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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 31, 2021 | 讻状讘 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 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 24

How does the gemara resolve the contradiction in Abaye regarding Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda – which one holds does one need to be concerned for death or not? In the end, they conclude that the debate regarding the wine of the Cutim was not about whether or not the flask will break but whether or not one holds by breira, retroactive designation. Another question is raised against Rabbi Yehuda from Yoma where he held that a second wife is brought for the Kohen Gadol in case his wife were to die. After the whole discussion regarding the two possibilities of how to understand why Rabbi Meir doesn’t allow an animal to be a wall, the gemara raises a question against this from the cover of the grave (golel) and rejects both interpretations. Two other explanations are brought. What is the difference between them? Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis debate whether or not a get can be written on an animal and their proofs from the verses are brought. The mishna states that a tree can be used for walls of the sukkah. Rav Acha bar Yaakov said that a mechitza that can’t stand up in a typical wind is not a valid mechitza. A question is raised from our mishna and other sources that have items that stand in the wind that are used as mechitzas. Each case is answered in the same way – they are all supported by something stronger that holds them in place.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit one from doing so due to the concern lest the wineskin burst and the contents spill before he has an opportunity to actually separate the teruma and tithes. In that case, when he drank the wine, retroactively, he is found to have drunk untithed produce. Rabbi Meir is not concerned about potential change in the status quo, and Rabbi Yehuda, who is concerned lest the wineskin burst, would all the more so be concerned about potential death.

讗讬驻讜讱 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 诇诪讬转讛 讚转谞讬讗 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

The Gemara suggests: Reverse the attribution of the statements according to Abaye. Rabbi Meir is concerned about potential death, and Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about potential death, as it is taught in a baraita: If one utilized his animal as a wall for the sukka, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬转讛 砖讻讬讞讗 讘拽讬注转 讛谞讜讚 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪住专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诪专

The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to sukka, where he is concerned about potential death, and the other statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to separation of teruma and tithes, where he is not concerned lest the wineskin burst. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: Death is common, as every living being will eventually die; however, the bursting of the wineskin is not common because it is possible that he gave the wineskin to a guard for protection so that it does not burst until he has the opportunity to separate the required teruma and tithes.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to sukka, where he is not concerned about potential death, and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to separation of teruma and tithes, where he is concerned lest the wineskin burst.

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讘拽讬注转 谞讜讚 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛

The Gemara answers: The rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to tithes is not due to the fact that he is concerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin; rather, he rules that one may not drink the wine because he is not of the opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification. The procedure prescribed by Rabbi Meir is based on a fundamental assumption that when the separation is actually performed, the produce that he separates for teruma and tithes at that point is determined retroactively to have been teruma and tithes from the outset. Rabbi Yehuda does not accept this principle. Therefore, one鈥檚 subsequent actions do not retroactively determine the original status of the produce.

讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讘拽讬注转 谞讜讚 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讛 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讻砖讬讘拽注 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讘拽讬注转 讛谞讜讚

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not concerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin? But isn鈥檛 there proof from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that the Sages said to Rabbi Meir with regard to tithes: Do you not concede that perhaps the wineskin will burst, and it will be determined retroactively that he is drinking untithed produce? And Rabbi Meir said to the Sages: That possibility is not a concern. When it actually bursts, I will be concerned. This indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees with Rabbi Meir, is concerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin.

讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讬转 诇讬 讘专讬专讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 讚砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻砖讬讘拽注

The Gemara answers that there, it is Rabbi Yehuda who is saying to Rabbi Meir: For me, I am not of the opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification, and therefore one cannot separate teruma and tithes after drinking the wine. However, according to your opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification, do you not concede that one may not drink wine before separating teruma and tithes due to the concern lest the wineskin burst? Rabbi Meir said to him: When it actually bursts, I will be concerned.

讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讗砖转讜 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讻驻专讛

The Gemara asks further: And is Rabbi Yehuda not concerned about potential death? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna in tractate Yoma (2a) that the Sages said with regard to the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and since the High Priest performing the Yom Kippur service must be married, Rabbi Yehuda says: They would even designate another wife for him lest his wife die. Apparently, he is concerned about potential death. The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that this designation is unique to Yom Kippur, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: They established a higher standard with regard to atonement? Therefore, matters that are not a source of concern in other areas of halakha are significant with regard to Yom Kippur.

讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讬讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜诇诇 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜诇诇 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟讛专

搂 The Gemara asks: Both according to the one who said that an animal is an unfit partition due to the concern lest it die, and according to the one who said that it is due to the concern lest it flee, apparently it is a full-fledged partition by Torah law, and it is the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting its use lest a problem arise. However, if that is so, according to Rabbi Meir an animal used as a covering for a grave should be impure due to the impurity of the covering of a grave. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (Eiruvin 15a鈥揵) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a living creature imparts ritual impurity due to the impurity of the covering of a grave, but Rabbi Meir deems it pure? If according to Rabbi Meir an animal is unfit for use as a partition only due to the concern lest it die or flee, but essentially it is a fit partition, why does it not become impure when used as a covering of a grave?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖注讜诪讚转 讘专讜讞 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛

Rather, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said, contrary to that which was stated above: Rabbi Meir holds that any partition that stands by means of air, i.e., by intangible means, like an animate being, which stands due to its life force, is not a partition. Some say a different version of that which Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Rabbi Meir holds that any partition that is not established by a person is not a partition.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗讜拽诪讛 讘谞讜讚 转驻讜讞 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞讬爪讛 注讜诪讚转 讘专讜讞 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讛专讬 注讜诪讚转 讘专讜讞 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two versions of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case where one establishes a partition with an inflated wineskin. According to the one who said that a partition that stands by means of air is not a partition, this partition also stands by means of air and is therefore unfit. According to the one who said that if it is not established by a person it is not a partition,

讛专讬 注砖讜讬讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

this partition was established by a person and is therefore fit.

讗诪专 诪专 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 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 住驻专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 住驻专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Master said in the baraita that in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they said: Nor may one write bills of divorce on it. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a wife, and marries her, and it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her a scroll [sefer] of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1); from the word scroll, I have derived only that a scroll is fit. From where do I derive to include all objects as fit materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? The verse states: 鈥淭hat he write her,鈥 in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 住驻专 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 住驻专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇

If so, what is the meaning of that which the verse states: Scroll? It is to tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor is it food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food. That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讻转讘 讘住驻专 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 住驻专 诇住驻讬专转 讚讘专讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse? They contend: If the verse had written: That he write for her in the scroll [basefer], it would be as you said, that the bill of divorce may be written only on a scroll. Now that it is written simply: That he write her a sefer, it comes to teach that a mere account of the matters [sefirat devarim] is required. There are no restrictions with regard to the surface on which that account may be written.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 讘讻转讬讘讛 诪转讙专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讘讻住祝 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转拽砖 讬爪讬讗讛 诇讛讜讬讛 诪讛 讛讜讬讛 讘讻住祝 讗祝 讬爪讬讗讛 讘讻住祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues: And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase: 鈥淭hat he write her鈥? The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since in the verse, leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, is juxtaposed to becoming married, i.e., betrothal, then just as becoming married is effected with money, so too, leaving marriage may be effected with money. Therefore, the Torah teaches us: 鈥淭hat he write her,鈥 indicating that divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 住驻专 讻讜专转讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻讜专转讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this reasoning that a woman cannot be divorced with money? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: 鈥淎 scroll of severance,鈥 which teaches that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband, and nothing else severs her from him.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讘专 讛讻讜专转 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 转砖转讬 讬讬谉 讜注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 转诇讻讬 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 讻专讬转讜转 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讻专讬转讜转

The Gemara continues: And the other tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, requires that verse to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her. As it is taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will never drink wine, or on the condition that you will never go to your father鈥檚 house, that is not severance; the divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition for the duration of thirty days, or any other limited period of time, that is severance, and the divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讻专转 讻专讬转讜转 谞驻拽讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讻专转 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 讚专砖讬

The Gemara continues: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, derives that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce from the fact that instead of using the term karet, the verse uses the more expanded term keritut. Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance. And the other tanna, the Rabbis, does not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut, because the Rabbis do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘讬谉 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讚驻谞讜转 诇讛 讻砖专讛

mishna In the case of one who establishes his sukka between the trees, and the trees serve as walls for it, the sukka is fit.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛

gemara Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Any partition that is not able to stand in a typical wind, but rather is blown to and fro, is not a partition.

