised. Would those who allowed it in Eruvin allow it here and vice-versa? Or could one make an argument that the cases are not comparable?

מטה מטמאת חבילה ומטהרת חבילה דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים מטמאת אברים ומטהרת אברים מאי ניהו אמר רבי חנן אמר רבי ארוכה ושתי כרעים קצרה ושתי כרעים

A bed becomes ritually impure as a complete entity if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. And it becomes ritually pure as a single entity through immersion, and in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse, through sprinkling and immersion. However, it may be neither impurified nor purified when dismantled. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis say: It becomes ritually impure even when it is dismantled into its component parts, and, so too, it becomes ritually pure even when it is dismantled into its component parts. The Gemara asks: If the bed breaks into parts that serve no purpose, it is pure; what are these component parts mentioned by the Rabbis? Rabbi Ḥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The component parts are a long board and two legs attached to it and a short board and two legs attached to it.

למאי חזיא למסמכינהו אגודא ולמיתב עלייהו ומשדא אשלי

The Gemara asks: And for what purpose are these parts suited; what function qualifies their status as vessels? The Gemara answers: It is possible for one to lean them against the wall and to sit on them, after placing boards across the top and placing ropes across their length and width. The boards of the bed can thereby be used for the purpose of sitting or lying upon them; consequently, they are considered vessels.

גופא אמר רבי אמי בר טביומי סככה בבלאי כלים פסולה מאי בלאי כלים אמר אביי מטלניות שאין בהם שלש על שלש דלא חזיין לא לעניים ולא לעשירים

§ The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself cited above. Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei said: If one roofed the sukka with worn, incomplete, vessels, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: What are these worn vessels? Abaye said: They are small cloths that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, which, due to their size, are not suited for use either by the poor or by the wealthy.

תניא כוותיה דרבי אמי בר טביומי מחצלת של שיפא ושל גמי שיריה אף על פי שנפחתו מכשיעורה אין מסככין בהן

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei: In the case of a mat made of different types of vegetation, e.g., papyrus and reed grass, even though its remnants were reduced from the requisite measure for contracting ritual impurity, one may not roof the sukka with them. This precisely corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Ami.

מחצלת הקנים גדולה מסככין בה קטנה אין מסככין בה רבי אליעזר אומר אף היא מקבלת טומאה ואין מסככין בה

The baraita continues: If a mat of reeds is large and not designated for sleeping, but is suited only for roofing, one may roof the sukka with it. However, the status of a small mat, which can be utilized for sleeping, is that of a vessel, and one may not roof the sukka with it. Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of even a large mat is that of a vessel. It is capable of contracting ritual impurity, and therefore one may not roof his sukka with it.

החוטט בגדיש אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שאין שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה אבל יש שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה הרי זה סוכה

The mishna states: In the case of one who hollows out and creates a space inside a stack of grain, it is not a sukka. Rav Huna said: The Sages taught that it is not a sukka only in a case where there is not a space one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths upon which the grain was piled. However, if there is a space measuring one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths upon which the grain was piled, and now, by hollowing out the stack, one is raising the existing walls and not forming a new space, it is a fit sukka.

תניא נמי הכי החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה הרי זה סוכה והאנן תנן אינה סוכה אלא לאו שמע מינה כדרב הונא שמע מינה

That is also taught in a baraita: One who hollows out a stack of grain to make himself a sukka, it is a sukka. The Gemara wonders: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that it is not a sukka? Rather, is it not correct to conclude from it, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, that in certain circumstances it is possible to hollow out a stack of grain and establish a fit sukka? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

איכא דרמי ליה מירמא תנן החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה אינה סוכה והא תניא הרי זו סוכה אמר רב הונא לא קשיא כאן בשיש שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה כאן בשאין שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה

Some raised this matter as a contradiction between the mishna and the baraita. We learned in the mishna: One who hollows out a stack of grain in order to make himself a sukka, it is not a sukka. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that this is a sukka? Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. Here, where it is a sukka, it is a case where there is a space measuring one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths, while there, where it is not a sukka, it is a case where there is not a space one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths.

