Sukkah 28

Sukkah 28

הָתָם הוּא דִּמְבַטֵּל, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָא מְבַטֵּל — לָא.

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the case of the shutter and the case of the sheet. There, in the case of the shutter, where he negates it by shuttering the window, it is considered part of the building and it is therefore prohibited. However, here, in the case of the sheet, where he does not negate it, as he plans on removing it, no, it is not necessarily prohibited.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁשָּׁבַת בַּגָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן, וּשְׁאָלוּהוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים הֲלָכוֹת בְּהִלְכוֹת סוּכָּה, שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה אָמַר לָהֶם: שָׁמַעְתִּי, שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה אָמַר לָהֶם: לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים: שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה אָמַר לָהֶם: שָׁמַעְתִּי, שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה אָמַר לָהֶם: לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי.

The Gemara relates a similar incident. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who stayed in the Upper Galilee, and the people there asked him thirty halakhot in the halakhot of sukka. In response to twelve, he said to them: I heard an answer from my teachers, and he related what he heard. In response to the other eighteen, he said to them: I did not hear an answer. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It was the reverse of these matters. In response to eighteen he said to them: I heard an answer; in response to the other twelve he said to them: I did not hear an answer.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כׇּל דְּבָרֶיךָ אֵינָן אֶלָּא מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה! אָמַר לָהֶם: הִזְקַקְתּוּנִי לוֹמַר דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי רַבּוֹתַי. מִיָּמַי לֹא קְדָמַנִי אָדָם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְלֹא יָשַׁנְתִּי בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע וְלֹא שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי, וְלֹא הִנַּחְתִּי אָדָם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְיָצָאתִי, וְלֹא שַׂחְתִּי שִׂיחַת חוּלִּין, וְלֹא אָמַרְתִּי דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי רַבִּי מֵעוֹלָם.

They said to him: Are all the matters that you know only from what you heard? Don’t you say any matters on your own? He said to them: Now you forced me to say a matter that I did not hear from my teachers, as I must describe my character traits and the manner in which I conduct myself. In all my days, no person ever preceded me into the study hall, as I am always first to arrive; and I never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and I never left anyone in the study hall and exited, as I was always last to leave; and I never engaged in idle conversation; rather, I discussed only necessary matters or matters of Torah; and I never said anything that I did not hear from my teacher. That is why he did not answer those questions that his teacher did not address.

אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: מִיָּמָיו לֹא שָׂח שִׂיחַת חוּלִּין, וְלֹא הָלַךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּלָא תּוֹרָה וּבְלֹא תְּפִילִּין, וְלֹא קְדָמוֹ אָדָם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְלֹא יָשַׁן בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע וְלֹא שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי, וְלֹא הִרְהֵר בִּמְבוֹאוֹת הַמְטוּנָּפוֹת, וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ אָדָם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְיָצָא, וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ אָדָם יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹמֵם אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹנֶה, וְלֹא פָּתַח אָדָם דֶּלֶת לְתַלְמִידָיו, אֶלָּא הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְלֹא אָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע מִפִּי רַבּוֹ מֵעוֹלָם, וְלֹא אָמַר: הִגִּיעַ עֵת לַעֲמוֹד מִבֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, חוּץ מֵעַרְבֵי פְסָחִים, וְעַרְבֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר תַּלְמִידוֹ נוֹהֵג אַחֲרָיו.

Apropos the character traits of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites character traits of his teacher. The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, the teacher of Rabbi Eliezer: In all his days he never engaged in idle conversation; and he never walked four cubits without engaging in Torah study and without donning phylacteries; and no person ever preceded him into the study hall; and he never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and he never contemplated matters of Torah in alleyways filthy with human excrement, as doing so is a display of contempt for the Torah; and he never left anyone in the study hall and exited; and no person ever found him sitting and silent, i.e., inactive; rather, he was always sitting and studying; and only he opened the door for his students, disregarding his own eminent standing; and he never said anything that he did not hear from his teacher; and he never said to his students that the time has arrived to arise and leave the study hall except on Passover eves, when they were obligated to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, and Yom Kippur eves, when there is a mitzva to eat and drink abundantly. And Rabbi Eliezer, his student, accustomed himself to model his conduct after his example.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁמוֹנִים תַּלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְהִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן. שְׁלֹשִׁים מֵהֶן רְאוּיִם שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁכִינָה כְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים מֵהֶן רְאוּיִם שֶׁתַּעֲמוֹד לָהֶם חַמָּה כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן. עֶשְׂרִים בֵּינוֹנִים. גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּכוּלָּן — יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל, קָטָן שֶׁבְּכוּלָּן — רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי.

