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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 30, 2021 | 讻状讗 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).

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refuah shleima for her beloved husband Rabbi Hayim Herring.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • 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 23

Today’s daf is sponsored by David Eisenstein in memory of Channa Bat Yehudah Yosef Ravvin. “In memory of my Aunt Hannah Ravvin whose life and family inspire us in our commitment to Jewish Life and learning.”

The mishna permits a sukkah on a boat. The gemara points out that this is a subject of debate among Rabbi Akiva and Rabban Gamliel. The root of the debate is: does a sukkah need to be able to stand up to an atypical wind on land (which is like a typical wind on the water) or does it just need to be able to stand up to a typical wind on land. A sukkah on a camel is also a subject of debate 鈥 between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. Does it need to be a sukkah that can be used for all seven days or is it enough that on a Torah level it can be used for all seven days, even though the rabbis prohibited it? Can an animal be used as a wall for a sukkah, a lechi for an alleyway, etc? Rabbi Meir forbids and Rabbi Yehuda permits. Abaye and Rabbi Zeira disagree in their understanding of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning 鈥 is it concern maybe the animal will die or concern it may run away. The gemara discusses these opinions at length and finds a case where they would disagree. Next, the gemara questions Abaye鈥檚 opinion that Rabbi Meir is concern it may die. In a contradiction between a mishna and a braita regarding the daughter of an Israelite married to a Kohen 鈥 she can eat truma as long as her husband is alive. In one source, we are concerned that maybe he will die and not permit her to continue to eat truma. In the other, we are not concerned and she can continue to eat. Abaye resolved that contradiction by saying that Rabbi Meir is the one who is not concerned and Rabbi Yehuda is. He proves this from the case of one who buys wine from a Cuti (Shomroni) and can鈥檛 separate tithes (it is Shabbat or he doesn鈥檛 have pure vessels to separate it). Rabbi Meir has a resolution and Rabbi Yehuda does not. It seems that debate there is: are we worried the flask will crack. This is where Abaye brings his proof that Rabbi Meir is not concerned it will break (similar to not concerned the husband died) and Rabbi Yehuda is. This contradicts Abaye鈥檚 own understanding of the Rabbi Meir/Yehuda debate by the animal functioning as a wall.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬谞讟诇 讛讗讬诇谉 讜讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讻砖专讛 讜注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The mishna summarizes that this is the principle: Any case where, were the tree removed, the sukka would be able to remain standing in and of itself, it is fit, and one may ascend and enter it on the Festival, since the tree is not its primary support.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka at the top of the ship, Rabban Gamliel deems it unfit and Rabbi Akiva deems it fit.

诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讛讬讜 讘讗讬谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 注诪讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜注砖讛 住讜讻讛 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛 诇诪讞专 谞砖讘讛 专讜讞 讜注拽专转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讻谉 住讜讻转讱

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva, who were coming on a ship. Rabbi Akiva arose and established a sukka at the top of the ship. The next day the wind blew and uprooted it. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Akiva, where is your sukka? It was unfit from the start.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讻砖专讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 (讘专讜讞 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛) 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬诐 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛 讻砖专讛

Abaye said: Everyone agrees that in a case where the sukka is unable to withstand a typical land wind, the sukka is of no consequence and it is not even a temporary residence. If it is able to withstand even an atypical land wind, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. Where they disagree is in a case where the sukka is able to withstand a typical land wind but is unable to withstand an atypical land wind, which is the equivalent of a typical sea wind. Rabban Gamliel holds: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a permanent residence, and since it is not able to withstand an atypical land wind, which is like a typical sea wind, it is of no consequence and is not a sukka at all. Rabbi Akiva holds: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a temporary residence, and since it is able to withstand a typical land wind, it is fit, although it is unable to withstand a typical sea wind.

讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讙诪诇 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 转注砖讛 诇讱 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 住讜讻讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇砖讘注讛 砖诪讛 住讜讻讛 住讜讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇砖讘注讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 住讜讻讛

搂 The mishna continues: Or if one establishes his sukka atop a camel, the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka atop an animal, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers that it is as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall prepare for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:13), from which Rabbi Yehuda derives: A sukka that is suitable for seven days is called a sukka, while a sukka that is not suitable for seven days is not called a sukka. It is prohibited to climb upon an animal on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, and therefore a sukka atop an animal is unfit, as it cannot be used all seven days.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讝讗 讞讝讬讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛

And Rabbi Meir, who holds that the sukka is fit, would say: By Torah law, this sukka is also suitable for use on a Festival and on Shabbat, as there is no Torah prohibition against using an animal on those days, and it is the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting it. The fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic decree does not render the sukka unfit.

注砖讗讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讜驻谉 诇住讜讻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讗 讚讜驻谉 诇住讜讻讛 讜诇讗 诇讞讬 诇诪讘讜讬 讜诇讗 驻住讬谉 诇讘讬专讗讜转 讜诇讗 讙讜诇诇 诇拽讘专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐

However, if one utilized his animal as a wall for a sukka and did not establish the entire sukka atop the animal, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit, as Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to any animate object, one may neither establish it as a wall for the sukka, nor as a side post placed at the entrance to an alleyway to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway on Shabbat, nor as one of the upright boards placed around wells to render the area a private domain and permit one to draw water from the well on Shabbat, nor as the covering for a grave. In the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili the Sages said: Nor may one write bills of divorce on it.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 讘驻讬诇 拽砖讜专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讬转 讬砖 讘谞讘诇转讜 注砖专讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 拽砖讜专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that an animal is unfit for use as a partition in areas of halakha where a partition is required? Abaye said: It is due to the concern lest the animal die, leaving the sukka without a wall. Rabbi Zeira said: It is due to the concern lest it flee. The Gemara explains the practical halakhic differences between the two opinions. In the case where one established a wall with a tied elephant, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit, as even if it dies and falls, its carcass still has a height of ten handbreadths and is fit for the wall of a sukka. Where they disagree is in the case of an elephant that is not tied. According to the one who said: It is due to the concern lest the animal die, we are not concerned in this case, as the carcass would remain a fit wall. According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, we remain concerned.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 讗诇讗 讘驻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 拽砖讜专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讘讛诪讛 拽砖讜专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it die, let us also be concerned lest it flee, as that too is a reasonable concern. Rather, this is the explanation: In the case where one established a wall with an elephant that is not tied, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit lest it flee. Where they disagree is in the case of a tied animal. According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest the animal die, we are concerned, as although it cannot flee, it might die, and the carcass of a typical animal is not ten handbreadths high. And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, we are not concerned.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 诪讬转讛 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讜讞讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, let us also be concerned lest it die. The Gemara answers: That is not a concern because death is not common. The Sages do not issue decrees with regard to uncommon circumstances. The Gemara asks: But according to all opinions, isn鈥檛 there the space between its legs, which is like a breach in a wall? How can one establish a partition whose breached segment exceeds its standing segment? The Gemara answers: He establishes a partition for it by filling the gaps with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves, sealing the breach.

讜讚诇诪讗 专讘注讛 讚诪转讬讞讛 讘讗砖诇讬 诪诇注讬诇 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪转讬讞讛 讘讗砖诇讬 诪诇注讬诇 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇住讻讱

The Gemara asks further: And even though there is no concern lest the animal die, perhaps it will crouch, leaving a wall that is less than ten handbreadths? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where the animal is tied with ropes from above so that it cannot crouch. Based on that explanation, the Gemara asks: And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it die, there is also no concern since it is tied with ropes from above. Even if the animal died, it would remain in place as a fit partition. The Gemara answers: Sometimes the ten-handbreadth wall consists of the animal that is a bit higher than seven handbreadths established adjacent to the roofing, less than three handbreadths away.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讬转讗 讻讜讜爪讗 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

And once it dies, it contracts to be more than three handbreadths from the roofing, and it does not enter his mind to fix it because it is not noticeable. In that case, the principle of lavud would not apply, and the result would be a wall that is less than the minimum requisite height.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讜讛转谞谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讜讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: And did Abaye actually say that Rabbi Meir is concerned about potential death with regard to the sukka walls and that Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma as the wife of a priest, as the presumptive status of her husband is that he is alive? Apparently, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that one who is alive remains alive.

