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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 23, 2021 | 讬状讚 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 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?

诪讟讛 诪讟诪讗转 讞讘讬诇讛 讜诪讟讛专转 讞讘讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗转 讗讘专讬诐 讜诪讟讛专转 讗讘专讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗专讜讻讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐 拽爪专讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐

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 岣nan 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.

诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 诇诪住诪讻讬谞讛讜 讗讙讜讚讗 讜诇诪讬转讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜诪砖讚讗 讗砖诇讬

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.

讙讜驻讗 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 诪讗讬 讘诇讗讬 讻诇讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诇注砖讬专讬诐

搂 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪讞爪诇转 砖诇 砖讬驻讗 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 砖讬专讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞驻讞转讜 诪讻砖讬注讜专讛 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉

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.

诪讞爪诇转 讛拽谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讛 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讬讗 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛

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.

讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讘诪砖讱 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讘诪砖讱 砖讘注讛 讛专讬 讝讛 住讜讻讛

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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 住讜讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 住讜讻讛 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 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 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讜 住讜讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讬砖 砖诐 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讘诪砖讱 砖讘注讛 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讘诪砖讱 砖讘注讛

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖诇砖诇 讚驻谞讜转 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讗诐 讙讘讜讛 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻砖专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讱 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪转专转

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讜专 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讛 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 讘讬谉 讘转讜讱 讗讜讙谞讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专

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鈥檌m.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 转讛讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谞讬讛谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗

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.

讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讘住讜讻讛 讚诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讗讘诇 砖讘转 讚讗讬住讜专 住拽讬诇讛 诇讗

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.

讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪注砖讛 砖谞注砖讛 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 注诇 驻讬 诪讬 谞注砖讛 诇讗 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬

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.

讜诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讞专 驻讬专住讜 住讚讬谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜拽专讗讜 讘讜

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.

驻讬专住讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讛讬讻谉 讛讘讬讗讜诐 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 诪爪讗讜 住讚讬谞讬谉 驻专讜住讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜拽专讗讜 讘讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讞爪诇转 讗专讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诪转专转 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讜驻谉 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 转诇讬 诇讬讛 讘讗诪爪注 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诇诪讟讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬

Rav 岣sda 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讚 诇讘讜讚 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 诇讘讜讚 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讞爪诇转 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诪转专转 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讜驻谉 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪砖诇砖诇讬谉 讚驻谞讜转 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 驻住 讗专讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诪转讬专 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讜驻谉 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 住诪讜讱 讚讜驻谉 讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讬注讜专 诪砖讱 住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讘注讛

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).
  • 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....
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

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....

Sukkah 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 16

诪讟讛 诪讟诪讗转 讞讘讬诇讛 讜诪讟讛专转 讞讘讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗转 讗讘专讬诐 讜诪讟讛专转 讗讘专讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗专讜讻讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐 拽爪专讛 讜砖转讬 讻专注讬诐

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 岣nan 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.

诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 诇诪住诪讻讬谞讛讜 讗讙讜讚讗 讜诇诪讬转讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜诪砖讚讗 讗砖诇讬

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.

讙讜驻讗 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 诪讗讬 讘诇讗讬 讻诇讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诇注砖讬专讬诐

搂 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪讞爪诇转 砖诇 砖讬驻讗 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 砖讬专讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞驻讞转讜 诪讻砖讬注讜专讛 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉

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.

诪讞爪诇转 讛拽谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讛 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讬讗 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛

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.

讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讘诪砖讱 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讘诪砖讱 砖讘注讛 讛专讬 讝讛 住讜讻讛

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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讞讜讟讟 讘讙讚讬砖 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 住讜讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 住讜讻讛 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讬谞讛 住讜讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 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 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讜 住讜讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讬砖 砖诐 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讘诪砖讱 砖讘注讛 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讘诪砖讱 砖讘注讛

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖诇砖诇 讚驻谞讜转 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讗诐 讙讘讜讛 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻砖专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讱 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪转专转

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讜专 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讛 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 讘讬谉 讘转讜讱 讗讜讙谞讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专

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鈥檌m.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 转讛讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谞讬讛谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗

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.

讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讘住讜讻讛 讚诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讗讘诇 砖讘转 讚讗讬住讜专 住拽讬诇讛 诇讗

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.

讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪注砖讛 砖谞注砖讛 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 注诇 驻讬 诪讬 谞注砖讛 诇讗 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬

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.

讜诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讞专 驻讬专住讜 住讚讬谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜拽专讗讜 讘讜

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.

驻讬专住讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讛讬讻谉 讛讘讬讗讜诐 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 诪爪讗讜 住讚讬谞讬谉 驻专讜住讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜拽专讗讜 讘讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讞爪诇转 讗专讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诪转专转 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讜驻谉 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 转诇讬 诇讬讛 讘讗诪爪注 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诇诪讟讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬

Rav 岣sda 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讚 诇讘讜讚 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 诇讘讜讚 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讞爪诇转 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诪转专转 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讜驻谉 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪砖诇砖诇讬谉 讚驻谞讜转 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 驻住 讗专讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诪转讬专 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讜驻谉 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 住诪讜讱 讚讜驻谉 讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讬注讜专 诪砖讱 住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讘注讛

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