Skip to content

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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 28, 2021 | י״ט באב תשפ״א

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

Sukkah 21

Today’s daf is sponsored by Erin Piateski in honor of Jessica’s wedding on Sunday. “Mazal tov Jessica and Harold!”

The gemara brings the mishna from Ohalot Chapter 3 Mishna 7 regarding a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding the laws of impurity of a tent for a tent formed by nature. Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion (that it does not have laws of tents regarding impurity) contradicts Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the Mishna Para Chapter 3 Mishna 2 where the torse of an ox functions as a tent. The resolution of the contradiction raises a question on Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion on our mishna that one can sleep under a bed in a sukkah. Several answers are brought and the gemara analyzes them. What exactly is the root of the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis in the mishna? One who leans a sukkah of a bed – Rabbi YEhuda and the rabbis disagree about whether it works or not and on what does it depend.

יליף אהל אהל ממשכן כתיב הכא זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל וכתיב התם ויפרש את האהל על המשכן מה להלן בידי אדם אף כאן בידי אדם ורבנן אהל אהל ריבה

He derives by means of a verbal analogy that only a man-made tent transmits impurity, deriving the tent written with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse from the tent written with regard to the Tabernacle. It is written here with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse: “This is the teaching when a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14). And it is written there with regard to the Tabernacle: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle” (Exodus 40:19). Just as there, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent was established by a person, so too here, with regard to impurity of a corpse, it is a tent established by a person. And according to the Rabbis, because the passage dealing with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., tent tent, is repeated several times, this amplifies and includes any structure that provides shelter, even if it is not a standard tent.

וסבר רבי יהודה כל אהל שאינו עשוי בידי אדם אינו אהל ורמינהו חצירות היו בנויות בירושלים על גבי הסלע ותחתיהם חלל מפני קבר התהום ומביאין נשים עוברות ויולדות שם ומגדלות בניהם שם לפרה

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that the legal status of any tent that is not established by a person is not that of a tent? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Para 3:2): Courtyards were built in Jerusalem atop the rock, and beneath these courtyards there was a space of at least a handbreadth due to the concern lest there is a grave in the depths. In that case, the space served as a barrier preventing the impurity from reaching the courtyards above. And they would bring pregnant women, and they would give birth there in those courtyards. And they would raise their children there and would not leave there with the children until they grew. All this was done so that the children would be untainted by any impurity and would be able to assist in the ritual of the red heifer, whose ashes are used to purify those impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

ומביאין שוורים ועל גביהן דלתות ותינוקות יושבין על גביהן וכוסות של אבן בידיהם הגיעו לשילוח ירדו לתוך המים ומילאום ועלו וישבו להם רבי יוסי אומר ממקומו היה משלשל וממלא מפני קבר התהום

And once they reached age seven or eight and were capable of assisting in the performance of this ritual, the priests would bring oxen there. And they would place doors on the backs of these oxen, and the children would sit upon the doors and they would hold cups of stone, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity, in their hands. When they reached the Siloam pool, they descended into the water and filled the cups with water, and ascended and sat themselves on the doors. The water in the cups was mixed with the ashes of the heifer and used for sprinkling on the impure person or vessels. Rabbi Yosei says: The children did not descend from their oxen; rather, each child from his place on the door would lower the cup with a rope and fill it with water due to the concern lest there is a grave in the depths beneath the path leading from the oxen to the pool.

ותניא רבי יהודה אומר לא היו מביאין דלתות אלא שוורים והא שוורים דאהל שאינו עשוי בידי אדם הוא וקתני רבי יהודה אומר לא היו מביאין דלתות אלא שוורים

And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: They would not bring doors; rather they would bring only oxen. The size of the spinal column and the body of the animal was sufficient to constitute a tent and therefore served as a barrier before the impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. And this is difficult, as aren’t oxen a tent that is not established by a person; and it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: They did not bring doors; rather they brought only oxen. Apparently, the legal status of a tent that is not man-made is that of a tent.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי אלעזר מודה רבי יהודה כמלא אגרוף תניא נמי הכי ומודה רבי יהודה בשקיפין ובנקיקי הסלעים

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the legal status of a tent that is not man-made is that of a tent when the tent is a fistbreadth, which is more than a handbreadth in terms of length, width, and height. It is only when the tent is less than the size of a fist that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is not a tent. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of caves and deep cavities in the rocks that their status is that of a tent even though they are not man-made.