讜专诪讬谞谉 注诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诪讬转转讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚

And we raised a contradiction from a different mishna: If one is leaving his place of residence, and in order to preclude a situation where his wife would have the status of a deserted wife he gives her a conditional bill of divorce and stipulates: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour prior to my death, it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma immediately due to the concern lest he die in the next hour. Apparently, there is concern lest one die at any point.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛

And Abaye said in resolving the contradiction: This is not difficult. This mishna, where the presumption is that one who is alive remains alive, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is not concerned about potential death. That mishna, where there is concern lest one die at any point, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is concerned about potential death.

讚转谞讬讗 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara cites proof that these are the opinions of those tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans and there is reason to suspect that teruma and tithes were not taken, and he is not in a position to separate teruma, he acts as follows. If there are one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and a tenth of the remainder, which is nine log, are second tithe. And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

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...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 23: Would You Really Use an Elephant as a Sukkah Wall?

A general principle on when one can enter a sukkah (with an unusual base) on yom tov - it needs...

Sukkah 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 23

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬谞讟诇 讛讗讬诇谉 讜讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讻砖专讛 讜注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The mishna summarizes that this is the principle: Any case where, were the tree removed, the sukka would be able to remain standing in and of itself, it is fit, and one may ascend and enter it on the Festival, since the tree is not its primary support.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka at the top of the ship, Rabban Gamliel deems it unfit and Rabbi Akiva deems it fit.

诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讛讬讜 讘讗讬谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 注诪讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜注砖讛 住讜讻讛 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛 诇诪讞专 谞砖讘讛 专讜讞 讜注拽专转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讻谉 住讜讻转讱

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva, who were coming on a ship. Rabbi Akiva arose and established a sukka at the top of the ship. The next day the wind blew and uprooted it. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Akiva, where is your sukka? It was unfit from the start.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讻砖专讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 (讘专讜讞 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛) 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬诐 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讚讬讘砖讛 讻砖专讛

Abaye said: Everyone agrees that in a case where the sukka is unable to withstand a typical land wind, the sukka is of no consequence and it is not even a temporary residence. If it is able to withstand even an atypical land wind, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. Where they disagree is in a case where the sukka is able to withstand a typical land wind but is unable to withstand an atypical land wind, which is the equivalent of a typical sea wind. Rabban Gamliel holds: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a permanent residence, and since it is not able to withstand an atypical land wind, which is like a typical sea wind, it is of no consequence and is not a sukka at all. Rabbi Akiva holds: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a temporary residence, and since it is able to withstand a typical land wind, it is fit, although it is unable to withstand a typical sea wind.

讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讙诪诇 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 转注砖讛 诇讱 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 住讜讻讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇砖讘注讛 砖诪讛 住讜讻讛 住讜讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇砖讘注讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 住讜讻讛

搂 The mishna continues: Or if one establishes his sukka atop a camel, the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka atop an animal, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers that it is as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall prepare for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:13), from which Rabbi Yehuda derives: A sukka that is suitable for seven days is called a sukka, while a sukka that is not suitable for seven days is not called a sukka. It is prohibited to climb upon an animal on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, and therefore a sukka atop an animal is unfit, as it cannot be used all seven days.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讝讗 讞讝讬讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛

And Rabbi Meir, who holds that the sukka is fit, would say: By Torah law, this sukka is also suitable for use on a Festival and on Shabbat, as there is no Torah prohibition against using an animal on those days, and it is the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting it. The fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic decree does not render the sukka unfit.