The Gemara continues to praise the Sages. The Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher, and thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun, and twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the youngest of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.

אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ מִקְרָא וּמִשְׁנָה, גְּמָרָא הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת; דִּקְדּוּקֵי תוֹרָה וְדִקְִדּוּקֵי סוֹפְרִים; קַלִּים וַחֲמוּרִים וּגְזֵרוֹת שָׁווֹת; תְּקוּפוֹת וְגִימַטְרִיָּאוֹת; שִׂיחַת מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת וְשִׂיחַת שֵׁדִים וְשִׂיחַת דְּקָלִים; מִשְׁלוֹת כּוֹבְסִין, מִשְׁלוֹת שׁוּעָלִים; דָּבָר גָּדוֹל וְדָבָר קָטָן.

The Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible; Mishna; Gemara; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences and verbal analogies; the calculation of the calendrical seasons; and numerology [gimmatreyaot]. In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of ministering angels; the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees; parables of launderers, which are folk tales that can be used to explain the Torah; parables of foxes; and more generally, a great matter and a small matter.

דָּבָר גָּדוֹל — מַעֲשֵׂה מֶרְכָּבָה. דָּבָר קָטָן — הֲוָיוֹת דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא. לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְהַנְחִיל אוֹהֲבַי יֵשׁ וְאוֹצְרוֹתֵיהֶם אֲמַלֵּא״. וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁקָּטָן שֶׁבְּכוּלָּן כָּךְ, גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּכוּלָּן עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה — כׇּל עוֹף שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ עָלָיו מִיָּד נִשְׂרָף.

The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot, the conduct of the transcendent universe. A small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the disputes of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines so as to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥanan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom. And if the youngest of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he sat and was engaged in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated.

מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁהָיָה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בַּסּוּכָּה וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָלְכוּ זִקְנֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְזִקְנֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבַקֵּר אֶת רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן הַחוֹרָנִית, וּמְצָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בַּסּוּכָּה וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לוֹ דָּבָר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה?! אַף הֵם אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם כֵּן הָיִיתָ נוֹהֵג, לֹא קִיַּימְתָּ מִצְוַת סוּכָּה מִיָּמֶיךָ.

MISHNA: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit, and Beit Hillel deem it fit. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: And wasn’t there an incident where the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit and they found him such that he was sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka and his table in the house, and they said nothing to him? Even Beit Shammai did not object. Beit Shammai said to them: Is there proof from there? That is not what happened; rather, they said to him: If you were accustomed to act in this manner, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in your life.

נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה. קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ — חַיָּיב בְּסוּכָּה. מַעֲשֶׂה וְיָלְדָה כַּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן, וּפִיחֵת אֶת הַמַּעֲזִיבָה וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּטָּה בִּשְׁבִיל קָטָן.

The mishna continues: Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. A minor who does not need his mother any longer is obligated in the mitzva. There was an incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth just before Sukkot, and Shammai removed the coat of plaster from the roof, leaving the beams, and roofed with the beams over the bed for the newborn minor.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶזְרָח״ — זֶה אֶזְרָח, ״הָאֶזְרָח״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים, ״כׇּל״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַקְּטַנִּים.

GEMARA: With regard to the halakha that women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita that it is stated: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot” (Leviticus 23:42). Had the verse stated only: Homeborn, it would have been derived that any homeborn member of the Jewish people is obligated to observe this mitzva. However, the term with the addition of the definite article: “The homeborn,” indicates that only certain homeborn members are obligated, i.e., men, to the exclusion of the women. The word “all” in the phrase: “All the homeborn,” comes to include the minors capable of performing this mitzva.

אָמַר מָר: ״הָאֶזְרָח״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים. לְמֵימְרָא דְּ״אֶזְרָח״, בֵּין נָשִׁים בֵּין גַּבְרֵי מַשְׁמַע? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״הָאֶזְרָח״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַנָּשִׁים הָאֶזְרָחִיּוֹת, שֶׁחַיָּיבוֹת בְּעִינּוּי. אַלְמָא ״אֶזְרָח״ — גַּבְרֵי מַשְׁמַע! אָמַר רַבָּה: הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי.

