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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 26, 2021 | 讬状讝 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 19

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) NYC is loving memory of her father, David Aschheim, David Moshe ben Meir, whose 41st yahrzeit is today. “Daddy, you were taken from us too early in life. I miss you. You laid the foundations for who I am today. You would be so proud of me and Robert, and our children and grandchildren. And by Cliff Felig in honor of Minna Ferziger Felig on her birthday.

The gemara raises a question from our mishna against Abaye who held that the sukkah in the courtyard outside the portico would work as a sukkah even without walls. Rava provides an answer for Abaye. A different version of the debate between Abaye and Rava is brought but it is rejected. Rav Kahane had a sukkah in a portico and when Rav Ashi questioned him about it, he explained on what basis he permitted it. A braita is brought that said “s’chach that comes out of the sukkah is treated as a sukkah.” Four different explanations of this are brought. The mishna discusses sukkot that do not have a flat roof but an angled one. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the rabbis but there are different versions about who said what. A mat of reeds is permited as s’chach if it was built for s’chach but if it was built for sitting on, then it is not as it is susceptible to impurity. Does it depend though on whether it was a small mat or a large mat? And what if it was not designated for any particular use?

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 讗讘讬讬 讻专讘 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讗讻住讚专讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讜 诇讛讻讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇讗

When they disagree is according to the opinion of Rav. Abaye holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The edge of the roof descends and seals both in the portico in the field and in the portico that one roofed as a sukka. And Rava could have said to you: Rav stated his opinion only there, with regard to a portico in the field, because the partitions formed by the descent of the edge of the roof are partitions established for the portico. However, here, in the case of a sukka, where the partitions formed by the descent of the edge of the roof are not partitions established for the portico, no, Rav would not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

转谞谉 讜讻谉 讞爪专 讛诪讜拽驻转 讗讻住讚专讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara cites another proof. We learned in the mishna: With regard to a courtyard that is surrounded on three sides by a portico, if there are four cubits beneath the unfit roofing, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: And why is the sukka unfit? Let us say that the edge of the roof descends and seals, forming a fit partition at the point where the roofing of the sukka begins?

转专讙诪讛 专讘讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讻砖讛砖讜讛 讗转 拽讬专讜讬讜

Rava interpreted the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: It is a case where one equalized the level of its roofing, i.e., the roofing of the sukka with the level of the roof of the portico. Since the edge of the roof of the portico is not visible inside the sukka, the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, does not apply.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讬 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讻住讚专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗

In Sura, they would teach this halakha in that language cited above. In Pumbedita they would teach it differently: If one roofed a portico that does not have posts on its open side, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. In the case of a portico that has posts less than three handbreadths apart on its open side, Abaye said: The sukka is fit, and Rava said: The sukka is unfit. Abaye said: The sukka is fit, as we say that the principle of lavud applies here; the posts are joined and form a partition for both the portico and the sukka in the courtyard outside the portico. Rava said: The sukka is unfit, as we do not say that the principle of lavud forms a partition for the sukka. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is ruled in accordance with the first version.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讻住讚专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讬砖 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讻砖专讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讛 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 谞专讗讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜讛 诪讘讞讜抓

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi found Rav Kahana, who was placing roofing for a sukka atop a portico that did not have posts. He said to him: Doesn鈥檛 the Master hold in accordance with that which Rava said: If it has posts, the sukka is fit; if it does not have posts it is unfit? How can you use this as a sukka? Rav Kahana showed him that in this sukka the disparity between the sukka and the portico was visible from the inside and even from the outside. From outside, the portico and the sukka appeared to be one continuous structure. However, from inside, one of the walls of the portico was visibly thicker than the wall of the sukka, and that one handbreadth thickness serves as the third wall of the sukka.

讗讬 谞诪讬 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

Alternatively, in this case that disparity was visible from the outside and even from the inside. The exterior walls of the portico and of the sukka were not even. From the outside, it was plainly discernible that they were two separate structures. However, from the inside the sukka appeared to be a direct extension of the portico with no post protruding. In both cases, the protruding segment serves as the third wall of the sukka, which measures one handbreadth, and the sukka is fit.

