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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 27, 2021 | 讬状讞 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 20

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in memory of Asher Mechanic, Asher ben Avraham v’Rina. “In the zechut of all those he helped as a passionately devoted physician, may his neshama have an aliyah.”聽And by Tova and David Kestenbaum to mark the shloshim of Tova’s dear Uncle, Harav Reuven Pinchas ben Harav Chaim Yaakov v’Yehudit Bulka z”l. “He was a special Uncle to us and an extraordinary man. He was a Mekadesh Shem Shamayim in the way he spread Torah through his actions, lectures and books and through his efforts to make peace between people of all faiths. We miss him terribly.”

The gemara tries to clarify the details regarding the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding whether a mat of reeds can be used for s’chach or not and what the differences are between small/large mat, one intended for lying or sitting/s’chach/not intended for anything specific. Tannaitic sources that discuss different types of mats and their laws regarding impurity/s’chach. The second chapter begins with a debate regarding one who sleeps under a bed in a sukkah. Rabbi Shimon brings a story of Tavi, the Cannanite slave of Rabban Gamliel who slept under the bed in the sukkah since he was exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讞爪诇转 讛拽谞讬诐 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 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讛讗 住转诪讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 (拽讟谞讛 注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 讛讗 住转诪讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛) 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 住转诪讗 讻砖专讛 诇住讬讻讜讱

And this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to a large mat of reeds, 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 is that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it; however, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation becomes as a mat produced for roofing, and one may roof a sukka with it. With regard to a small mat of reeds, if one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it. The reason is that one produced it specifically for roofing; however, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation becomes as a mat produced for the purpose of lying upon it, and one may not roof a sukka with it. And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say that both a small mat and a large one produced without designation are fit for roofing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 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 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Abaye said to him: If so, if their dispute is only with regard to a small mat, then instead of saying: Rabbi Eliezer says: Both a small mat and a large mat, the mishna needed to say: Both a large mat and a small mat. In a phrase with the format: Both this and that, one typically mentions the more obvious item first. Why then, does Rabbi Eliezer mention the small mat first, if it is with regard to the small mat that they disagree?

讜注讜讚 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讜诪专讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讞爪诇转 讛拽谞讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛

And furthermore, there is proof that when they disagree, it is with regard to a large mat, and Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is a stringency and not a leniency, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a reed mat, with a large mat one may roof a sukka. Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, one may roof his sukka with it. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that without designation, one may not roof his sukka with a large mat.

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

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

讜诪讗讬 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讚拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 住转诐 注砖讬讬转讛 谞诪讬 诇砖讻讬讘讛 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 诇住讬讻讜讱

What, then, is the meaning of: If one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, that Rabbi Eliezer states? This is what he is saying: Making mats without designation is also for the purpose of lying upon it, until one makes it specifically for roofing.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讞爪诇转 砖诇 砖讬驻讛 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 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 砖诇 拽谞讬诐 讜砖诇 讞讬诇转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讗专讜讙讛 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In the case of a mat [ma岣tzelet] woven of papyrus or bulrushes, if it is a large mat, one may roof a sukka with it, as it is not typically produced for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is a small mat, one may not roof a sukka with it, as it is typically produced for the purpose of lying upon it. However, with regard to a mat produced of ordinary reeds or reeds specifically used for plaiting, if the mat is plaited with a large, coarse weave, one may roof a sukka with it, as it was certainly not produced for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is woven with a small, fine weave, one may not roof the sukka with it, as typically mats of this sort are woven only for the purpose of lying upon them.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: Both with this plaited mat and with that woven mat, one may roof a sukka, as without specific designation otherwise they are not produced for the purpose of lying upon them, and therefore they are ritually pure. And likewise, Rabbi Dosa would say in accordance with his statement.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 讛讞讜爪诇讜转 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟诪讗 诪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讚专住

We learned in a mishna there: All types of 岣tzalot can become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. Since their legal status is that of a vessel, they become a primary source of ritual impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: They become impure with the impurity imparted by treading. If a zav lies or sits on one of the 岣tzalot, they become a primary source of ritual impurity, like a chair or bed of a zav.