מתני׳ המשלשל דפנות מלמעלה למטה אם גבוה מן הארץ שלשה טפחים פסולה מלמטה למעלה אם גבוה עשרה טפחים כשרה רבי יוסי אומר כשם שמלמטה למעלה עשרה טפחים כך מלמעלה למטה עשרה טפחים

MISHNA: One who lowers the walls of the sukka from up downward, if the lower edge of the wall is three handbreadths above the ground, the sukka is unfit. Since animals can enter through that space, it is not the wall of a fit sukka. However, if one constructs the wall from down upward, if the wall is ten handbreadths high, even if it does not reach the roofing, the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yosei says: Just as a wall built from down upward must be ten handbreadths, so too, in a case where one lowers the wall from up downward, it must be ten handbreadths in length. Regardless of its height off the ground, it is the wall of a fit sukka, as the legal status of a ten-handbreadth partition is that of a full-fledged partition in all areas of halakha.

גמ׳ במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר מחיצה תלויה מתרת ומר סבר מחיצה תלויה אינה מתרת

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that a suspended partition, even if it does not reach all the way down, renders it permitted to carry on Shabbat, like a full-fledged partition. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a suspended partition does not render it permitted to carry on Shabbat.

תנן התם בור שבין שתי חצירות אין ממלאין ממנה בשבת אלא אם כן עשה לה מחיצה עשרה טפחים בין מלמעלה בין מלמטה בין בתוך אוגנו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Eiruvin: In the case of a cistern that is located between two courtyards, situated partly in each courtyard, one may draw water from it on Shabbat only if a partition ten handbreadths high was erected specifically for the cistern to separate the water between the domains, lest the residents of one courtyard draw water from the domain of the other courtyard. This partition is effective whether it is above, and lowered toward the water; whether it is below, in the water; or whether it is within the airspace of the cistern below the rim, above the surface of the water. A partition situated in any of these places forms a boundary between the two courtyards, permitting one to draw water from the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that this is the subject of an early dispute of tanna’im.

בית שמאי אומרים מלמעלה ובית הלל אומרים מלמטה אמר רבי יהודה לא תהא מחיצה גדולה מן הכותל שביניהן

Beit Shammai say: The partition that permits drawing water may be placed below; and Beit Hillel said it must be placed above. Rabbi Yehuda said: A partition for the cistern should be no more stringent than the wall serving as a partition between the two courtyards. Once there is a wall between courtyards, there is no need to erect an additional partition specifically for the cistern.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן רבי יהודה בשיטת רבי יוסי אמרה דאמר מחיצה תלויה מתרת

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that a suspended partition permits one to carry, and therefore the wall between the courtyards suffices to divide the cistern as well.

ולא היא לא רבי יהודה סבר לה כרבי יוסי ולא רבי יוסי סבר לה כרבי יהודה

The Gemara rejects this equation. And that is not so, as neither does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, nor does Rabbi Yosei hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

לא רבי יהודה סבר לה כרבי יוסי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה התם אלא בעירובי חצירות דרבנן אבל הכא סוכה דאורייתא לא

The Gemara elaborates: Neither does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion that a suspended partition suffices only there, with regard to the joining of the courtyards, which is an obligation by rabbinic law. However, here, with regard to sukka, which is by Torah law, a suspended partition does not suffice.

ולא רבי יוסי סבר לה כרבי יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי הכא אלא בסוכה דמצות עשה אבל שבת דאיסור סקילה לא

Nor does Rabbi Yosei hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yosei states his opinion that a suspended partition suffices only here, with regard to a sukka, which is a positive mitzva. However, in the case of carrying between courtyards on Shabbat, which is a prohibition that is punishable by stoning, no, a suspended partition does not suffice.

