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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 28, 2021 | 讬状讟 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 21

Today鈥檚 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.

讬诇讬祝 讗讛诇 讗讛诇 诪诪砖讻谉 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬驻专砖 讗转 讛讗讛诇 注诇 讛诪砖讻谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜专讘谞谉 讗讛诇 讗讛诇 专讬讘讛

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: 鈥淭his is the teaching when a man dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14). And it is written there with regard to the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd he spread the tent over the Tabernacle鈥 (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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 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 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讞爪讬专讜转 讛讬讜 讘谞讜讬讜转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 讛住诇注 讜转讞转讬讛诐 讞诇诇 诪驻谞讬 拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 谞砖讬诐 注讜讘专讜转 讜讬讜诇讚讜转 砖诐 讜诪讙讚诇讜转 讘谞讬讛诐 砖诐 诇驻专讛

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.

讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚诇转讜转 讜转讬谞讜拽讜转 讬讜砖讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讜讻讜住讜转 砖诇 讗讘谉 讘讬讚讬讛诐 讛讙讬注讜 诇砖讬诇讜讞 讬专讚讜 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜诪讬诇讗讜诐 讜注诇讜 讜讬砖讘讜 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讛讬讛 诪砖诇砖诇 讜诪诪诇讗 诪驻谞讬 拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐

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.

讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讗诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讛讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讚讗讛诇 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讗诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐

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鈥檛 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诪诇讗 讗讙专讜祝 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖拽讬驻讬谉 讜讘谞拽讬拽讬 讛住诇注讬诐

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.

讜讛专讬 讚诇转 讚讬砖 讘讛 讻诪讛 讗讙专讜驻讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讗诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讚诇转讜转

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讻诇 注讬拽专 砖诪驻谞讬 砖讚注转讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 讙住讛 注诇讬讜 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜讬讟诪讗

Rava said Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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

讘拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐

with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讻诇 注讬拽专 诪驻谞讬 砖讚注转讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 讙住讛 注诇讬讜 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜讬讟诪讗 讘拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐 讗诇讗 诪讘讬讗讬谉 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛诪爪专讬诐 砖讻专讬住讜转讬讛谉 专讞讘讜转 讜讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 讬讜砖讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讜讻讜住讜转 砖诇 讗讘谉 讘讬讚讬讛谉 讛讙讬注讜 诇砖讬诇讜讞 讬专讚讜 讜诪诇讗讜诐 讜注诇讜 讜讬砖讘讜 诇讛谉 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉

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.

讜讛专讬 诪讟讛 讚讬砖 讘讛 讻诪讛 讗讙专讜驻讬诐 讜转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜讛讙讬诐 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 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讙讘讛 注砖讜讬讛 砖讜讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讙讘谉 注砖讜讬诐

The Gemara asks: But with regard to a bed, which measures several fistbreadths, didn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讗谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讙讬谞讬诐 注诇 讛专讜注讬诐 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讟讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讙讬谞讛 注诇 诪谞注诇讬诐 讜住谞讚诇讬诐 砖转讞转讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注砖讜讬诐 诇讛讙讬谉 注诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 砖诇讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 注讜专 讜讘砖专 转诇讘讬砖谞讬 讜讘注爪诪讜转 讜讙讬讚讬诐 转住讜讻讻谞讬

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: 鈥淲ith skin and flesh You have clothed me, and with bones and sinews You have knitted me together鈥 (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.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讟讛 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讜住讜讻讛 讗讛诇 拽讘注 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讜诪讘讟诇 讗讛诇 拽讘注

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鈥檚 opinion, the status of the bed is not that of a tent.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 谞诪讬 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉 (讛讗) 讜讗转讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讜诪讘讟诇 讗讛诇 拽讘注 (讗讬谉) 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讜诪讘讟诇 讗讛诇 拽讘注 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讜诪讘讟诇 讗讛诇 拽讘注

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪注砖讛 讘讟讘讬 注讘讚讜 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖讬讞转讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讚谞讜 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖注讘讚讬诐 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 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

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.

讜诇讬诪讗 诪讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讞转 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 诇讬诪讜讚 砖谞讗诪专 讜注诇讛讜 诇讗 讬讘讜诇

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 A岣 bar Adda said, and some say that Rabbi A岣 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: 鈥淲hich brings forth its fruit in its season and whose leaf does not wither鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛住讜诪讱 住讜讻转讜 讘讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 讻砖专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讘注 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 砖谞注抓 砖驻讜讚讬谉 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讜住讬讻讱 注诇讬讛诐 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讘注 讛专讬 讬砖 诇讛 拽讘注 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛专讬 诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 住诪讱 讗讘诇 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘 讛诪讟讛 讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讘注 讛专讬 讬砖 诇讛 拽讘注 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛专讬 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛

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).
  • 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 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鈥檛 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

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....