诪讚专住 讗讬谉 讟诪讗 诪转 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪讚专住

The Gemara asks: Impurity imparted by treading, yes; impurity imparted by a corpse, no? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: Any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading also becomes ritually impure with other types of impurity, including impurity imparted by a corpse, although the reverse is not necessarily so. The opinion of the Rabbis is difficult. The Gemara explains: Emend the mishna and say: They become ritually impure even with the impurity imparted by treading. These mats are not merely nondescript vessels, which become primary sources of ritual impurity through exposure to a corpse, they are vessels designated for sitting and lying upon them, and therefore they also become primary sources of ritual impurity if a zav sits or lies upon them.

诪讗讬 讞讜爪诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 诪专讝讜讘诇讬 诪讗讬 诪专讝讜讘诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讝讘诇讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诪讞爪诇讜转 诪诪砖

The Gemara asks about the term used in the mishna: What is the meaning of 岣tzalot? Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri said: They are marzovelei. The Gemara is unfamiliar with the term and asks: What is the meaning of marzovelei? Rabbi Abba said: They are called mezablei in Babylonia. They are leather sacks used by shepherds to feed their animals. Shepherds place them under their heads when lying down. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: 岣tzalot are a different term for actual mats.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛专讬谞讬 讻驻专转 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讘谞讬讜 砖讘转讞诇讛 讻砖谞砖转讻讞讛 转讜专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 注诇讛 注讝专讗 诪讘讘诇 讜讬住讚讛 讞讝专讛 讜谞砖转讻讞讛 注诇讛 讛诇诇 讛讘讘诇讬 讜讬住讚讛 讞讝专讛 讜谞砖转讻讞讛 注诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讬住讚讜讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讘谞讬讜 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 诪讞爪诇讜转 砖诇 讗讜砖讗

The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Reish Lakish said: I am the atonement for Rabbi 岣yya and his sons, as initially, when some of the Torah laws were forgotten from the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, Ezra ascended from Babylonia and reestablished the forgotten laws. Parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, and Hillel the Babylonian ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. When parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi 岣yya and his sons ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. This expression of deference toward Rabbi 岣yya introduces the halakha that Reish Lakish is citing in his name. And so said Rabbi 岣yya and his sons: Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis did not disagree concerning the soft mats of Usha,

砖讛谉 讟诪讗讜转 讜砖诇 讟讘专讬讗 砖讛谉 讟讛讜专讜转 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 砖讗专 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬转讬讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讻讚讟讘专讬讗 讚诪讬讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪拽专讬 讜讬转讘讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讻讚讗讜砖讗 讚诪讬讬谉

that they can become ritually impure, even with impurity imparted by treading, as those mats are produced for the purpose of lying upon them. And they also agreed concerning the coarse mats of Tiberias, that they are ritually pure, as these are produced exclusively for use in partitions and for roofing. Concerning what mats do they disagree? It is concerning the mats produced in the rest of the places. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Since there is no one who sits on these mats regularly, they are comparable to the mats of Tiberias and are pure. And one Sage, Rabbi 岣yya, holds that since it happens and one sits on them on occasion, they are comparable to the mats of Usha and are impure.

讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讛讞讜爪诇讜转 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟诪讗 诪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜

The Gemara analyzes the mishna cited above. The Master said: All types of 岣tzalot can become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. Apparently, they are all considered vessels, which is why they are susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof the sukka with them. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita: And likewise, Rabbi Dosa would say in accordance with his statement, i.e., in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the name of his father, that all types of mats are ritually pure, and one may roof a sukka with them? Don鈥檛 these two sources contradict each other?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讚谞驻讗 讛讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讚谞驻讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a mat that has an upturned edge, which renders the mat a vessel susceptible to ritual impurity. That baraita is referring to a mat that does not have an upturned edge [gedanpa]; therefore, it is not a vessel and is not susceptible to impurity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讜爪诇讜转 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 讜砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讚专住