ואם תאמר מעשה שנעשה בציפורי על פי מי נעשה לא על פי רבי יוסי אלא על פי רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי

The Gemara asks: And if you say: Since Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the laws of Shabbat, according to whose opinion was the action that was taken in Tzippori performed, where they relied on suspended partitions even on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: It was not performed according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei but rather on the authority of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.

ומאי מעשה דכי אתא רב דימי אמר פעם אחת שכחו ולא הביאו ספר תורה מערב שבת למחר פירסו סדינין על גבי העמודים והביאו ספר תורה וקראו בו

And what was that incident? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: One time they forgot and did not bring a Torah scroll to the synagogue on Shabbat eve prior to the onset of Shabbat. The next day, on Shabbat, to avoid violating the prohibition against carrying, they spread and suspended sheets on posts that were fixed along the path from the house in which the Torah scroll was stored to the synagogue, establishing partitions. And they brought a Torah scroll along that path and read from it.

פירסו סלקא דעתך מהיכן הביאום בשבת אלא מצאו סדינין פרוסין על גבי העמודים והביאו ספר תורה וקראו בו

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that they spread the sheets on Shabbat? Carrying before the partitions were established was prohibited. From where did they bring these sheets on Shabbat? Rather, they found sheets already spread on the posts, and they brought a Torah scroll and read from it. They relied on a suspended partition even in this matter related to Torah law. They relied neither on the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor on the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; rather, they relied on the authority of a third tanna.

אמר רב חסדא אמר אבימי מחצלת ארבעה ומשהו מתרת בסוכה משום דופן היכי עביד תלי ליה באמצע פחות משלשה למטה ופחות משלשה למעלה וכל פחות משלשה כלבוד דמי

§ Rav Ḥisda said that Avimi said: A mat that is four handbreadths and a bit wide can permit the use of a sukka as a wall. The Gemara explains: How does one accomplish this? He suspends it in the middle of a space ten handbreadths high, with less than three handbreadths below it and less than three handbreadths above it. And the principle states: The legal status of any objects that have a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is as if they were joined [lavud]. Therefore, a mat four handbreadths and a bit wide can constitute a fit partition of ten handbreadths.

פשיטא מהו דתימא חד לבוד אמרינן תרי לבוד לא אמרינן קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. The principle of joining with regard to a gap of less than three handbreadths is well known. There is no need to teach this halakha. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we state the principle of lavud once with regard to a particular surface but we do not state the principle of lavud twice to consider it joined in different directions, Avimi teaches us that one may implement the principle twice.

מיתיבי מחצלת שבעה ומשהו מתרת בסוכה משום דופן כי תניא ההיא בסוכה גדולה ומאי קא משמע לן דמשלשלין דפנות מלמעלה למטה כרבי יוסי

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Avimi from a baraita: A mat that is seven handbreadths and a bit wide can permit use of a sukka as a wall. Apparently, a mat can serve as the wall of a sukka only when the principle of joined objects is implemented once. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to a large sukka, one considerably higher than ten handbreadths. One suspends the mat from a bit less than three handbreadths from the roofing, and it is considered a fit sukka wall although it is a significant distance off the ground. And what does it teach us? It teaches that one may lower walls from up downward, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

אמר רבי אמי פס ארבעה ומשהו מתיר בסוכה משום דופן ומוקים ליה בפחות משלשה טפחים סמוך דופן וכל פחות משלשה סמוך לדופן כלבוד דמי

Apropos forming a sukka wall based on the principle of lavud, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ami said: A board that measures four handbreadths and a bit can permit the use of a sukka, serving as a wall, and it is effective if one establishes it less than three handbreadths from the adjacent wall. And the principle states: The legal status of any objects with a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is as if they were joined.

מאי קא משמע לן הא קא משמע לן שיעור משך סוכה קטנה שבעה

The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The principle of lavud is well known. The Gemara answers: He comes to teach us that the minimum measure of the horizontal extension of the wall of a small sukka is seven handbreadths. Therefore, it is possible to establish a wall for the sukka using a board that measures four handbreadths and a bit.

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....
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 16: Mind the Gap!