注砖讗讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讜驻谉 诇住讜讻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讗 讚讜驻谉 诇住讜讻讛 讜诇讗 诇讞讬 诇诪讘讜讬 讜诇讗 驻住讬谉 诇讘讬专讗讜转 讜诇讗 讙讜诇诇 诇拽讘专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐

However, if one utilized his animal as a wall for a sukka and did not establish the entire sukka atop the animal, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit, as Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to any animate object, one may neither establish it as a wall for the sukka, nor as a side post placed at the entrance to an alleyway to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway on Shabbat, nor as one of the upright boards placed around wells to render the area a private domain and permit one to draw water from the well on Shabbat, nor as the covering for a grave. In the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili the Sages said: Nor may one write bills of divorce on it.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 讘驻讬诇 拽砖讜专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讬转 讬砖 讘谞讘诇转讜 注砖专讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 拽砖讜专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that an animal is unfit for use as a partition in areas of halakha where a partition is required? Abaye said: It is due to the concern lest the animal die, leaving the sukka without a wall. Rabbi Zeira said: It is due to the concern lest it flee. The Gemara explains the practical halakhic differences between the two opinions. In the case where one established a wall with a tied elephant, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit, as even if it dies and falls, its carcass still has a height of ten handbreadths and is fit for the wall of a sukka. Where they disagree is in the case of an elephant that is not tied. According to the one who said: It is due to the concern lest the animal die, we are not concerned in this case, as the carcass would remain a fit wall. According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, we remain concerned.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 讗诇讗 讘驻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 拽砖讜专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讘讛诪讛 拽砖讜专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it die, let us also be concerned lest it flee, as that too is a reasonable concern. Rather, this is the explanation: In the case where one established a wall with an elephant that is not tied, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit lest it flee. Where they disagree is in the case of a tied animal. According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest the animal die, we are concerned, as although it cannot flee, it might die, and the carcass of a typical animal is not ten handbreadths high. And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, we are not concerned.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 诪讬转讛 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讜讞讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, let us also be concerned lest it die. The Gemara answers: That is not a concern because death is not common. The Sages do not issue decrees with regard to uncommon circumstances. The Gemara asks: But according to all opinions, isn鈥檛 there the space between its legs, which is like a breach in a wall? How can one establish a partition whose breached segment exceeds its standing segment? The Gemara answers: He establishes a partition for it by filling the gaps with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves, sealing the breach.

讜讚诇诪讗 专讘注讛 讚诪转讬讞讛 讘讗砖诇讬 诪诇注讬诇 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪转讬讞讛 讘讗砖诇讬 诪诇注讬诇 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇住讻讱

The Gemara asks further: And even though there is no concern lest the animal die, perhaps it will crouch, leaving a wall that is less than ten handbreadths? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where the animal is tied with ropes from above so that it cannot crouch. Based on that explanation, the Gemara asks: And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it die, there is also no concern since it is tied with ropes from above. Even if the animal died, it would remain in place as a fit partition. The Gemara answers: Sometimes the ten-handbreadth wall consists of the animal that is a bit higher than seven handbreadths established adjacent to the roofing, less than three handbreadths away.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讬转讗 讻讜讜爪讗 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

And once it dies, it contracts to be more than three handbreadths from the roofing, and it does not enter his mind to fix it because it is not noticeable. In that case, the principle of lavud would not apply, and the result would be a wall that is less than the minimum requisite height.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讜讛转谞谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讜讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: And did Abaye actually say that Rabbi Meir is concerned about potential death with regard to the sukka walls and that Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma as the wife of a priest, as the presumptive status of her husband is that he is alive? Apparently, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that one who is alive remains alive.

讜专诪讬谞谉 注诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诪讬转转讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚

And we raised a contradiction from a different mishna: If one is leaving his place of residence, and in order to preclude a situation where his wife would have the status of a deserted wife he gives her a conditional bill of divorce and stipulates: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour prior to my death, it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma immediately due to the concern lest he die in the next hour. Apparently, there is concern lest one die at any point.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛

And Abaye said in resolving the contradiction: This is not difficult. This mishna, where the presumption is that one who is alive remains alive, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is not concerned about potential death. That mishna, where there is concern lest one die at any point, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is concerned about potential death.

讚转谞讬讗 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara cites proof that these are the opinions of those tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans and there is reason to suspect that teruma and tithes were not taken, and he is not in a position to separate teruma, he acts as follows. If there are one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and a tenth of the remainder, which is nine log, are second tithe. And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Scroll To Top