The Gemara raises an objection: 岣tzalot made of papyrus, or of bulrushes, or of sackcloth produced out of goat hair, or of horsehair, all of which are woven and comfortable, can become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse but not with the impurity imparted by treading, because while they are considered vessels, they are not designated for sitting; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: They do become ritually impure, even with the impurity imparted by treading.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪专讝讜讘诇讬 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 讞讝讜 讻讬谞转讗 讚驻讬专讬 砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 讞讝讜 诇讙讜诇拽讬 讜爪谞讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪诇讜转 诪诪砖 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 讞讝讜 诇驻专住讬 讜谞驻讜讜转讗 讗诇讗 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讞讝讜 诇谞讝讬讗转讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that 岣tzalot are sacks called marzovelei, there is no problem. The reasoning of the one who holds that they do not become impure with impurity imparted by treading is that they are not designated for sitting. However, since they are vessels, they become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And for what are these vessels used? The vessels made of papyrus and of bulrushes are fit to be used as a fruit basket, and the ones made of sackcloth and of horsehair are fit to be used as small sacks [gulkei] and baskets for legumes and small fruits, because their weave is finer. However, according to the one who said that 岣tzalot are actual mats without upturned edges, what is the basis for the dispute? These mats are fit only for the purpose of lying upon them. Granted, the mats made of sackcloth, of goat hair, or of horsehair are fit for use as screens and flour sifters. However, the mats of papyrus and of bulrushes, for what use are they fit? The Gemara answers: They are fit for use as covers for vats of ale.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪诇讜转 诪诪砖 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 讞讝讜 诇谞讝讬讗转讗 砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 讞讝讜 诇驻专住讬 讜谞驻讜讜转讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪专讝讜讘诇讬 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 讞讝讜 诇讙讜诇拽讬 讜爪谞讬 讗诇讗 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讞讝讜 诇讻讬谞转讗 讚驻讬专讬

Some say a different version of this exchange: Granted, according to the one who said that 岣tzalot are actual mats, then the mats of papyrus and of bulrushes are fit to be used as covers for vats of ale, while those of sackcloth, i.e., goat hair, and of horsehair may be used as screens or sifters. However, according to the one who said that the 岣tzalot are sacks called marzovelei, what is the basis of their dispute? Granted, sacks made of sackcloth and of horsehair are fit to be used as small baskets and sacks; but for what are mats of papyrus or of bulrushes fit; why are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: They are fit to be used as a fruit basket.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讻砖讬专讚转讬 诇讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗转讬 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诇讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讘讜讚讬讗 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讚谞驻讗

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi 岣nanya said: When I descended to the exile of Babylonia, I found one Elder, who said to me: One may roof the sukka with a mat. When I returned to Eretz Yisrael and came to Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya, the brother of my father, and related to him what the Elder said, he agreed with his statement. Rav 岣sda said: That applies only to a mat that does not have an upturned edge and is not fit for any use other than for roofing.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛谞讬 讘讜讚讬转讗 讚讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讗诇诪诇讗 拽讬专 砖诇讛谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讘讜讚讬讗 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽讬专 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉

Ulla said: These mats of the residents of Me岣za, if not for their wall, i.e., upturned edge, one would be permitted to roof a sukka with them. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One may roof the sukka with a mat; and if they have a wall, one may not roof a sukka with them because the upturned edge renders it a receptacle susceptible to ritual impurity.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 住讜讻讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬砖谉 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讘住讜讻讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讛讬讬谞讜 讬砖谞讬诐 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讘驻谞讬 讛讝拽谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇谞讜 讚讘专