Looking for the stages that clarify the previous mishnah. A bed can, of course, be rendered impure and then be...
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....

Sukkah 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 16

מטה מטמאת חבילה ומטהרת חבילה דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים מטמאת אברים ומטהרת אברים מאי ניהו אמר רבי חנן אמר רבי ארוכה ושתי כרעים קצרה ושתי כרעים

A bed becomes ritually impure as a complete entity if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. And it becomes ritually pure as a single entity through immersion, and in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse, through sprinkling and immersion. However, it may be neither impurified nor purified when dismantled. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis say: It becomes ritually impure even when it is dismantled into its component parts, and, so too, it becomes ritually pure even when it is dismantled into its component parts. The Gemara asks: If the bed breaks into parts that serve no purpose, it is pure; what are these component parts mentioned by the Rabbis? Rabbi Ḥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The component parts are a long board and two legs attached to it and a short board and two legs attached to it.

למאי חזיא למסמכינהו אגודא ולמיתב עלייהו ומשדא אשלי

The Gemara asks: And for what purpose are these parts suited; what function qualifies their status as vessels? The Gemara answers: It is possible for one to lean them against the wall and to sit on them, after placing boards across the top and placing ropes across their length and width. The boards of the bed can thereby be used for the purpose of sitting or lying upon them; consequently, they are considered vessels.

גופא אמר רבי אמי בר טביומי סככה בבלאי כלים פסולה מאי בלאי כלים אמר אביי מטלניות שאין בהם שלש על שלש דלא חזיין לא לעניים ולא לעשירים

§ The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself cited above. Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei said: If one roofed the sukka with worn, incomplete, vessels, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: What are these worn vessels? Abaye said: They are small cloths that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, which, due to their size, are not suited for use either by the poor or by the wealthy.

תניא כוותיה דרבי אמי בר טביומי מחצלת של שיפא ושל גמי שיריה אף על פי שנפחתו מכשיעורה אין מסככין בהן

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei: In the case of a mat made of different types of vegetation, e.g., papyrus and reed grass, even though its remnants were reduced from the requisite measure for contracting ritual impurity, one may not roof the sukka with them. This precisely corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Ami.

מחצלת הקנים גדולה מסככין בה קטנה אין מסככין בה רבי אליעזר אומר אף היא מקבלת טומאה ואין מסככין בה

The baraita continues: If a mat of reeds is large and not designated for sleeping, but is suited only for roofing, one may roof the sukka with it. However, the status of a small mat, which can be utilized for sleeping, is that of a vessel, and one may not roof the sukka with it. Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of even a large mat is that of a vessel. It is capable of contracting ritual impurity, and therefore one may not roof his sukka with it.

החוטט בגדיש אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שאין שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה אבל יש שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה הרי זה סוכה

The mishna states: In the case of one who hollows out and creates a space inside a stack of grain, it is not a sukka. Rav Huna said: The Sages taught that it is not a sukka only in a case where there is not a space one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths upon which the grain was piled. However, if there is a space measuring one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths upon which the grain was piled, and now, by hollowing out the stack, one is raising the existing walls and not forming a new space, it is a fit sukka.

תניא נמי הכי החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה הרי זה סוכה והאנן תנן אינה סוכה אלא לאו שמע מינה כדרב הונא שמע מינה

That is also taught in a baraita: One who hollows out a stack of grain to make himself a sukka, it is a sukka. The Gemara wonders: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that it is not a sukka? Rather, is it not correct to conclude from it, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, that in certain circumstances it is possible to hollow out a stack of grain and establish a fit sukka? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

איכא דרמי ליה מירמא תנן החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה אינה סוכה והא תניא הרי זו סוכה אמר רב הונא לא קשיא כאן בשיש שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה כאן בשאין שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה

Some raised this matter as a contradiction between the mishna and the baraita. We learned in the mishna: One who hollows out a stack of grain in order to make himself a sukka, it is not a sukka. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that this is a sukka? Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. Here, where it is a sukka, it is a case where there is a space measuring one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths, while there, where it is not a sukka, it is a case where there is not a space one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths.