§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: “The homeborn” is to the exclusion of women. Is that to say that the term homeborn without the definite article indicates both men and women? Isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to Yom Kippur that it is stated: “And it shall be a statute forever unto you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls and shall do no manner of work, the homeborn, or the stranger that sojourns among you” (Leviticus 16:29). And the term “the homeborn” in that verse comes to include homeborn women, who are obligated in the mitzva of affliction on Yom Kippur. In that case, the definite article comes to include women. Therefore, apparently, the term homeborn, without the definite article, indicates only men. Rabba said: They are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses as a mnemonic device. Therefore, it is not surprising that the derivations are contradictory.

הֵי קְרָא וְהֵי הִלְכְתָא? וְתוּ: קְרָא לְמָה לִי, הִלְכְתָא לְמָה לִי? הָא סוּכָּה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא, וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת.

The Gemara asks: Which of them is derived from the verse and which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai and merely supported by a verse? And furthermore, why do I need the verse and why do I need the halakha? Isn’t sukka a positive, time-bound mitzva, and the principle is that women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot? There is no need for a special derivation to exempt women from the mitzva of sukka.

יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב נָפְקָא. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה״,

And there is no need for a derivation with regard to their obligation to fast on Yom Kippur, as that can be derived from that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and it was likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse says: “When a man or woman shall commit any sin that a person commits, to commit a trespass against the Lord, and that soul be guilty” (Numbers 5:6).

הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל עוֹנָשִׁין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם סוּכָּה הִלְכְתָא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא ״תֵּשְׁבוּ״ — כְּעֵין תָּדוּרוּ, מָה דִּירָה — אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ, אַף סוּכָּה — אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The verse equated a woman to a man with regard to all punishments and prohibitions in the Torah. The mitzvot of Yom Kippur include prohibitions, as well as the punishment of karet. Why, then, was this additional derivation necessary? Abaye said: Actually, sukka is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach that a woman is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, as it might enter your mind to say: “Shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42) indicates that you reside in the sukka as you dwell; just as dwelling is typically performed by a man and his wife, so too, the mitzva of sukka is performed by both a man and his wife. Therefore, it teaches us that women are exempt.

רָבָא אָמַר: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא יָלֵיף ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ מֵחַג הַמַּצּוֹת. מָה לְהַלָּן — נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת, אַף כָּאן — נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rava said a different reason: A halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai was necessary to teach that a woman is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, as it might enter your mind to say: Derive a verbal analogy with regard to Sukkot, about which it is written: “On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot” (Leviticus 23:34), from Passover, about which it is written: “And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the festival of matzot” (Leviticus 23:6). Just as there, women are obligated to eat matza on Passover even though it is a time-bound mitzva, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, women are obligated. Therefore, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai teaches us that they are exempt.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ סוּכָּה הִלְכְתָא, קָרָא לְמָה לִי? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגֵּרִים. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — וְלֹא אֶת הַגֵּרִים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: And now that you said that women’s exemption from the mitzva of sukka is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need the definite article stated in the verse in the term “the homeborn”? The Gemara answers: This verse comes to include converts, as it might enter your mind to say that the Merciful One says: “The homeborn in Israel,” indicating that only homeborn Jews are included and not the converts. Therefore, the verse teaches us that converts are also obligated.

יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב נָפְקָא. לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְתוֹסֶפֶת עִינּוּי. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא לְתוֹסֶפֶת עִינּוּי מֵעוֹנֶשׁ וּמֵאַזְהָרָה, לֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ נָשִׁים כְּלָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: The obligation of women to fast on Yom Kippur is derived from the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. In that case, why do I need the definite article in the term: The homeborn? The Gemara answers: That phrase was needed only to include women in the extension of the period of affliction on Yom Kippur eve, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the Merciful One excludes one who violates the obligation to afflict himself during the extension of the period of affliction from the punishment of karet and from the Torah prohibition, women should not be obligated to observe that period at all. Their obligation to observe Yom Kippur is based on the principle: The verse equated a woman to a man with regard to all punishments and prohibitions in the Torah. Since there is neither punishment nor Torah prohibition during that period, women should be exempt. Therefore, the verse teaches us that since they are obligated to observe Yom Kippur, they are obligated to observe the extension of Yom Kippur as well.