MISHNA: One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukka did not fulfill his obligation, because the bed constitutes a tent that serves as a barrier between him and the roofing of the sukka. Rabbi Yehuda said: It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bed before the Elders and they did not say anything to us to the effect that we are not fulfilling our obligation. Apparently, the halakhic status of the bed is not like that of a tent and it does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪注砖讛 讘讟讘讬 注讘讚讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讛 讬砖谉 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讝拽谞讬诐 专讗讬转诐 讟讘讬 注讘讚讬 砖讛讜讗 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜讬讜讚注 砖注讘讚讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讬砖谉 讛讜讗 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讜诇驻讬 讚专讻讬谞讜 诇诪讚谞讜 砖讛讬砖谉 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜

Rabbi Shimon said, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving Tavi, the Canaanite slave of Rabban Gamliel, who was sleeping beneath the bed, and Rabbi Gamliel lightheartedly said to the Elders: Did you see my slave Tavi, who is a Torah scholar and knows that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? Since it is a positive, time-bound mitzva, Canaanite slaves, whose status with regard to this halakhic category is like that of women, are exempt from the obligation to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. Therefore, he sleeps under the bed. Rabbi Shimon continued: And by the way, as Rabban Gamliel was not issuing a halakhic ruling, we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 注砖专讛 转专讙诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讟讛 注砖专讛

GEMARA: The mishna states that one who is sleeping beneath a bed did not fulfill his obligation because a bed, like a tent, acts as a barrier between the person and the roofing. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the height of the space beneath the bed lacking ten handbreadths, and a space less than ten handbreadths high does not constitute a tent? Shmuel interpreted the mishna: It is referring to the case of a bed ten handbreadths high.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讞讚 讞讜专 砖讞专专讜讛讜 诪讬诐 讗讜 砖专爪讬诐 讗讜 砖讗讻诇转讜 诪诇讞转 讜讻谉 诪讚讘讱 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讻谉 住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 诪讗讛讬诇 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there with regard to the impurity of a tent: Both a hole that was perforated in a rock by water or by creeping animals, or a hole in a rock that was perforated because it was eaten away by salt, and likewise a space in a course of stones, and likewise a space in a pile of beams all have the legal status of a tent over impurity. A source of impurity imparted by a corpse transmits impurity to other objects in those spaces, as they constitute a tent over a corpse.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗讛诇 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讛诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rabbi Yehuda says: The legal status of any tent that is not established by a person is not that of a tent and does not transmit impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where did he derive that halakha?

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

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

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

The Character Portrait of Tavi the Slave of Rabban Gamliel聽– Sukkah – Gefet 3

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

Torah is the Best Merchandise

鈥淩esh Lakish said: I am the atonement for Rabbi 岣yya and his sons, as initially, when some of the Torah...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 20: When a Mat Has a Wall

In the ongoing discussion of the mats and their acceptability as schach, we find some rabbinic interlude, which brings us...

Sukkah 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 20

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讞爪诇转 讛拽谞讬诐 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 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讛讗 住转诪讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 (拽讟谞讛 注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚注砖讗讛 诇住讬讻讜讱 讛讗 住转诪讗 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讜讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛) 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 住转诪讗 讻砖专讛 诇住讬讻讜讱

And this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to a large mat of reeds, 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 is that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it; however, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation becomes as a mat produced for roofing, and one may roof a sukka with it. With regard to a small mat of reeds, if one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it. The reason is that one produced it specifically for roofing; however, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation becomes as a mat produced for the purpose of lying upon it, and one may not roof a sukka with it. And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say that both a small mat and a large one produced without designation are fit for roofing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 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 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Abaye said to him: If so, if their dispute is only with regard to a small mat, then instead of saying: Rabbi Eliezer says: Both a small mat and a large mat, the mishna needed to say: Both a large mat and a small mat. In a phrase with the format: Both this and that, one typically mentions the more obvious item first. Why then, does Rabbi Eliezer mention the small mat first, if it is with regard to the small mat that they disagree?

讜注讜讚 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讜诪专讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讞爪诇转 讛拽谞讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛

And furthermore, there is proof that when they disagree, it is with regard to a large mat, and Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is a stringency and not a leniency, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a reed mat, with a large mat one may roof a sukka. Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, one may roof his sukka with it. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that without designation, one may not roof his sukka with a large mat.