转谞谉 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘讬谉 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讚驻谞讜转 诇讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛讗 拽讗讝讬诇 讜讗转讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘拽砖讬谉

The Gemara asks the following question based on that which we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who establishes his sukka between the trees, and the trees serve as walls for it, the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 the trees sway back and forth in the wind? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? The mishna is referring to older trees that are thick and hard and do not sway in the wind.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 谞讜驻讜 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讙讝专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讗讬诇谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the issue of its foliage, which certainly sways in the wind? If it constitutes part of the wall of the sukka, the sukka should be unfit. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where it is a fit wall due to the fact that he established the wall by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves to tighten it to prevent it from swaying in the wind. And the Gemara says: If it is so that the tree is tied and cannot sway, what purpose is there to state this halakha? It is obvious that it is a fit wall. The Gemara answers: It is lest you say: Let us issue a decree prohibiting its use lest one come to use the tree on Shabbat. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not a concern.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讙讚专 讗讜 诪讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

Come and hear a different proof that a partition that is blown to and fro in the wind is a fit partition. The halakha is that double boards positioned in the four corners of an area surrounding a well render the area a private domain in which it is permitted to draw water from the well on Shabbat. If there was a tree there, one cubit thick on each side of one of the corners, or a square stone fence that measures one square cubit, or a partition of reeds, its legal status is assessed like that of a double board positioned at the corners of the area surrounding a well, and serve as a partition for two of the sides. Apparently, a partition that moves in the wind, like the partition of reeds, is considered a full-fledged partition. The Gemara refutes this proof: There, too, it is only considered a full-fledged partition due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬诇谉 讛诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 讗诐 讗讬谉 谞讜驻讜 讙讘讜讛 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转讞转讬讜 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讗转讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a tree whose foliage is broad and its branches reach down and cover the ground, if its foliage is not three handbreadths high off the ground it creates a space similar to a round room; therefore, one may carry beneath it, as it is a full-fledged private domain. Why is the foliage of the tree a fit partition? Doesn鈥檛 it sway back and forth in the wind? The Gemara answers: There, too, it is due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: If so that it is a case where one established the foliage as a complete partition, let him move objects in the entire area beneath the tree, since it is a private domain. Why, then, did Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, say: One may carry beneath this tree

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • 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 24: Complete Severance

Remember "bereira"? It's here again. This time, in the context of a sukkah that relies on an animal being part...

Sukkah 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 24

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit one from doing so due to the concern lest the wineskin burst and the contents spill before he has an opportunity to actually separate the teruma and tithes. In that case, when he drank the wine, retroactively, he is found to have drunk untithed produce. Rabbi Meir is not concerned about potential change in the status quo, and Rabbi Yehuda, who is concerned lest the wineskin burst, would all the more so be concerned about potential death.

讗讬驻讜讱 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 诇诪讬转讛 讚转谞讬讗 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

The Gemara suggests: Reverse the attribution of the statements according to Abaye. Rabbi Meir is concerned about potential death, and Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about potential death, as it is taught in a baraita: If one utilized his animal as a wall for the sukka, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬转讛 砖讻讬讞讗 讘拽讬注转 讛谞讜讚 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪住专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诪专

The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to sukka, where he is concerned about potential death, and the other statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to separation of teruma and tithes, where he is not concerned lest the wineskin burst. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: Death is common, as every living being will eventually die; however, the bursting of the wineskin is not common because it is possible that he gave the wineskin to a guard for protection so that it does not burst until he has the opportunity to separate the required teruma and tithes.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to sukka, where he is not concerned about potential death, and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to separation of teruma and tithes, where he is concerned lest the wineskin burst.