讚讗转诪专 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜诇讞讬 讛讬讬谞讜 驻爪讬诪讬谉

This distinction is as it was stated in the context of merging courtyards that open into an alleyway that is open on one side to allow carrying there on Shabbat, one must establish a side post on one side of its opening: Any object that protrudes and is visible from outside the alleyway but is even with the wall on the inside of the alleyway has legal status of a side post, since it can be discerned from the outside. And the provisions that apply to a side post in the case of merging of alleyways are the same as those that apply to posts in the case of sukka. Rav Kahana鈥檚 sukka was essentially a portico with a post, and was fit for use as a sukka.

转谞讗 驻住诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讻住讜讻讛 诪讗讬 驻住诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 拽谞讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 诇讗讞讜专讬 住讜讻讛

It was taught in the Tosefta: Fit roofing that consists of different kinds of agricultural waste products that extend from thesukka has the legal status like that of the sukka. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Waste products that extend from the sukka? Ulla said: Branches that extend behind the sukka and are not limited to the area within the sukka walls.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖 讚驻谞讜转 讘讚讗讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讘讚讗讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 爪诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛 讘讚讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require three walls to render an area covered with roofing a fit sukka? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there are three walls. The two side walls of the sukka do not end at the middle wall between them; rather, they too extend behind the sukka, forming a second sukka. The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require seven by seven handbreadths as the minimum area for fitness of a sukka? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there is the requisite minimum area. The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require that its shade exceeds its sunlight? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there is more shade than sunlight.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讙讜讜讗讬 注讘讬讚讬 讜诇讘专讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

After noting that the sukka has three walls, the requisite area, and sufficient shade, the Gemara asks: If so, what purpose is there to state this halakha? The fact that this sukka extends from another is not relevant. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say that since, as evidenced by the placement of the connecting middle wall, these walls were initially established for inside the original sukka but not for outside the original sukka; and therefore you say no, the middle wall cannot be considered a wall for the additional sukka, Ulla teaches us that the initial intention is not relevant.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘拽谞讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讜诪砖讻讗 讜讗讝诇讗 讞讚讗 讚讜驻谉 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讛 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say with regard to the case in the Tosefta: Here, it is referring to a case with branches that extend before the front entrance of the sukka, and one of the side walls extends together with the roofing. Lest you say that this extension does not have the minimum requisite size for the fitness of a sukka, in terms of its area and number of walls, therefore, Ulla teaches us that it is fit because it is considered an extension of the sukka.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇住讜讻讛 砖专讜讘讛 爪诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛 讜诪注讜讟讛 讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 转驻住诇 讘讛讱 驻讜专转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜诪讗讬 讬讜爪讗 讬讜爪讗 诪讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Tosefta was needed only to teach the case of a sukka where in its majority its shade exceeds its sunlight, and in its minority its sunlight exceeds its shade. Lest you say that since the extension lacks this basic requirement of a sukka, it is treated as if it were not there at all, and consequently the entire sukka should be rendered unfit due to that little area, therefore, Ulla teaches us that the entire area is one fit sukka. The Gemara asks: According to that understanding of the Tosefta, what is the meaning of: Waste that extends from the sukka? It means that the roofing extends beyond the halakhic parameters for fitness of a sukka. It does not refer to a physical extension of the sukka.

专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 讜诪讗讬 讬讜爪讗 讬讜爪讗 诪转讜专转 住讜讻讛

Rabbi Oshaya said: This Tosefta was needed only to teach the case of unfit roofing that measures less than three handbreadths in a small sukka. And what is the meaning of: Waste that extends from the sukka? It means that the roofing extends beyond the halakhic status of a fit sukka; it is not referring to a physical extension of the sukka. Nevertheless, it does not render the entire sukka unfit.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讬专 讜讗讜讬专 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讬 驻住讬诇

Rav Hoshaya strongly objects to this: What is the novel element in this Tosefta? Let the status of unfit roofing be only as strict as the status of empty space. And does space measuring less than three handbreadths in a small sukka render the entire sukka unfit? If less than three handbreadths of space, which has a stringent measure for rendering the sukka unfit, does not render the sukka unfit, clearly the same measure of unfit roofing does not render the sukka unfit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讝讛 诪爪讟专祝 讜讬砖谞讬诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讝讛 诪爪讟专祝 讜讗讬谉 讬砖谞讬诐 转讞转讬讜