מתני׳ המשלשל דפנות מלמעלה למטה אם גבוה מן הארץ שלשה טפחים פסולה מלמטה למעלה אם גבוה עשרה טפחים כשרה רבי יוסי אומר כשם שמלמטה למעלה עשרה טפחים כך מלמעלה למטה עשרה טפחים

MISHNA: One who lowers the walls of the sukka from up downward, if the lower edge of the wall is three handbreadths above the ground, the sukka is unfit. Since animals can enter through that space, it is not the wall of a fit sukka. However, if one constructs the wall from down upward, if the wall is ten handbreadths high, even if it does not reach the roofing, the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yosei says: Just as a wall built from down upward must be ten handbreadths, so too, in a case where one lowers the wall from up downward, it must be ten handbreadths in length. Regardless of its height off the ground, it is the wall of a fit sukka, as the legal status of a ten-handbreadth partition is that of a full-fledged partition in all areas of halakha.

גמ׳ במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר מחיצה תלויה מתרת ומר סבר מחיצה תלויה אינה מתרת

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that a suspended partition, even if it does not reach all the way down, renders it permitted to carry on Shabbat, like a full-fledged partition. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a suspended partition does not render it permitted to carry on Shabbat.

תנן התם בור שבין שתי חצירות אין ממלאין ממנה בשבת אלא אם כן עשה לה מחיצה עשרה טפחים בין מלמעלה בין מלמטה בין בתוך אוגנו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Eiruvin: In the case of a cistern that is located between two courtyards, situated partly in each courtyard, one may draw water from it on Shabbat only if a partition ten handbreadths high was erected specifically for the cistern to separate the water between the domains, lest the residents of one courtyard draw water from the domain of the other courtyard. This partition is effective whether it is above, and lowered toward the water; whether it is below, in the water; or whether it is within the airspace of the cistern below the rim, above the surface of the water. A partition situated in any of these places forms a boundary between the two courtyards, permitting one to draw water from the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that this is the subject of an early dispute of tanna’im.

בית שמאי אומרים מלמעלה ובית הלל אומרים מלמטה אמר רבי יהודה לא תהא מחיצה גדולה מן הכותל שביניהן

Beit Shammai say: The partition that permits drawing water may be placed below; and Beit Hillel said it must be placed above. Rabbi Yehuda said: A partition for the cistern should be no more stringent than the wall serving as a partition between the two courtyards. Once there is a wall between courtyards, there is no need to erect an additional partition specifically for the cistern.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן רבי יהודה בשיטת רבי יוסי אמרה דאמר מחיצה תלויה מתרת

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that a suspended partition permits one to carry, and therefore the wall between the courtyards suffices to divide the cistern as well.

ולא היא לא רבי יהודה סבר לה כרבי יוסי ולא רבי יוסי סבר לה כרבי יהודה

The Gemara rejects this equation. And that is not so, as neither does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, nor does Rabbi Yosei hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

לא רבי יהודה סבר לה כרבי יוסי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה התם אלא בעירובי חצירות דרבנן אבל הכא סוכה דאורייתא לא

The Gemara elaborates: Neither does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion that a suspended partition suffices only there, with regard to the joining of the courtyards, which is an obligation by rabbinic law. However, here, with regard to sukka, which is by Torah law, a suspended partition does not suffice.

ולא רבי יוסי סבר לה כרבי יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי הכא אלא בסוכה דמצות עשה אבל שבת דאיסור סקילה לא

Nor does Rabbi Yosei hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yosei states his opinion that a suspended partition suffices only here, with regard to a sukka, which is a positive mitzva. However, in the case of carrying between courtyards on Shabbat, which is a prohibition that is punishable by stoning, no, a suspended partition does not suffice.