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

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

讜诪讗讬 注砖讗讛 诇砖讻讬讘讛 讚拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 住转诐 注砖讬讬转讛 谞诪讬 诇砖讻讬讘讛 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 诇住讬讻讜讱

What, then, is the meaning of: If one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, that Rabbi Eliezer states? This is what he is saying: Making mats without designation is also for the purpose of lying upon it, until one makes it specifically for roofing.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讞爪诇转 砖诇 砖讬驻讛 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 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 砖诇 拽谞讬诐 讜砖诇 讞讬诇转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讗专讜讙讛 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In the case of a mat [ma岣tzelet] woven of papyrus or bulrushes, if it is a large mat, one may roof a sukka with it, as it is not typically produced for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is a small mat, one may not roof a sukka with it, as it is typically produced for the purpose of lying upon it. However, with regard to a mat produced of ordinary reeds or reeds specifically used for plaiting, if the mat is plaited with a large, coarse weave, one may roof a sukka with it, as it was certainly not produced for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is woven with a small, fine weave, one may not roof the sukka with it, as typically mats of this sort are woven only for the purpose of lying upon them.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: Both with this plaited mat and with that woven mat, one may roof a sukka, as without specific designation otherwise they are not produced for the purpose of lying upon them, and therefore they are ritually pure. And likewise, Rabbi Dosa would say in accordance with his statement.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 讛讞讜爪诇讜转 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟诪讗 诪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讚专住

We learned in a mishna there: All types of 岣tzalot can become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. Since their legal status is that of a vessel, they become a primary source of ritual impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: They become impure with the impurity imparted by treading. If a zav lies or sits on one of the 岣tzalot, they become a primary source of ritual impurity, like a chair or bed of a zav.

诪讚专住 讗讬谉 讟诪讗 诪转 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪讚专住

The Gemara asks: Impurity imparted by treading, yes; impurity imparted by a corpse, no? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: Any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading also becomes ritually impure with other types of impurity, including impurity imparted by a corpse, although the reverse is not necessarily so. The opinion of the Rabbis is difficult. The Gemara explains: Emend the mishna and say: They become ritually impure even with the impurity imparted by treading. These mats are not merely nondescript vessels, which become primary sources of ritual impurity through exposure to a corpse, they are vessels designated for sitting and lying upon them, and therefore they also become primary sources of ritual impurity if a zav sits or lies upon them.

诪讗讬 讞讜爪诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 诪专讝讜讘诇讬 诪讗讬 诪专讝讜讘诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讝讘诇讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诪讞爪诇讜转 诪诪砖

The Gemara asks about the term used in the mishna: What is the meaning of 岣tzalot? Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri said: They are marzovelei. The Gemara is unfamiliar with the term and asks: What is the meaning of marzovelei? Rabbi Abba said: They are called mezablei in Babylonia. They are leather sacks used by shepherds to feed their animals. Shepherds place them under their heads when lying down. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: 岣tzalot are a different term for actual mats.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛专讬谞讬 讻驻专转 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讘谞讬讜 砖讘转讞诇讛 讻砖谞砖转讻讞讛 转讜专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 注诇讛 注讝专讗 诪讘讘诇 讜讬住讚讛 讞讝专讛 讜谞砖转讻讞讛 注诇讛 讛诇诇 讛讘讘诇讬 讜讬住讚讛 讞讝专讛 讜谞砖转讻讞讛 注诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讬住讚讜讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讘谞讬讜 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 诪讞爪诇讜转 砖诇 讗讜砖讗

The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Reish Lakish said: I am the atonement for Rabbi 岣yya and his sons, as initially, when some of the Torah laws were forgotten from the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, Ezra ascended from Babylonia and reestablished the forgotten laws. Parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, and Hillel the Babylonian ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. When parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi 岣yya and his sons ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. This expression of deference toward Rabbi 岣yya introduces the halakha that Reish Lakish is citing in his name. And so said Rabbi 岣yya and his sons: Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis did not disagree concerning the soft mats of Usha,