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讘拽讬注转 谞讜讚 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛

The Gemara answers: The rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to tithes is not due to the fact that he is concerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin; rather, he rules that one may not drink the wine because he is not of the opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification. The procedure prescribed by Rabbi Meir is based on a fundamental assumption that when the separation is actually performed, the produce that he separates for teruma and tithes at that point is determined retroactively to have been teruma and tithes from the outset. Rabbi Yehuda does not accept this principle. Therefore, one鈥檚 subsequent actions do not retroactively determine the original status of the produce.

讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讘拽讬注转 谞讜讚 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讛 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讻砖讬讘拽注 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讘拽讬注转 讛谞讜讚

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not concerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin? But isn鈥檛 there proof from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that the Sages said to Rabbi Meir with regard to tithes: Do you not concede that perhaps the wineskin will burst, and it will be determined retroactively that he is drinking untithed produce? And Rabbi Meir said to the Sages: That possibility is not a concern. When it actually bursts, I will be concerned. This indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees with Rabbi Meir, is concerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin.

讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讬转 诇讬 讘专讬专讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 讚砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻砖讬讘拽注

The Gemara answers that there, it is Rabbi Yehuda who is saying to Rabbi Meir: For me, I am not of the opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification, and therefore one cannot separate teruma and tithes after drinking the wine. However, according to your opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification, do you not concede that one may not drink wine before separating teruma and tithes due to the concern lest the wineskin burst? Rabbi Meir said to him: When it actually bursts, I will be concerned.

讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讗砖转讜 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘讻驻专讛

The Gemara asks further: And is Rabbi Yehuda not concerned about potential death? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna in tractate Yoma (2a) that the Sages said with regard to the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and since the High Priest performing the Yom Kippur service must be married, Rabbi Yehuda says: They would even designate another wife for him lest his wife die. Apparently, he is concerned about potential death. The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that this designation is unique to Yom Kippur, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: They established a higher standard with regard to atonement? Therefore, matters that are not a source of concern in other areas of halakha are significant with regard to Yom Kippur.

讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 转讘专讞 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讬讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜诇诇 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜诇诇 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟讛专

搂 The Gemara asks: Both according to the one who said that an animal is an unfit partition due to the concern lest it die, and according to the one who said that it is due to the concern lest it flee, apparently it is a full-fledged partition by Torah law, and it is the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting its use lest a problem arise. However, if that is so, according to Rabbi Meir an animal used as a covering for a grave should be impure due to the impurity of the covering of a grave. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (Eiruvin 15a鈥揵) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a living creature imparts ritual impurity due to the impurity of the covering of a grave, but Rabbi Meir deems it pure? If according to Rabbi Meir an animal is unfit for use as a partition only due to the concern lest it die or flee, but essentially it is a fit partition, why does it not become impure when used as a covering of a grave?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖注讜诪讚转 讘专讜讞 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛

Rather, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said, contrary to that which was stated above: Rabbi Meir holds that any partition that stands by means of air, i.e., by intangible means, like an animate being, which stands due to its life force, is not a partition. Some say a different version of that which Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Rabbi Meir holds that any partition that is not established by a person is not a partition.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗讜拽诪讛 讘谞讜讚 转驻讜讞 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞讬爪讛 注讜诪讚转 讘专讜讞 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讛专讬 注讜诪讚转 讘专讜讞 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two versions of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case where one establishes a partition with an inflated wineskin. According to the one who said that a partition that stands by means of air is not a partition, this partition also stands by means of air and is therefore unfit. According to the one who said that if it is not established by a person it is not a partition,

讛专讬 注砖讜讬讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

this partition was established by a person and is therefore fit.

讗诪专 诪专 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 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 住驻专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 住驻专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Master said in the baraita that in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they said: Nor may one write bills of divorce on it. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a wife, and marries her, and it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her a scroll [sefer] of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1); from the word scroll, I have derived only that a scroll is fit. From where do I derive to include all objects as fit materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? The verse states: 鈥淭hat he write her,鈥 in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 住驻专 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 住驻专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇

If so, what is the meaning of that which the verse states: Scroll? It is to tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor is it food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food. That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讻转讘 讘住驻专 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 住驻专 诇住驻讬专转 讚讘专讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse? They contend: If the verse had written: That he write for her in the scroll [basefer], it would be as you said, that the bill of divorce may be written only on a scroll. Now that it is written simply: That he write her a sefer, it comes to teach that a mere account of the matters [sefirat devarim] is required. There are no restrictions with regard to the surface on which that account may be written.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 讘讻转讬讘讛 诪转讙专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讘讻住祝 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转拽砖 讬爪讬讗讛 诇讛讜讬讛 诪讛 讛讜讬讛 讘讻住祝 讗祝 讬爪讬讗讛 讘讻住祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues: And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase: 鈥淭hat he write her鈥? The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since in the verse, leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, is juxtaposed to becoming married, i.e., betrothal, then just as becoming married is effected with money, so too, leaving marriage may be effected with money. Therefore, the Torah teaches us: 鈥淭hat he write her,鈥 indicating that divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 住驻专 讻讜专转讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻讜专转讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this reasoning that a woman cannot be divorced with money? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: 鈥淎 scroll of severance,鈥 which teaches that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband, and nothing else severs her from him.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讘专 讛讻讜专转 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 转砖转讬 讬讬谉 讜注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 转诇讻讬 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 讻专讬转讜转 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讻专讬转讜转

The Gemara continues: And the other tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, requires that verse to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her. As it is taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will never drink wine, or on the condition that you will never go to your father鈥檚 house, that is not severance; the divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition for the duration of thirty days, or any other limited period of time, that is severance, and the divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讻专转 讻专讬转讜转 谞驻拽讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讻专转 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 讚专砖讬

The Gemara continues: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, derives that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce from the fact that instead of using the term karet, the verse uses the more expanded term keritut. Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance. And the other tanna, the Rabbis, does not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut, because the Rabbis do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘讬谉 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讚驻谞讜转 诇讛 讻砖专讛

mishna In the case of one who establishes his sukka between the trees, and the trees serve as walls for it, the sukka is fit.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛

gemara Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Any partition that is not able to stand in a typical wind, but rather is blown to and fro, is not a partition.

转谞谉 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘讬谉 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讚驻谞讜转 诇讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛讗 拽讗讝讬诇 讜讗转讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘拽砖讬谉

The Gemara asks the following question based on that which we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who establishes his sukka between the trees, and the trees serve as walls for it, the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 the trees sway back and forth in the wind? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? The mishna is referring to older trees that are thick and hard and do not sway in the wind.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 谞讜驻讜 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讙讝专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讗讬诇谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the issue of its foliage, which certainly sways in the wind? If it constitutes part of the wall of the sukka, the sukka should be unfit. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where it is a fit wall due to the fact that he established the wall by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves to tighten it to prevent it from swaying in the wind. And the Gemara says: If it is so that the tree is tied and cannot sway, what purpose is there to state this halakha? It is obvious that it is a fit wall. The Gemara answers: It is lest you say: Let us issue a decree prohibiting its use lest one come to use the tree on Shabbat. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not a concern.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讙讚专 讗讜 诪讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

Come and hear a different proof that a partition that is blown to and fro in the wind is a fit partition. The halakha is that double boards positioned in the four corners of an area surrounding a well render the area a private domain in which it is permitted to draw water from the well on Shabbat. If there was a tree there, one cubit thick on each side of one of the corners, or a square stone fence that measures one square cubit, or a partition of reeds, its legal status is assessed like that of a double board positioned at the corners of the area surrounding a well, and serve as a partition for two of the sides. Apparently, a partition that moves in the wind, like the partition of reeds, is considered a full-fledged partition. The Gemara refutes this proof: There, too, it is only considered a full-fledged partition due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬诇谉 讛诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 讗诐 讗讬谉 谞讜驻讜 讙讘讜讛 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转讞转讬讜 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讗转讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a tree whose foliage is broad and its branches reach down and cover the ground, if its foliage is not three handbreadths high off the ground it creates a space similar to a round room; therefore, one may carry beneath it, as it is a full-fledged private domain. Why is the foliage of the tree a fit partition? Doesn鈥檛 it sway back and forth in the wind? The Gemara answers: There, too, it is due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: If so that it is a case where one established the foliage as a complete partition, let him move objects in the entire area beneath the tree, since it is a private domain. Why, then, did Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, say: One may carry beneath this tree

Scroll To Top