Sukkah 20

והכי קאמר מחצלת הקנים גדולה עשאה לשכיבה מקבלת טומאה ואין מסככין בה טעמא דעשאה לשכיבה הא סתמא נעשה כמי שעשאה לסיכוך מסככין בה (קטנה עשאה לסיכוך מסככין בה טעמא דעשאה לסיכוך הא סתמא נעשה כמי שעשאה לשכיבה ואין מסככין בה) ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה סתמא כשרה לסיכוך

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.

אמר ליה אביי אי הכי רבי אליעזר אומר אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה מיבעי ליה

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?

ועוד כי פליגי בגדולה הוא דפליגי ורבי אליעזר לחומרא דתניא מחצלת הקנים בגדולה מסככין בה רבי אליעזר אומר אם אינה מקבלת טומאה מסככין בה

And furthermore, there is proof that when they disagree, it is with regard to a large mat, and Rabbi Eliezer’s 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.

אלא אמר רב פפא בקטנה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דסתמא לשכיבה כי פליגי בגדולה תנא קמא סבר סתם גדולה לסיכוך ורבי אליעזר סבר סתם גדולה נמי לשכיבה

Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rava’s 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.

ומאי עשאה לשכיבה דקאמר הכי קאמר סתם עשייתה נמי לשכיבה עד דעביד לסיכוך

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.

תנו רבנן מחצלת של שיפה ושל גמי גדולה מסככין בה קטנה אין מסככין בה של קנים ושל חילת גדולה מסככין בה ארוגה אין מסככין בה

§ The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In the case of a mat [maḥatzelet] 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.

רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו אחת זו ואחת זו מסככין בה וכן היה רבי דוסא אומר כדבריו

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.

תנן התם כל החוצלות מטמאין טמא מת דברי רבי דוסא וחכמים אומרים מדרס

We learned in a mishna there: All types of ḥotzalot 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 ḥotzalot, they become a primary source of ritual impurity, like a chair or bed of a zav.

מדרס אין טמא מת לא והא אנן תנן כל המטמא מדרס מטמא טמא מת אימא אף מדרס

The Gemara asks: Impurity imparted by treading, yes; impurity imparted by a corpse, no? But didn’t 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.

מאי חוצלות אמר רב אבדימי בר המדורי מרזובלי מאי מרזובלי אמר רבי אבא מזבלי רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר מחצלות ממש

The Gemara asks about the term used in the mishna: What is the meaning of ḥotzalot? 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: Ḥotzalot are a different term for actual mats.

ואזדא ריש לקיש לטעמיה דאמר ריש לקיש הריני כפרת רבי חייא ובניו שבתחלה כשנשתכחה תורה מישראל עלה עזרא מבבל ויסדה חזרה ונשתכחה עלה הלל הבבלי ויסדה חזרה ונשתכחה עלו רבי חייא ובניו ויסדוה וכן אמר רבי חייא ובניו לא נחלקו רבי דוסא וחכמים על מחצלות של אושא

The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Reish Lakish said: I am the atonement for Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya and his sons ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. This expression of deference toward Rabbi Ḥiyya introduces the halakha that Reish Lakish is citing in his name. And so said Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons: Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis did not disagree concerning the soft mats of Usha,

שהן טמאות ושל טבריא שהן טהורות על מה נחלקו על שאר מקומות מר סבר כיון דליכא דיתיב עלייהו כדטבריא דמיין ומר סבר כיון דמקרי ויתבי עלייהו כדאושא דמיין

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 Dosa, holds that since it happens and one sits on them on occasion, they are comparable to the mats of Usha and are impure.

אמר מר כל החוצלות מטמאין טמא מת דברי רבי דוסא והתניא וכן היה רבי דוסא אומר כדבריו

The Gemara analyzes the mishna cited above. The Master said: All types of ḥotzalot 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’t 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’t these two sources contradict each other?

לא קשיא הא דאית ליה גדנפא הא דלית ליה גדנפא

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.

מיתיבי חוצלות של שעם ושל גמי ושל שק ושל ספירא מטמא טמא מת דברי רבי דוסא וחכמים אומרים אף מדרס

The Gemara raises an objection: Ḥotzalot 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.

בשלמא למאן דאמר מרזובלי של שעם ושל גמי חזו לכינתא דפירי של שק ושל ספירא חזו לגולקי וצני אלא למאן דאמר מחצלות ממש בשלמא של שק ושל ספירא חזו לפרסי ונפוותא אלא של שעם ושל גמי למאי חזו חזו לנזיאתא

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that ḥotzalot 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 ḥotzalot 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.

איכא דאמרי בשלמא למאן דאמר מחצלות ממש של שעם ושל גמי חזו לנזיאתא של שק ושל ספירא חזו לפרסי ונפוותא אלא למאן דאמר מרזובלי בשלמא של שק ושל ספירא חזו לגולקי וצני אלא של שעם ושל גמי למאי חזו חזו לכינתא דפירי

Some say a different version of this exchange: Granted, according to the one who said that ḥotzalot 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 ḥotzalot 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.

תניא אמר רבי חנניה כשירדתי לגולה מצאתי זקן אחד ואמר לי מסככין בבודיא וכשבאתי אצל רבי יהושע אחי אבא הודה לדבריו אמר רב חסדא והוא דלית ליה גדנפא

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥananya 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 Ḥananya, the brother of my father, and related to him what the Elder said, he agreed with his statement. Rav Ḥisda 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.

אמר עולא הני בודיתא דבני מחוזא אלמלא קיר שלהן מסככין בהו תניא נמי הכי מסככין בבודיא ואם יש להן קיר אין מסככין בהן:

Ulla said: These mats of the residents of Meḥoza, 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.

הדרן עלך סוכה

May we return to you chapter “Sukkah.”

הישן תחת המטה בסוכה לא יצא ידי חובתו אמר רבי יהודה נוהגין היינו שהיינו ישנים תחת המטה בפני הזקנים ולא אמרו לנו דבר

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.

אמר רבי שמעון מעשה בטבי עבדו של רבן גמליאל שהיה ישן תחת המטה ואמר להן רבן גמליאל לזקנים ראיתם טבי עבדי שהוא תלמיד חכם ויודע שעבדים פטורין מן הסוכה לפיכך ישן הוא תחת המטה ולפי דרכינו למדנו שהישן תחת המטה לא יצא ידי חובתו:

§ 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.

גמ׳ והא ליכא עשרה תרגמא שמואל במטה עשרה

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’t 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.

תנן התם אחד חור שחררוהו מים או שרצים או שאכלתו מלחת וכן מדבך אבנים וכן סואר של קורות מאהיל על הטומאה

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.

רבי יהודה אומר כל אהל שאינו עשוי בידי אדם אינו אהל מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה

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?