砖讛谉 讟诪讗讜转 讜砖诇 讟讘专讬讗 砖讛谉 讟讛讜专讜转 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 砖讗专 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬转讬讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讻讚讟讘专讬讗 讚诪讬讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪拽专讬 讜讬转讘讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讻讚讗讜砖讗 讚诪讬讬谉

that they can become ritually impure, even with impurity imparted by treading, as those mats are produced for the purpose of lying upon them. And they also agreed concerning the coarse mats of Tiberias, that they are ritually pure, as these are produced exclusively for use in partitions and for roofing. Concerning what mats do they disagree? It is concerning the mats produced in the rest of the places. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Since there is no one who sits on these mats regularly, they are comparable to the mats of Tiberias and are pure. And one Sage, Rabbi 岣yya, holds that since it happens and one sits on them on occasion, they are comparable to the mats of Usha and are impure.

讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讛讞讜爪诇讜转 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟诪讗 诪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜

The Gemara analyzes the mishna cited above. The Master said: All types of 岣tzalot can become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. Apparently, they are all considered vessels, which is why they are susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof the sukka with them. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita: And likewise, Rabbi Dosa would say in accordance with his statement, i.e., in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the name of his father, that all types of mats are ritually pure, and one may roof a sukka with them? Don鈥檛 these two sources contradict each other?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讚谞驻讗 讛讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讚谞驻讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a mat that has an upturned edge, which renders the mat a vessel susceptible to ritual impurity. That baraita is referring to a mat that does not have an upturned edge [gedanpa]; therefore, it is not a vessel and is not susceptible to impurity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讜爪诇讜转 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 讜砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讚专住

The Gemara raises an objection: 岣tzalot made of papyrus, or of bulrushes, or of sackcloth produced out of goat hair, or of horsehair, all of which are woven and comfortable, can become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse but not with the impurity imparted by treading, because while they are considered vessels, they are not designated for sitting; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: They do become ritually impure, even with the impurity imparted by treading.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪专讝讜讘诇讬 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 讞讝讜 讻讬谞转讗 讚驻讬专讬 砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 讞讝讜 诇讙讜诇拽讬 讜爪谞讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪诇讜转 诪诪砖 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 讞讝讜 诇驻专住讬 讜谞驻讜讜转讗 讗诇讗 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讞讝讜 诇谞讝讬讗转讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that 岣tzalot are sacks called marzovelei, there is no problem. The reasoning of the one who holds that they do not become impure with impurity imparted by treading is that they are not designated for sitting. However, since they are vessels, they become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And for what are these vessels used? The vessels made of papyrus and of bulrushes are fit to be used as a fruit basket, and the ones made of sackcloth and of horsehair are fit to be used as small sacks [gulkei] and baskets for legumes and small fruits, because their weave is finer. However, according to the one who said that 岣tzalot are actual mats without upturned edges, what is the basis for the dispute? These mats are fit only for the purpose of lying upon them. Granted, the mats made of sackcloth, of goat hair, or of horsehair are fit for use as screens and flour sifters. However, the mats of papyrus and of bulrushes, for what use are they fit? The Gemara answers: They are fit for use as covers for vats of ale.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪诇讜转 诪诪砖 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 讞讝讜 诇谞讝讬讗转讗 砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 讞讝讜 诇驻专住讬 讜谞驻讜讜转讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪专讝讜讘诇讬 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇 砖拽 讜砖诇 住驻讬专讗 讞讝讜 诇讙讜诇拽讬 讜爪谞讬 讗诇讗 砖诇 砖注诐 讜砖诇 讙诪讬 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讞讝讜 诇讻讬谞转讗 讚驻讬专讬