והרי דלת דיש בה כמה אגרופין וקתני רבי יהודה אומר לא היו מביאין דלתות אלא שוורים אמר אביי לא הוצרכו להביא דלתות

The Gemara asks: But a door on the back of an ox is an object that measures several fistbreadths, and it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: They did not bring doors but only oxen. Apparently, a door does not constitute a tent, since that is not the manner in which a tent is typically established. Abaye said in response that Rabbi Yehuda did not say that the legal status of the door is not that of a tent; rather, he said: They did not need to bring doors because the oxen themselves were sufficiently broad.

רבא אמר לא היו מביאין דלתות כל עיקר שמפני שדעתו של תינוק גסה עליו שמא יוציא ראשו או אחד מאבריו ויטמא

Rava said Rabbi Yehuda’s statement should be explained differently. They would not bring doors at all. Because a child has an exaggerated sense of self-confidence due to the width of the door, he might allow himself to move from side to side and as a result, perhaps he will extend his head or one of his limbs beyond the edge of the door and will become impure

בקבר התהום

with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.

תניא כוותיה דרבא רבי יהודה אומר לא היו מביאין דלתות כל עיקר מפני שדעתו של תינוק גסה עליו שמא יוציא ראשו או אחד מאבריו ויטמא בקבר התהום אלא מביאין שוורים המצרים שכריסותיהן רחבות והתינוקות יושבין על גביהן וכוסות של אבן בידיהן הגיעו לשילוח ירדו ומלאום ועלו וישבו להן על גביהן

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rabbi Yehuda says: They would not bring doors at all, because a child has an exaggerated sense of self-confidence and perhaps he will extend his head or one of his limbs beyond the edge of the door and will become impure with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. Rather, they would bring Egyptian oxen whose bellies are broad, and the children would sit upon them and they would hold cups of stone in their hands. When they reached the Siloam pool they descended and filled them, and ascended and sat themselves on the backs of the oxen.

והרי מטה דיש בה כמה אגרופים ותנן רבי יהודה אומר נוהגים היינו שהיינו ישנים תחת המטה בפני הזקנים שאני מטה הואיל ולגבה עשויה שוורים נמי לגבן עשוים

The Gemara asks: But with regard to a bed, which measures several fistbreadths, didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bed before the Elders? Apparently, despite the fact that a bed measures several handbreadths, its legal status is not that of a tent. The Gemara answers: A bed is different, since it is designed specifically for use upon it; therefore, the status of the space beneath it is not that of a tent. The Gemara asks: Aren’t oxen like those used to transport the children to bring water for the red heifer also designated specifically for use upon them and nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda deems their spinal column and bellies a tent.

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי אלעזר שאני שוורים הואיל ומגינים על הרועים בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים אי הכי מטה נמי הואיל ומגינה על מנעלים וסנדלים שתחתיה

When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Elazar said: Oxen are different since they protect the shepherds in the sun from the sun, and in the rain from the rain. Shepherds would lie beneath the bellies of the oxen as protection from the elements. The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if an ox is rendered a tent because it provides protection, even if its primary designation is for use upon it, then the status of a bed too should be that of a tent, since it protects shoes and sandals that are placed beneath it.

אלא אמר רבא שאני שוורים הואיל ועשוים להגין על בני מעים שלהן שנאמר עור ובשר תלבישני ובעצמות וגידים תסוככני

Rather, Rava rejected that explanation and said: Oxen are different and their status is that of a tent since their bellies and backs are made to protect their innards, as it is stated: “With skin and flesh You have clothed me, and with bones and sinews You have knitted me together” (Job 10:11). Since flesh and skin are mentioned in the verse as providing shelter, the status of the oxen is that of a tent.