ואם תאמר מעשה שנעשה בציפורי על פי מי נעשה לא על פי רבי יוסי אלא על פי רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי

The Gemara asks: And if you say: Since Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the laws of Shabbat, according to whose opinion was the action that was taken in Tzippori performed, where they relied on suspended partitions even on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: It was not performed according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei but rather on the authority of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.

ומאי מעשה דכי אתא רב דימי אמר פעם אחת שכחו ולא הביאו ספר תורה מערב שבת למחר פירסו סדינין על גבי העמודים והביאו ספר תורה וקראו בו

And what was that incident? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: One time they forgot and did not bring a Torah scroll to the synagogue on Shabbat eve prior to the onset of Shabbat. The next day, on Shabbat, to avoid violating the prohibition against carrying, they spread and suspended sheets on posts that were fixed along the path from the house in which the Torah scroll was stored to the synagogue, establishing partitions. And they brought a Torah scroll along that path and read from it.

פירסו סלקא דעתך מהיכן הביאום בשבת אלא מצאו סדינין פרוסין על גבי העמודים והביאו ספר תורה וקראו בו

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that they spread the sheets on Shabbat? Carrying before the partitions were established was prohibited. From where did they bring these sheets on Shabbat? Rather, they found sheets already spread on the posts, and they brought a Torah scroll and read from it. They relied on a suspended partition even in this matter related to Torah law. They relied neither on the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor on the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; rather, they relied on the authority of a third tanna.

אמר רב חסדא אמר אבימי מחצלת ארבעה ומשהו מתרת בסוכה משום דופן היכי עביד תלי ליה באמצע פחות משלשה למטה ופחות משלשה למעלה וכל פחות משלשה כלבוד דמי

§ Rav Ḥisda said that Avimi said: A mat that is four handbreadths and a bit wide can permit the use of a sukka as a wall. The Gemara explains: How does one accomplish this? He suspends it in the middle of a space ten handbreadths high, with less than three handbreadths below it and less than three handbreadths above it. And the principle states: The legal status of any objects that have a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is as if they were joined [lavud]. Therefore, a mat four handbreadths and a bit wide can constitute a fit partition of ten handbreadths.

פשיטא מהו דתימא חד לבוד אמרינן תרי לבוד לא אמרינן קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. The principle of joining with regard to a gap of less than three handbreadths is well known. There is no need to teach this halakha. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we state the principle of lavud once with regard to a particular surface but we do not state the principle of lavud twice to consider it joined in different directions, Avimi teaches us that one may implement the principle twice.

מיתיבי מחצלת שבעה ומשהו מתרת בסוכה משום דופן כי תניא ההיא בסוכה גדולה ומאי קא משמע לן דמשלשלין דפנות מלמעלה למטה כרבי יוסי

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Avimi from a baraita: A mat that is seven handbreadths and a bit wide can permit use of a sukka as a wall. Apparently, a mat can serve as the wall of a sukka only when the principle of joined objects is implemented once. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to a large sukka, one considerably higher than ten handbreadths. One suspends the mat from a bit less than three handbreadths from the roofing, and it is considered a fit sukka wall although it is a significant distance off the ground. And what does it teach us? It teaches that one may lower walls from up downward, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

אמר רבי אמי פס ארבעה ומשהו מתיר בסוכה משום דופן ומוקים ליה בפחות משלשה טפחים סמוך דופן וכל פחות משלשה סמוך לדופן כלבוד דמי

Apropos forming a sukka wall based on the principle of lavud, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ami said: A board that measures four handbreadths and a bit can permit the use of a sukka, serving as a wall, and it is effective if one establishes it less than three handbreadths from the adjacent wall. And the principle states: The legal status of any objects with a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is as if they were joined.

מאי קא משמע לן הא קא משמע לן שיעור משך סוכה קטנה שבעה

The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The principle of lavud is well known. The Gemara answers: He comes to teach us that the minimum measure of the horizontal extension of the wall of a small sukka is seven handbreadths. Therefore, it is possible to establish a wall for the sukka using a board that measures four handbreadths and a bit.

Scroll To Top