Some say a different version of this exchange: Granted, according to the one who said that 岣tzalot are actual mats, then the mats of papyrus and of bulrushes are fit to be used as covers for vats of ale, while those of sackcloth, i.e., goat hair, and of horsehair may be used as screens or sifters. However, according to the one who said that the 岣tzalot are sacks called marzovelei, what is the basis of their dispute? Granted, sacks made of sackcloth and of horsehair are fit to be used as small baskets and sacks; but for what are mats of papyrus or of bulrushes fit; why are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: They are fit to be used as a fruit basket.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讻砖讬专讚转讬 诇讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗转讬 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诇讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讘讜讚讬讗 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讚谞驻讗

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi 岣nanya said: When I descended to the exile of Babylonia, I found one Elder, who said to me: One may roof the sukka with a mat. When I returned to Eretz Yisrael and came to Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya, the brother of my father, and related to him what the Elder said, he agreed with his statement. Rav 岣sda said: That applies only to a mat that does not have an upturned edge and is not fit for any use other than for roofing.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛谞讬 讘讜讚讬转讗 讚讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讗诇诪诇讗 拽讬专 砖诇讛谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讘讜讚讬讗 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽讬专 讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讛谉

Ulla said: These mats of the residents of Me岣za, if not for their wall, i.e., upturned edge, one would be permitted to roof a sukka with them. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One may roof the sukka with a mat; and if they have a wall, one may not roof a sukka with them because the upturned edge renders it a receptacle susceptible to ritual impurity.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 住讜讻讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬砖谉 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讘住讜讻讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讛讬讬谞讜 讬砖谞讬诐 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讘驻谞讬 讛讝拽谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇谞讜 讚讘专

MISHNA: One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukka did not fulfill his obligation, because the bed constitutes a tent that serves as a barrier between him and the roofing of the sukka. Rabbi Yehuda said: It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bed before the Elders and they did not say anything to us to the effect that we are not fulfilling our obligation. Apparently, the halakhic status of the bed is not like that of a tent and it does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪注砖讛 讘讟讘讬 注讘讚讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讛 讬砖谉 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讝拽谞讬诐 专讗讬转诐 讟讘讬 注讘讚讬 砖讛讜讗 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜讬讜讚注 砖注讘讚讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讬砖谉 讛讜讗 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 讜诇驻讬 讚专讻讬谞讜 诇诪讚谞讜 砖讛讬砖谉 转讞转 讛诪讟讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜

Rabbi Shimon said, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving Tavi, the Canaanite slave of Rabban Gamliel, who was sleeping beneath the bed, and Rabbi Gamliel lightheartedly said to the Elders: Did you see my slave Tavi, who is a Torah scholar and knows that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? Since it is a positive, time-bound mitzva, Canaanite slaves, whose status with regard to this halakhic category is like that of women, are exempt from the obligation to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. Therefore, he sleeps under the bed. Rabbi Shimon continued: And by the way, as Rabban Gamliel was not issuing a halakhic ruling, we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 注砖专讛 转专讙诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讟讛 注砖专讛

GEMARA: The mishna states that one who is sleeping beneath a bed did not fulfill his obligation because a bed, like a tent, acts as a barrier between the person and the roofing. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the height of the space beneath the bed lacking ten handbreadths, and a space less than ten handbreadths high does not constitute a tent? Shmuel interpreted the mishna: It is referring to the case of a bed ten handbreadths high.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讞讚 讞讜专 砖讞专专讜讛讜 诪讬诐 讗讜 砖专爪讬诐 讗讜 砖讗讻诇转讜 诪诇讞转 讜讻谉 诪讚讘讱 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讻谉 住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 诪讗讛讬诇 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there with regard to the impurity of a tent: Both a hole that was perforated in a rock by water or by creeping animals, or a hole in a rock that was perforated because it was eaten away by salt, and likewise a space in a course of stones, and likewise a space in a pile of beams all have the legal status of a tent over impurity. A source of impurity imparted by a corpse transmits impurity to other objects in those spaces, as they constitute a tent over a corpse.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗讛诇 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讛诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rabbi Yehuda says: The legal status of any tent that is not established by a person is not that of a tent and does not transmit impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where did he derive that halakha?

Scroll To Top