ואי בעית אימא רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר סוכה דירת קבע בעינן והוה ליה מטה דירת עראי וסוכה אהל קבע ולא אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע

And if you wish, say instead: In this case Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his reasoning, as he stated elsewhere: We require a sukka that is a permanent residence. The bed in a sukka is a temporary residence, and the sukka is a permanent tent; and a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent. The permanent sukka is significant and that significance supersedes any temporary structure within it. Therefore, in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the status of the bed is not that of a tent.

והא רבי שמעון דאמר נמי סוכה דירת קבע בעינן (הא) ואתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע (אין) בהא פליגי מר סבר אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע ומר סבר לא אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who also stated that we require a sukka that is a permanent residence, nevertheless, a temporary tent comes and negates a permanent tent. The Gemara answers: Yes, and that is the point over which they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: A temporary tent comes and negates a permanent tent, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: A temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent.

אמר רבי שמעון מעשה בטבי עבדו תניא אמר רבי שמעון משיחתו של רבן גמליאל למדנו שני דברים למדנו שעבדים פטורים מן הסוכה ולמדנו שהישן תחת המטה לא יצא ידי חובתו

The mishna relates that 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 Rabban Gamliel claimed that Tavi did so because he was a Torah scholar and knew that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel we learned two matters. We learned that Canaanite slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

ולימא מדבריו של רבן גמליאל מילתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן כי הא דאמר רב אחא בר אדא ואמרי לה אמר רב אחא בר אדא אמר רב המנונא אמר רב מנין שאפילו שיחת תלמידי חכמים צריכה לימוד שנאמר ועלהו לא יבול

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And let Rabbi Shimon say: From the statement of Rabban Gamliel. Why did he use the atypical expression: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Through this expression he teaches us another matter in passing, like that which Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda said, and some say that Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Hamnuna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that even the conversation of Torah scholars require analysis, even when the intention of the speaker was apparently not to issue a halakhic ruling? It is as it is stated with regard to the righteous: “Which brings forth its fruit in its season and whose leaf does not wither” (Psalms 1:3). This teaches that with regard to a Torah scholar, not only is his primary product, his fruit, significant but even ancillary matters that stem from his conversation, his leaves, are significant.

מתני׳ הסומך סוכתו בכרעי המטה כשרה רבי יהודה אומר אם אינה יכולה לעמוד בפני עצמה פסולה

MISHNA: One who supports his sukka on the legs of the bed, i.e., he leans the sukka roofing on a bed, the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sukka cannot stand in and of itself without support of the bed, it is unfit.

גמ׳ מאי טעמיה דרבי יהודה פליגי בה רבי זירא ורבי אבא בר ממל חד אמר מפני שאין לה קבע וחד אמר מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda deeming this sukka unfit? Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagree with regard to the rationale. One said: It is unfit because it lacks permanence. The sukka is not stable enough, as if the bed is moved the sukka will collapse. And one said: It is unfit because he is supporting the roofing with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, as the bedframe is a vessel. Not only the roofing, but that which supports the roofing as well may not be susceptible to ritual impurity.

מאי בינייהו כגון שנעץ שפודין של ברזל וסיכך עליהם למאן דאמר לפי שאין לה קבע הרי יש לה קבע ומאן דאמר מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה הרי מעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara explains: The difference is in a case where one wedged iron skewers into the ground and roofed the sukka upon them. According to the one who said that the reason the sukka is unfit is because it lacks permanence, this sukka has permanence, and it is fit. However, the one who said the reason the sukka is unfit is because he is supporting the roofing with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, he is supporting it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, so it is unfit.

אמר אביי לא שנו אלא סמך אבל סיכך על גב המטה כשרה מאי טעמא למאן דאמר לפי שאין לה קבע הרי יש לה קבע למאן דאמר מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה הרי אין מעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה

Abaye said: The Sages taught this dispute only in a case where one leaned the roofing on the bed. However, if one placed the roofing atop the bed, i.e., he affixed poles to the bed and the roofing is supported by those poles, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason that it is fit? According to the one who said that the sukka is unfit because it lacks permanence, this sukka has permanence as even if the bed is moved, the roofing will move with it and will not collapse. And according to the one who said the sukka is unfit because he supports it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, in this case he is not supporting it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, as the roofing is not supported by the bed.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 21 – 27 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about various cases where the covering, schach, of the Sukka isn’t complete and if this...
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 21: Sukkah Beds (Or Is That Bed Sukkahs?)