Sukkah 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 21

讬诇讬祝 讗讛诇 讗讛诇 诪诪砖讻谉 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬驻专砖 讗转 讛讗讛诇 注诇 讛诪砖讻谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜专讘谞谉 讗讛诇 讗讛诇 专讬讘讛

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: 鈥淭his is the teaching when a man dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14). And it is written there with regard to the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd he spread the tent over the Tabernacle鈥 (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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 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 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讞爪讬专讜转 讛讬讜 讘谞讜讬讜转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 讛住诇注 讜转讞转讬讛诐 讞诇诇 诪驻谞讬 拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 谞砖讬诐 注讜讘专讜转 讜讬讜诇讚讜转 砖诐 讜诪讙讚诇讜转 讘谞讬讛诐 砖诐 诇驻专讛

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.

讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讚诇转讜转 讜转讬谞讜拽讜转 讬讜砖讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讜讻讜住讜转 砖诇 讗讘谉 讘讬讚讬讛诐 讛讙讬注讜 诇砖讬诇讜讞 讬专讚讜 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜诪讬诇讗讜诐 讜注诇讜 讜讬砖讘讜 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讛讬讛 诪砖诇砖诇 讜诪诪诇讗 诪驻谞讬 拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐

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.

讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讗诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讜讛讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讚讗讛诇 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讗诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐

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鈥檛 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诪诇讗 讗讙专讜祝 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖拽讬驻讬谉 讜讘谞拽讬拽讬 讛住诇注讬诐

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.

讜讛专讬 讚诇转 讚讬砖 讘讛 讻诪讛 讗讙专讜驻讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讗诇讗 砖讜讜专讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讚诇转讜转

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讻诇 注讬拽专 砖诪驻谞讬 砖讚注转讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 讙住讛 注诇讬讜 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜讬讟诪讗

Rava said Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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

讘拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐

with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讚诇转讜转 讻诇 注讬拽专 诪驻谞讬 砖讚注转讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 讙住讛 注诇讬讜 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜讬讟诪讗 讘拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐 讗诇讗 诪讘讬讗讬谉 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛诪爪专讬诐 砖讻专讬住讜转讬讛谉 专讞讘讜转 讜讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 讬讜砖讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讜讻讜住讜转 砖诇 讗讘谉 讘讬讚讬讛谉 讛讙讬注讜 诇砖讬诇讜讞 讬专讚讜 讜诪诇讗讜诐 讜注诇讜 讜讬砖讘讜 诇讛谉 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉

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.

讜讛专讬 诪讟讛 讚讬砖 讘讛 讻诪讛 讗讙专讜驻讬诐 讜转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜讛讙讬诐 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 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讙讘讛 注砖讜讬讛 砖讜讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讙讘谉 注砖讜讬诐

The Gemara asks: But with regard to a bed, which measures several fistbreadths, didn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讗谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讙讬谞讬诐 注诇 讛专讜注讬诐 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讟讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讙讬谞讛 注诇 诪谞注诇讬诐 讜住谞讚诇讬诐 砖转讞转讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注砖讜讬诐 诇讛讙讬谉 注诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 砖诇讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 注讜专 讜讘砖专 转诇讘讬砖谞讬 讜讘注爪诪讜转 讜讙讬讚讬诐 转住讜讻讻谞讬

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: 鈥淲ith skin and flesh You have clothed me, and with bones and sinews You have knitted me together鈥 (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.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讟讛 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讜住讜讻讛 讗讛诇 拽讘注 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讜诪讘讟诇 讗讛诇 拽讘注

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鈥檚 opinion, the status of the bed is not that of a tent.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 谞诪讬 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉 (讛讗) 讜讗转讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讜诪讘讟诇 讗讛诇 拽讘注 (讗讬谉) 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗转讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讜诪讘讟诇 讗讛诇 拽讘注 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讜诪讘讟诇 讗讛诇 拽讘注

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪注砖讛 讘讟讘讬 注讘讚讜 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖讬讞转讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讚谞讜 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖注讘讚讬诐 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 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

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.

讜诇讬诪讗 诪讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讞转 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 诇讬诪讜讚 砖谞讗诪专 讜注诇讛讜 诇讗 讬讘讜诇

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 A岣 bar Adda said, and some say that Rabbi A岣 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: 鈥淲hich brings forth its fruit in its season and whose leaf does not wither鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛住讜诪讱 住讜讻转讜 讘讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 讻砖专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讘注 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 砖谞注抓 砖驻讜讚讬谉 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讜住讬讻讱 注诇讬讛诐 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讘注 讛专讬 讬砖 诇讛 拽讘注 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛专讬 诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 住诪讱 讗讘诇 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘 讛诪讟讛 讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讘注 讛专讬 讬砖 诇讛 拽讘注 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛专讬 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛

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