Rabbi Abba said to him: There is a distinction between unfit roofing and empty space. This unfit roofing combines with the fit roofing to compose the requisite measure. And one may even sleep beneath it, since the unfit roofing is nullified by the majority of fit roofing and completely incorporated into it. However, that space, although it too combines with the fit roofing to comprise the requisite measure of the sukka, one may not sleep beneath it, as it is not transformed into fit roofing. Therefore, there is a novel element in the explanation of Rabbi Hoshaya as well.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗爪讟专讜驻讬 诪爪讟专祝 讜讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇讬砖讘 讗讬谉

The Gemara questions this contention. Is there any item that combines with other items to engender fitness, but the item itself is not fit? Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elyashiv said: Yes, that model exists in other areas of halakha as well.

讟讬讟 讛谞专讜拽 讬讜讻讬讞 砖诪爪讟专祝 诇讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讛讟讜讘诇 讘讜 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛

The case of mortar that is liquid and can be poured proves that there are situations where items that themselves are unfit render other items fit, as, on the one hand, it combines with water to complete the requisite measure of forty se鈥檃 to render a ritual bath fit to purify. But, on the other hand, one who immerses in a bath filled only with mortar, the immersion does not fulfill his obligation.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讻诪讬谉 爪专讬祝 讗讜 砖住诪讻讛 诇讻讜转诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讙讙 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

MISHNA: One who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut, with no roof whose walls slope down from the center or who rested the sukka against the wall, by taking long branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall to establish a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit; as, in their opinion, the roof and the walls may be a single entity, indistinguishable from each other.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讗诐 讛讙讘讬讛讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讟驻讞 讗讜 砖讛驻诇讬讙讛 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讟驻讞 砖讛讬讗 讻砖专讛

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one lifted one of these types of sukkot off the ground at least one handbreadth, thereby creating a vertical wall, or if one distanced the sukka resting against the wall one handbreadth from the wall, the sukka is fit. In these cases, the difference between the wall and the roof is conspicuous.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 砖讬驻讜注讬 讗讛诇讬诐 讻讗讛诇讬诐 讚诪讜

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem a sukka fit even where it is an inclined roof rather than a flat one? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, the legal status of the incline of a tent is like that of a tent. As long as it provides shelter, there is no need for a distinct, conspicuous roof for it to be a fit sukka.

讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讚拽讗 讙谞讬 讘讻讬诇转 讞转谞讬诐 讘住讜讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讘拽转 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚转 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

It is related: Abaye found Rav Yosef, his teacher, who was sleeping inside a netted bridal canopy, whose netting inclines down, inside a sukka. Ostensibly, Rav Yosef did not fulfill his obligation, as he slept in the tent formed by the canopy and not directly in the sukka. Abaye said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you hold, that you do not consider this netting a tent? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that a structure without a distinct roof does not have the legal status of a tent, and therefore the netting does not constitute a barrier between the roofing of the sukka and the person sleeping below? Did you abandon the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the netting constitutes a barrier because the legal status of a structure without a distinct roof is that of a tent, and act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? In disputes between an individual Sage and multiple Sages, the halakha is in accordance with the multiple Sages, i.e., the Rabbis.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 砖讘拽转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜注讘讚转 讻讘专讬讬转讗

Rav Yosef said to him: In the baraita, the opposite is taught. Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit. Abaye asked him: Did you abandon the mishna, whose formulation is authoritative, and act in accordance with a baraita, which may not be accurate?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讬讞讬讚讗讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讻诪讬谉 爪专讬祝 讗讜 砖住诪讻讛 诇讻讜转诇 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讙讙 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

Rav Yosef said to him: I have proof that the formulation of this particular baraita is precise, as the formulation of the mishna is an individual version of the dispute, and most of the Sages adopt the version of the baraita, as it is taught in another baraita: One who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut or rests the sukka against the wall, Rabbi Natan says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the structure unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit. Apparently, the mishna reflects only Rabbi Natan鈥檚 version of the argument. According to most of the Sages, the correct formulation of the dispute is that of the baraita: Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit. The halakha in in accordance with the latter version of the dispute, and therefore it is permitted to sleep inside a bridal canopy in a sukka.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讞爪诇转 拽谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛

MISHNA: In the case of a large mat of reeds, if one initially produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity like any other vessel, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. If one initially produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, as its legal status is not that of a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer says that the distinction between mats is based on use, not size. Therefore, with regard to both a small mat and a large mat, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. If one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇住讬讻讜讱

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the mishna and raises a difficulty. This mishna itself is difficult, as it contains an apparent contradiction. On the one hand, you said: If one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason it is unfit for roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. Presumably, a mat produced without designation is for roofing, and therefore one may roof a sukka with it.

讜讛讚专 转谞讬 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇砖讻讬讘讛

And then it is taught in the mishna: If one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. The reason it is fit roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for roofing. This implies that a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. The inferences drawn from these two clauses in the mishna about a mat produced without designation contradict each other.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谞讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the first clause of the mishna, it is referring to a large mat, which is typically not produced for the purpose of lying upon it. Therefore, it is unfit for roofing only if it is produced specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is produced without designation, it is presumably for roofing, and one may roof a sukka with it. There, in the second clause of the mishna, it is referring to a small mat, which is typically not produced for roofing. Therefore, one may roof a sukka with it only if it is produced specifically for roofing. If it is produced without designation, it is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and one may not roof a sukka with it.

(讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽砖讬讗 讚转谞谉) 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇住讬讻讜讱

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to the Rabbis this is not difficult; as the above distinction resolves the apparent contradiction in the mishna. However, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the contradiction remains difficult, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to both a small mat and a large mat, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason it is unfit for roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. This implies that a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for roofing, and therefore one may roof a sukka with it.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇砖讻讬讘讛

And say that in the latter clause of the mishna, where Rabbi Eliezer continues: If one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the reason it is fit roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for roofing. However, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. The inferences drawn from these two clauses in the mishna contradict each other. The resolution cited above cannot resolve the contradiction according to Rabbi Eliezer, as he does not distinguish between a large mat and a small mat.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚住转诪讗 诇住讬讻讜讱 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽讟谞讛 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住转诐 拽讟谞讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 住转诐 拽讟谞讛 谞诪讬 诇住讬讻讜讱

Rather, Rava said: The above resolution is rejected. With regard to a large mat, everyone agrees that if it was produced without designation, presumably it is for roofing. Where they disagree, is with regard to a small mat: The first tanna holds that a small mat produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that a small mat produced without designation is also presumably for roofing.

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 19: Creative Interpretations

When something comes off a sukkah, it's treated like a sukkah - whatever does that mean? The Gemara offers 4...
alon shvut women

About the Sechach

Succah Daf 19 Teachers: Yehudit Epstein & Dena Rock https://youtu.be/trjjb6ufFZs  

Sukkah 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 19

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 讗讘讬讬 讻专讘 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讗讻住讚专讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讜 诇讛讻讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇讗

When they disagree is according to the opinion of Rav. Abaye holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The edge of the roof descends and seals both in the portico in the field and in the portico that one roofed as a sukka. And Rava could have said to you: Rav stated his opinion only there, with regard to a portico in the field, because the partitions formed by the descent of the edge of the roof are partitions established for the portico. However, here, in the case of a sukka, where the partitions formed by the descent of the edge of the roof are not partitions established for the portico, no, Rav would not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

转谞谉 讜讻谉 讞爪专 讛诪讜拽驻转 讗讻住讚专讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara cites another proof. We learned in the mishna: With regard to a courtyard that is surrounded on three sides by a portico, if there are four cubits beneath the unfit roofing, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: And why is the sukka unfit? Let us say that the edge of the roof descends and seals, forming a fit partition at the point where the roofing of the sukka begins?