Sleeping under a bed - is doing so an obstruction to fulfilling one's obligation of sleeping in a sukkah? Does...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

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

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

Sukkah 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 21

יליף אהל אהל ממשכן כתיב הכא זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל וכתיב התם ויפרש את האהל על המשכן מה להלן בידי אדם אף כאן בידי אדם ורבנן אהל אהל ריבה

He derives by means of a verbal analogy that only a man-made tent transmits impurity, deriving the tent written with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse from the tent written with regard to the Tabernacle. It is written here with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse: “This is the teaching when a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14). And it is written there with regard to the Tabernacle: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle” (Exodus 40:19). Just as there, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent was established by a person, so too here, with regard to impurity of a corpse, it is a tent established by a person. And according to the Rabbis, because the passage dealing with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., tent tent, is repeated several times, this amplifies and includes any structure that provides shelter, even if it is not a standard tent.

וסבר רבי יהודה כל אהל שאינו עשוי בידי אדם אינו אהל ורמינהו חצירות היו בנויות בירושלים על גבי הסלע ותחתיהם חלל מפני קבר התהום ומביאין נשים עוברות ויולדות שם ומגדלות בניהם שם לפרה

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that the legal status of any tent that is not established by a person is not that of a tent? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Para 3:2): Courtyards were built in Jerusalem atop the rock, and beneath these courtyards there was a space of at least a handbreadth due to the concern lest there is a grave in the depths. In that case, the space served as a barrier preventing the impurity from reaching the courtyards above. And they would bring pregnant women, and they would give birth there in those courtyards. And they would raise their children there and would not leave there with the children until they grew. All this was done so that the children would be untainted by any impurity and would be able to assist in the ritual of the red heifer, whose ashes are used to purify those impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

ומביאין שוורים ועל גביהן דלתות ותינוקות יושבין על גביהן וכוסות של אבן בידיהם הגיעו לשילוח ירדו לתוך המים ומילאום ועלו וישבו להם רבי יוסי אומר ממקומו היה משלשל וממלא מפני קבר התהום

And once they reached age seven or eight and were capable of assisting in the performance of this ritual, the priests would bring oxen there. And they would place doors on the backs of these oxen, and the children would sit upon the doors and they would hold cups of stone, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity, in their hands. When they reached the Siloam pool, they descended into the water and filled the cups with water, and ascended and sat themselves on the doors. The water in the cups was mixed with the ashes of the heifer and used for sprinkling on the impure person or vessels. Rabbi Yosei says: The children did not descend from their oxen; rather, each child from his place on the door would lower the cup with a rope and fill it with water due to the concern lest there is a grave in the depths beneath the path leading from the oxen to the pool.

ותניא רבי יהודה אומר לא היו מביאין דלתות אלא שוורים והא שוורים דאהל שאינו עשוי בידי אדם הוא וקתני רבי יהודה אומר לא היו מביאין דלתות אלא שוורים

And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: They would not bring doors; rather they would bring only oxen. The size of the spinal column and the body of the animal was sufficient to constitute a tent and therefore served as a barrier before the impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. And this is difficult, as aren’t oxen a tent that is not established by a person; and it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: They did not bring doors; rather they brought only oxen. Apparently, the legal status of a tent that is not man-made is that of a tent.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי אלעזר מודה רבי יהודה כמלא אגרוף תניא נמי הכי ומודה רבי יהודה בשקיפין ובנקיקי הסלעים

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the legal status of a tent that is not man-made is that of a tent when the tent is a fistbreadth, which is more than a handbreadth in terms of length, width, and height. It is only when the tent is less than the size of a fist that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is not a tent. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of caves and deep cavities in the rocks that their status is that of a tent even though they are not man-made.

