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 – 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’s reasoning – 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’s 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 – 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’t separate tithes (it is Shabbat or he doesn’t 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’s own understanding of the Rabbi Meir/Yehuda debate by the animal functioning as a wall.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Sukkah 23
זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל הָאִילָן וִיכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ — כְּשֵׁרָה וְעוֹלִין לָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין — רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַסְּפִינָה — רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר.
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.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִין בִּסְפִינָה, עָמַד רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְעָשָׂה סוּכָּה בְּרֹאשׁ הַסְּפִינָה. לְמָחָר נָשְׁבָה רוּחַ וַעֲקָרַתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: עֲקִיבָא! הֵיכָן סוּכָּתְךָ?
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, הֵיכָא דְּאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה — לֹא כְּלוּם הִיא. יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּכְשֵׁרָה. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּדִיכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד (בְּרוּחַ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה). רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: סוּכָּה דִּירַת קֶבַע בָּעֵינַן, וְכֵיוָן דְּאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה דְּיָם — לֹא כְּלוּם הִיא. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: סוּכָּה דִּירַת עֲרַאי בָּעֵינַן, וְכֵיוָן דִּיכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה — כְּשֵׁרָה.
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.
אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי גָּמָל כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״חַג הַסּוּכּוֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה לְךָ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״. סוּכָּה הָרְאוּיָה לְשִׁבְעָה — שְׁמָהּ סוּכָּה. סוּכָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְשִׁבְעָה — לֹא שְׁמָהּ סוּכָּה.
§ 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: “You shall prepare for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days” (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.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא נָמֵי — מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִחְזֵא חַזְיָא, וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בַּהּ.
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.
עֲשָׂאָהּ לִבְהֵמָה דּוֹפֶן לְסוּכָּה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ לֹא דּוֹפֶן לְסוּכָּה, וְלֹא לֶחִי לְמָבוֹי, וְלֹא פַּסִּין לְבֵירָאוֹת, וְלֹא גּוֹלֵל לְקֶבֶר. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אָמְרוּ: אַף אֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים.
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.
מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת. רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח. בְּפִיל קָשׁוּר כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּאִי נָמֵי מָיֵית — יֵשׁ בְּנִבְלָתוֹ עֲשָׂרָה. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּפִיל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָשׁוּר. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח — חָיְישִׁינַן.
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.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת, נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח! אֶלָּא: בְּפִיל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָשׁוּר, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי. כִּי פְלִיגִי בִּבְהֵמָה קְשׁוּרָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת — חָיְישִׁינַן. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
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.
וּמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח, נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת? מִיתָה לָא שְׁכִיחָא. וְהָאִיכָּא רַוְוחָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי? דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ בְּהוּצָא וְדַפְנָא.
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’t 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.
וְדִלְמָא רָבְעָה? דִּמְתִיחָה בְּאַשְׁלֵי מִלְּעֵיל. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת נָמֵי, הָא מְתִיחָה בְּאַשְׁלֵי מִלְּעֵיל! זִמְנִין דְּמוֹקֵים בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סָמוּךְ לַסְּכָךְ,
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.
וְכֵיוָן דְּמָיְיתָא — כָּוְוצָא וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.
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.
וּמִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר חָיֵישׁ לְמִיתָה וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא חָיֵישׁ? וְהָתְנַן: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וְהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם — אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּים.
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’t 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.
וְרָמֵינַן עֲלַהּ: הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ שָׁעָה אַחַת קוֹדֶם מִיתָתִי — אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד!
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.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּלָא חָיֵישׁ לְמִיתָה, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיתָה.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים, אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה, עֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, תִּשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וּמֵיחֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה מִיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara cites proof that these are the opinions of those tanna’im. 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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Sukkah 23: Would You Really Use an Elephant as a Sukkah Wall?
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Ontario, Canada
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Sukkah 23
זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל הָאִילָן וִיכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ — כְּשֵׁרָה וְעוֹלִין לָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין — רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַסְּפִינָה — רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר.
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.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִין בִּסְפִינָה, עָמַד רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְעָשָׂה סוּכָּה בְּרֹאשׁ הַסְּפִינָה. לְמָחָר נָשְׁבָה רוּחַ וַעֲקָרַתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: עֲקִיבָא! הֵיכָן סוּכָּתְךָ?
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, הֵיכָא דְּאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה — לֹא כְּלוּם הִיא. יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּכְשֵׁרָה. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּדִיכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד (בְּרוּחַ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה). רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: סוּכָּה דִּירַת קֶבַע בָּעֵינַן, וְכֵיוָן דְּאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה דְּיָם — לֹא כְּלוּם הִיא. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: סוּכָּה דִּירַת עֲרַאי בָּעֵינַן, וְכֵיוָן דִּיכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה דְּיַבָּשָׁה — כְּשֵׁרָה.
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.
אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי גָּמָל כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״חַג הַסּוּכּוֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה לְךָ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״. סוּכָּה הָרְאוּיָה לְשִׁבְעָה — שְׁמָהּ סוּכָּה. סוּכָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְשִׁבְעָה — לֹא שְׁמָהּ סוּכָּה.
§ 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: “You shall prepare for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days” (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.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא נָמֵי — מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִחְזֵא חַזְיָא, וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בַּהּ.
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.
עֲשָׂאָהּ לִבְהֵמָה דּוֹפֶן לְסוּכָּה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ לֹא דּוֹפֶן לְסוּכָּה, וְלֹא לֶחִי לְמָבוֹי, וְלֹא פַּסִּין לְבֵירָאוֹת, וְלֹא גּוֹלֵל לְקֶבֶר. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אָמְרוּ: אַף אֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים.
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.
מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת. רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח. בְּפִיל קָשׁוּר כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּאִי נָמֵי מָיֵית — יֵשׁ בְּנִבְלָתוֹ עֲשָׂרָה. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּפִיל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָשׁוּר. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח — חָיְישִׁינַן.
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.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת, נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח! אֶלָּא: בְּפִיל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָשׁוּר, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי. כִּי פְלִיגִי בִּבְהֵמָה קְשׁוּרָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת — חָיְישִׁינַן. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
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.
וּמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תִּבְרַח, נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת? מִיתָה לָא שְׁכִיחָא. וְהָאִיכָּא רַוְוחָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי? דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ בְּהוּצָא וְדַפְנָא.
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’t 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.
וְדִלְמָא רָבְעָה? דִּמְתִיחָה בְּאַשְׁלֵי מִלְּעֵיל. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת נָמֵי, הָא מְתִיחָה בְּאַשְׁלֵי מִלְּעֵיל! זִמְנִין דְּמוֹקֵים בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סָמוּךְ לַסְּכָךְ,
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.
וְכֵיוָן דְּמָיְיתָא — כָּוְוצָא וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.
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.
וּמִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר חָיֵישׁ לְמִיתָה וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא חָיֵישׁ? וְהָתְנַן: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וְהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם — אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּים.
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’t 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.
וְרָמֵינַן עֲלַהּ: הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ שָׁעָה אַחַת קוֹדֶם מִיתָתִי — אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד!
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.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּלָא חָיֵישׁ לְמִיתָה, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיתָה.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים, אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה, עֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, תִּשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וּמֵיחֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה מִיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara cites proof that these are the opinions of those tanna’im. 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.