转专讙诪讛 专讘讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讻砖讛砖讜讛 讗转 拽讬专讜讬讜

Rava interpreted the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: It is a case where one equalized the level of its roofing, i.e., the roofing of the sukka with the level of the roof of the portico. Since the edge of the roof of the portico is not visible inside the sukka, the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, does not apply.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讬 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讻住讚专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗

In Sura, they would teach this halakha in that language cited above. In Pumbedita they would teach it differently: If one roofed a portico that does not have posts on its open side, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. In the case of a portico that has posts less than three handbreadths apart on its open side, Abaye said: The sukka is fit, and Rava said: The sukka is unfit. Abaye said: The sukka is fit, as we say that the principle of lavud applies here; the posts are joined and form a partition for both the portico and the sukka in the courtyard outside the portico. Rava said: The sukka is unfit, as we do not say that the principle of lavud forms a partition for the sukka. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is ruled in accordance with the first version.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讻住讚专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讬砖 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讻砖专讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讛 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 谞专讗讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜讛 诪讘讞讜抓

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi found Rav Kahana, who was placing roofing for a sukka atop a portico that did not have posts. He said to him: Doesn鈥檛 the Master hold in accordance with that which Rava said: If it has posts, the sukka is fit; if it does not have posts it is unfit? How can you use this as a sukka? Rav Kahana showed him that in this sukka the disparity between the sukka and the portico was visible from the inside and even from the outside. From outside, the portico and the sukka appeared to be one continuous structure. However, from inside, one of the walls of the portico was visibly thicker than the wall of the sukka, and that one handbreadth thickness serves as the third wall of the sukka.

讗讬 谞诪讬 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

Alternatively, in this case that disparity was visible from the outside and even from the inside. The exterior walls of the portico and of the sukka were not even. From the outside, it was plainly discernible that they were two separate structures. However, from the inside the sukka appeared to be a direct extension of the portico with no post protruding. In both cases, the protruding segment serves as the third wall of the sukka, which measures one handbreadth, and the sukka is fit.

讚讗转诪专 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜诇讞讬 讛讬讬谞讜 驻爪讬诪讬谉

This distinction is as it was stated in the context of merging courtyards that open into an alleyway that is open on one side to allow carrying there on Shabbat, one must establish a side post on one side of its opening: Any object that protrudes and is visible from outside the alleyway but is even with the wall on the inside of the alleyway has legal status of a side post, since it can be discerned from the outside. And the provisions that apply to a side post in the case of merging of alleyways are the same as those that apply to posts in the case of sukka. Rav Kahana鈥檚 sukka was essentially a portico with a post, and was fit for use as a sukka.

转谞讗 驻住诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讻住讜讻讛 诪讗讬 驻住诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 拽谞讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 诇讗讞讜专讬 住讜讻讛

It was taught in the Tosefta: Fit roofing that consists of different kinds of agricultural waste products that extend from thesukka has the legal status like that of the sukka. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Waste products that extend from the sukka? Ulla said: Branches that extend behind the sukka and are not limited to the area within the sukka walls.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖诇砖 讚驻谞讜转 讘讚讗讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讘讚讗讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 爪诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛 讘讚讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require three walls to render an area covered with roofing a fit sukka? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there are three walls. The two side walls of the sukka do not end at the middle wall between them; rather, they too extend behind the sukka, forming a second sukka. The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require seven by seven handbreadths as the minimum area for fitness of a sukka? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there is the requisite minimum area. The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we require that its shade exceeds its sunlight? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there is more shade than sunlight.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讙讜讜讗讬 注讘讬讚讬 讜诇讘专讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

After noting that the sukka has three walls, the requisite area, and sufficient shade, the Gemara asks: If so, what purpose is there to state this halakha? The fact that this sukka extends from another is not relevant. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say that since, as evidenced by the placement of the connecting middle wall, these walls were initially established for inside the original sukka but not for outside the original sukka; and therefore you say no, the middle wall cannot be considered a wall for the additional sukka, Ulla teaches us that the initial intention is not relevant.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘拽谞讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讜诪砖讻讗 讜讗讝诇讗 讞讚讗 讚讜驻谉 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讛 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say with regard to the case in the Tosefta: Here, it is referring to a case with branches that extend before the front entrance of the sukka, and one of the side walls extends together with the roofing. Lest you say that this extension does not have the minimum requisite size for the fitness of a sukka, in terms of its area and number of walls, therefore, Ulla teaches us that it is fit because it is considered an extension of the sukka.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇住讜讻讛 砖专讜讘讛 爪诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛 讜诪注讜讟讛 讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 转驻住诇 讘讛讱 驻讜专转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜诪讗讬 讬讜爪讗 讬讜爪讗 诪讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Tosefta was needed only to teach the case of a sukka where in its majority its shade exceeds its sunlight, and in its minority its sunlight exceeds its shade. Lest you say that since the extension lacks this basic requirement of a sukka, it is treated as if it were not there at all, and consequently the entire sukka should be rendered unfit due to that little area, therefore, Ulla teaches us that the entire area is one fit sukka. The Gemara asks: According to that understanding of the Tosefta, what is the meaning of: Waste that extends from the sukka? It means that the roofing extends beyond the halakhic parameters for fitness of a sukka. It does not refer to a physical extension of the sukka.