והרי דלת דיש בה כמה אגרופין וקתני רבי יהודה אומר לא היו מביאין דלתות אלא שוורים אמר אביי לא הוצרכו להביא דלתות

The Gemara asks: But a door on the back of an ox is an object that measures several fistbreadths, and it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: They did not bring doors but only oxen. Apparently, a door does not constitute a tent, since that is not the manner in which a tent is typically established. Abaye said in response that Rabbi Yehuda did not say that the legal status of the door is not that of a tent; rather, he said: They did not need to bring doors because the oxen themselves were sufficiently broad.

רבא אמר לא היו מביאין דלתות כל עיקר שמפני שדעתו של תינוק גסה עליו שמא יוציא ראשו או אחד מאבריו ויטמא

Rava said Rabbi Yehuda’s statement should be explained differently. They would not bring doors at all. Because a child has an exaggerated sense of self-confidence due to the width of the door, he might allow himself to move from side to side and as a result, perhaps he will extend his head or one of his limbs beyond the edge of the door and will become impure

בקבר התהום

with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.

תניא כוותיה דרבא רבי יהודה אומר לא היו מביאין דלתות כל עיקר מפני שדעתו של תינוק גסה עליו שמא יוציא ראשו או אחד מאבריו ויטמא בקבר התהום אלא מביאין שוורים המצרים שכריסותיהן רחבות והתינוקות יושבין על גביהן וכוסות של אבן בידיהן הגיעו לשילוח ירדו ומלאום ועלו וישבו להן על גביהן

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rabbi Yehuda says: They would not bring doors at all, because a child has an exaggerated sense of self-confidence and perhaps he will extend his head or one of his limbs beyond the edge of the door and will become impure with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. Rather, they would bring Egyptian oxen whose bellies are broad, and the children would sit upon them and they would hold cups of stone in their hands. When they reached the Siloam pool they descended and filled them, and ascended and sat themselves on the backs of the oxen.

והרי מטה דיש בה כמה אגרופים ותנן רבי יהודה אומר נוהגים היינו שהיינו ישנים תחת המטה בפני הזקנים שאני מטה הואיל ולגבה עשויה שוורים נמי לגבן עשוים

The Gemara asks: But with regard to a bed, which measures several fistbreadths, didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bed before the Elders? Apparently, despite the fact that a bed measures several handbreadths, its legal status is not that of a tent. The Gemara answers: A bed is different, since it is designed specifically for use upon it; therefore, the status of the space beneath it is not that of a tent. The Gemara asks: Aren’t oxen like those used to transport the children to bring water for the red heifer also designated specifically for use upon them and nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda deems their spinal column and bellies a tent.

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי אלעזר שאני שוורים הואיל ומגינים על הרועים בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים אי הכי מטה נמי הואיל ומגינה על מנעלים וסנדלים שתחתיה

When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Elazar said: Oxen are different since they protect the shepherds in the sun from the sun, and in the rain from the rain. Shepherds would lie beneath the bellies of the oxen as protection from the elements. The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if an ox is rendered a tent because it provides protection, even if its primary designation is for use upon it, then the status of a bed too should be that of a tent, since it protects shoes and sandals that are placed beneath it.

אלא אמר רבא שאני שוורים הואיל ועשוים להגין על בני מעים שלהן שנאמר עור ובשר תלבישני ובעצמות וגידים תסוככני

Rather, Rava rejected that explanation and said: Oxen are different and their status is that of a tent since their bellies and backs are made to protect their innards, as it is stated: “With skin and flesh You have clothed me, and with bones and sinews You have knitted me together” (Job 10:11). Since flesh and skin are mentioned in the verse as providing shelter, the status of the oxen is that of a tent.

ואי בעית אימא רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר סוכה דירת קבע בעינן והוה ליה מטה דירת עראי וסוכה אהל קבע ולא אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע

And if you wish, say instead: In this case Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his reasoning, as he stated elsewhere: We require a sukka that is a permanent residence. The bed in a sukka is a temporary residence, and the sukka is a permanent tent; and a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent. The permanent sukka is significant and that significance supersedes any temporary structure within it. Therefore, in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the status of the bed is not that of a tent.