专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 讜诪讗讬 讬讜爪讗 讬讜爪讗 诪转讜专转 住讜讻讛

Rabbi Oshaya said: This Tosefta was needed only to teach the case of unfit roofing that measures less than three handbreadths in a small sukka. And what is the meaning of: Waste that extends from the sukka? It means that the roofing extends beyond the halakhic status of a fit sukka; it is not referring to a physical extension of the sukka. Nevertheless, it does not render the entire sukka unfit.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讬专 讜讗讜讬专 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讬 驻住讬诇

Rav Hoshaya strongly objects to this: What is the novel element in this Tosefta? Let the status of unfit roofing be only as strict as the status of empty space. And does space measuring less than three handbreadths in a small sukka render the entire sukka unfit? If less than three handbreadths of space, which has a stringent measure for rendering the sukka unfit, does not render the sukka unfit, clearly the same measure of unfit roofing does not render the sukka unfit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讝讛 诪爪讟专祝 讜讬砖谞讬诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讝讛 诪爪讟专祝 讜讗讬谉 讬砖谞讬诐 转讞转讬讜

Rabbi Abba said to him: There is a distinction between unfit roofing and empty space. This unfit roofing combines with the fit roofing to compose the requisite measure. And one may even sleep beneath it, since the unfit roofing is nullified by the majority of fit roofing and completely incorporated into it. However, that space, although it too combines with the fit roofing to comprise the requisite measure of the sukka, one may not sleep beneath it, as it is not transformed into fit roofing. Therefore, there is a novel element in the explanation of Rabbi Hoshaya as well.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗爪讟专讜驻讬 诪爪讟专祝 讜讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇讬砖讘 讗讬谉

The Gemara questions this contention. Is there any item that combines with other items to engender fitness, but the item itself is not fit? Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elyashiv said: Yes, that model exists in other areas of halakha as well.

讟讬讟 讛谞专讜拽 讬讜讻讬讞 砖诪爪讟专祝 诇讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讛讟讜讘诇 讘讜 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛

The case of mortar that is liquid and can be poured proves that there are situations where items that themselves are unfit render other items fit, as, on the one hand, it combines with water to complete the requisite measure of forty se鈥檃 to render a ritual bath fit to purify. But, on the other hand, one who immerses in a bath filled only with mortar, the immersion does not fulfill his obligation.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讻诪讬谉 爪专讬祝 讗讜 砖住诪讻讛 诇讻讜转诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讙讙 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

MISHNA: One who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut, with no roof whose walls slope down from the center or who rested the sukka against the wall, by taking long branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall to establish a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit; as, in their opinion, the roof and the walls may be a single entity, indistinguishable from each other.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讗诐 讛讙讘讬讛讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讟驻讞 讗讜 砖讛驻诇讬讙讛 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讟驻讞 砖讛讬讗 讻砖专讛

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one lifted one of these types of sukkot off the ground at least one handbreadth, thereby creating a vertical wall, or if one distanced the sukka resting against the wall one handbreadth from the wall, the sukka is fit. In these cases, the difference between the wall and the roof is conspicuous.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 砖讬驻讜注讬 讗讛诇讬诐 讻讗讛诇讬诐 讚诪讜

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem a sukka fit even where it is an inclined roof rather than a flat one? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, the legal status of the incline of a tent is like that of a tent. As long as it provides shelter, there is no need for a distinct, conspicuous roof for it to be a fit sukka.

讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讚拽讗 讙谞讬 讘讻讬诇转 讞转谞讬诐 讘住讜讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讘拽转 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚转 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

It is related: Abaye found Rav Yosef, his teacher, who was sleeping inside a netted bridal canopy, whose netting inclines down, inside a sukka. Ostensibly, Rav Yosef did not fulfill his obligation, as he slept in the tent formed by the canopy and not directly in the sukka. Abaye said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you hold, that you do not consider this netting a tent? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that a structure without a distinct roof does not have the legal status of a tent, and therefore the netting does not constitute a barrier between the roofing of the sukka and the person sleeping below? Did you abandon the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the netting constitutes a barrier because the legal status of a structure without a distinct roof is that of a tent, and act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? In disputes between an individual Sage and multiple Sages, the halakha is in accordance with the multiple Sages, i.e., the Rabbis.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 砖讘拽转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜注讘讚转 讻讘专讬讬转讗

Rav Yosef said to him: In the baraita, the opposite is taught. Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit. Abaye asked him: Did you abandon the mishna, whose formulation is authoritative, and act in accordance with a baraita, which may not be accurate?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讬讞讬讚讗讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讻诪讬谉 爪专讬祝 讗讜 砖住诪讻讛 诇讻讜转诇 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讙讙 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

Rav Yosef said to him: I have proof that the formulation of this particular baraita is precise, as the formulation of the mishna is an individual version of the dispute, and most of the Sages adopt the version of the baraita, as it is taught in another baraita: One who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut or rests the sukka against the wall, Rabbi Natan says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the structure unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit. Apparently, the mishna reflects only Rabbi Natan鈥檚 version of the argument. According to most of the Sages, the correct formulation of the dispute is that of the baraita: Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit. The halakha in in accordance with the latter version of the dispute, and therefore it is permitted to sleep inside a bridal canopy in a sukka.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讞爪诇转 拽谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛

MISHNA: In the case of a large mat of reeds, if one initially produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity like any other vessel, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. If one initially produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, as its legal status is not that of a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer says that the distinction between mats is based on use, not size. Therefore, with regard to both a small mat and a large mat, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. If one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇住讬讻讜讱

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the mishna and raises a difficulty. This mishna itself is difficult, as it contains an apparent contradiction. On the one hand, you said: If one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason it is unfit for roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. Presumably, a mat produced without designation is for roofing, and therefore one may roof a sukka with it.

讜讛讚专 转谞讬 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇砖讻讬讘讛

And then it is taught in the mishna: If one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. The reason it is fit roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for roofing. This implies that a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. The inferences drawn from these two clauses in the mishna about a mat produced without designation contradict each other.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谞讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the first clause of the mishna, it is referring to a large mat, which is typically not produced for the purpose of lying upon it. Therefore, it is unfit for roofing only if it is produced specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is produced without designation, it is presumably for roofing, and one may roof a sukka with it. There, in the second clause of the mishna, it is referring to a small mat, which is typically not produced for roofing. Therefore, one may roof a sukka with it only if it is produced specifically for roofing. If it is produced without designation, it is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and one may not roof a sukka with it.

(讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽砖讬讗 讚转谞谉) 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇住讬讻讜讱

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to the Rabbis this is not difficult; as the above distinction resolves the apparent contradiction in the mishna. However, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the contradiction remains difficult, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to both a small mat and a large mat, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason it is unfit for roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. This implies that a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for roofing, and therefore one may roof a sukka with it.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇砖讻讬讘讛

And say that in the latter clause of the mishna, where Rabbi Eliezer continues: If one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the reason it is fit roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for roofing. However, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. The inferences drawn from these two clauses in the mishna contradict each other. The resolution cited above cannot resolve the contradiction according to Rabbi Eliezer, as he does not distinguish between a large mat and a small mat.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚住转诪讗 诇住讬讻讜讱 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽讟谞讛 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住转诐 拽讟谞讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 住转诐 拽讟谞讛 谞诪讬 诇住讬讻讜讱

Rather, Rava said: The above resolution is rejected. With regard to a large mat, everyone agrees that if it was produced without designation, presumably it is for roofing. Where they disagree, is with regard to a small mat: The first tanna holds that a small mat produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that a small mat produced without designation is also presumably for roofing.

Scroll To Top