והא רבי שמעון דאמר נמי סוכה דירת קבע בעינן (הא) ואתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע (אין) בהא פליגי מר סבר אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע ומר סבר לא אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who also stated that we require a sukka that is a permanent residence, nevertheless, a temporary tent comes and negates a permanent tent. The Gemara answers: Yes, and that is the point over which they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: A temporary tent comes and negates a permanent tent, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: A temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent.

אמר רבי שמעון מעשה בטבי עבדו תניא אמר רבי שמעון משיחתו של רבן גמליאל למדנו שני דברים למדנו שעבדים פטורים מן הסוכה ולמדנו שהישן תחת המטה לא יצא ידי חובתו

The mishna relates that 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 Rabban Gamliel claimed that Tavi did so because he was a Torah scholar and knew that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel we learned two matters. We learned that Canaanite slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

ולימא מדבריו של רבן גמליאל מילתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן כי הא דאמר רב אחא בר אדא ואמרי לה אמר רב אחא בר אדא אמר רב המנונא אמר רב מנין שאפילו שיחת תלמידי חכמים צריכה לימוד שנאמר ועלהו לא יבול

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And let Rabbi Shimon say: From the statement of Rabban Gamliel. Why did he use the atypical expression: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Through this expression he teaches us another matter in passing, like that which Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda said, and some say that Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Hamnuna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that even the conversation of Torah scholars require analysis, even when the intention of the speaker was apparently not to issue a halakhic ruling? It is as it is stated with regard to the righteous: “Which brings forth its fruit in its season and whose leaf does not wither” (Psalms 1:3). This teaches that with regard to a Torah scholar, not only is his primary product, his fruit, significant but even ancillary matters that stem from his conversation, his leaves, are significant.

מתני׳ הסומך סוכתו בכרעי המטה כשרה רבי יהודה אומר אם אינה יכולה לעמוד בפני עצמה פסולה

MISHNA: One who supports his sukka on the legs of the bed, i.e., he leans the sukka roofing on a bed, the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sukka cannot stand in and of itself without support of the bed, it is unfit.

גמ׳ מאי טעמיה דרבי יהודה פליגי בה רבי זירא ורבי אבא בר ממל חד אמר מפני שאין לה קבע וחד אמר מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda deeming this sukka unfit? Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagree with regard to the rationale. One said: It is unfit because it lacks permanence. The sukka is not stable enough, as if the bed is moved the sukka will collapse. And one said: It is unfit because he is supporting the roofing with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, as the bedframe is a vessel. Not only the roofing, but that which supports the roofing as well may not be susceptible to ritual impurity.

מאי בינייהו כגון שנעץ שפודין של ברזל וסיכך עליהם למאן דאמר לפי שאין לה קבע הרי יש לה קבע ומאן דאמר מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה הרי מעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara explains: The difference is in a case where one wedged iron skewers into the ground and roofed the sukka upon them. According to the one who said that the reason the sukka is unfit is because it lacks permanence, this sukka has permanence, and it is fit. However, the one who said the reason the sukka is unfit is because he is supporting the roofing with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, he is supporting it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, so it is unfit.

אמר אביי לא שנו אלא סמך אבל סיכך על גב המטה כשרה מאי טעמא למאן דאמר לפי שאין לה קבע הרי יש לה קבע למאן דאמר מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה הרי אין מעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה

Abaye said: The Sages taught this dispute only in a case where one leaned the roofing on the bed. However, if one placed the roofing atop the bed, i.e., he affixed poles to the bed and the roofing is supported by those poles, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason that it is fit? According to the one who said that the sukka is unfit because it lacks permanence, this sukka has permanence as even if the bed is moved, the roofing will move with it and will not collapse. And according to the one who said the sukka is unfit because he supports it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, in this case he is not supporting it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, as the roofing is not supported by the bed.

Scroll To Top