אָמַר מָר: ״כׇּל״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַקְּטַנִּים. וְהָתְנַן: נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה! לָא קַשְׁיָא כָּאן — בְּקָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְחִינּוּךְ, כָּאן — בְּקָטָן שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְחִינּוּךְ. קָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְחִינּוּךְ מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא! מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא — אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

The Master said in the baraita: “All the homeborn” comes to include the minors capable of performing this mitzva. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: Women and slaves and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the baraita where it is taught that minors are included, it is referring to a minor who reached the age of training, whose parents are commanded to train him in the performance of mitzvot and to accustom him to fulfill them. Here, in the mishna where it stated that the minor is exempt, it is referring to a minor who did not yet reach the age of training. The Gemara asks: The obligation of a minor who reached the age of training to perform mitzvot is by rabbinic law, and therefore it is not derived from a verse. The Gemara answers: Indeed, the obligation of the minor is by rabbinic law as part of his training, and the verse is a mere support alluding to that obligation.

קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: כֹּל שֶׁנִּפְנֶה וְאֵין אִמּוֹ מְקַנַּחְתּוֹ. רַבִּי (שִׁמְעוֹן) אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁנֵּעוֹר מִשְּׁנָתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא ״אִמָּא, [אִמָּא]!״ גְּדוֹלִים נָמֵי קָרוּ? אֶלָּא: (אֵימָא) כָּל שֶׁנֵּעוֹר וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא: ״אִמָּא, אִמָּא!״.

The mishna continues: A minor who does not need his mother any longer is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a minor who does not need his mother? In the school of Rabbi Yannai they said: This is referring to any child who defecates and his mother does not need to wipe him. Rabbi Shimon says: It is any child who awakens from his sleep and does not call: Mother, mother. The Gemara asks: Older children also call for their mother when they arise; what, then, is the criterion? The Gemara answers: Rather, say that any child who awakens and does not call: Mother, mother, repeatedly until his mother comes is characterized as one who does not need his mother. An older child will cry once. However, if his mother does not come, he will tend to himself.

מַעֲשֶׂה וְיָלְדָה כַּלָּתוֹ כּוּ׳. מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר? חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְשַׁמַּאי מַחְמִיר, וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי וְיָלְדָה כַּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן, וּפִחֵת אֶת הַמַּעֲזִיבָה וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל הַמִּטָּה בִּשְׁבִיל הַקָּטָן.

The mishna relates: There was an incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and he removed part of the roof so the baby would be in a sukka. The Gemara asks: Does the mishna cite an incident to contradict the preceding halakha that minors that are not independent are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, and it teaches the following: And Shammai is stringent even with very small children; and there was also an incident and the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and Shammai removed the coat of plaster from the roof and left the beams and roofed with the beams over the bed for the newborn minor.

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ קֶבַע, וּבֵיתוֹ עֲרַאי. יָרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים, מֵאֵימָתַי מוּתָּר לְפַנּוֹת — מִשֶּׁתִּסְרַח הַמִּקְפָּה. מָשְׁלוּ מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה — לְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּא לִמְזוֹג כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ, וְשָׁפַךְ לוֹ קִיתוֹן עַל פָּנָיו.

MISHNA: All seven days of Sukkot, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. If rain fell, from when is it permitted to vacate the sukka? It is permitted from the point that it is raining so hard that the congealed dish will spoil. The Sages told a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a servant who comes to pour wine for his master, and he pours a jug [kiton] of water in his face to show him that his presence is not desired. So too, in the sukka, rain is an indication that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not want the person to fulfill the mitzva of sukka.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ קֶבַע וּבֵיתוֹ עֲרַאי, כֵּיצַד? הָיוּ לוֹ כֵּלִים נָאִים מַעֲלָן לַסּוּכָּה, מַצָּעוֹת נָאוֹת — מַעֲלָן לַסּוּכָּה, אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה וּמְטַיֵּיל בַּסּוּכָּה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תֵּשְׁבוּ״ — כְּעֵין תָּדוּרוּ, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: כׇּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים עוֹשֶׂה אָדָם סוּכָּתוֹ קֶבַע וּבֵיתוֹ עֲרַאי. כֵּיצַד? הָיוּ לוֹ כֵּלִים נָאִים — מַעֲלָן לַסּוּכָּה, מַצָּעוֹת נָאוֹת — מַעֲלָן לַסּוּכָּה, אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה וּמְטַיֵּיל בַּסּוּכָּה וּמְשַׁנֵּן בַּסּוּכָּה.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: All seven days of Sukkot, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he has beautiful vessels, he takes them up to the sukka, which was typically built on the roof. If he has beautiful bedding, he takes it up to the sukka. He eats and drinks and relaxes in the sukka. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains that it is as the Sages taught: “In sukkot shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42), and they interpreted: Reside as you dwell in your permanent home. From here they said: All seven days, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he has beautiful vessels, he takes them up to the sukka; if he has beautiful bedding, he takes it up to the sukka; he eats and drinks and relaxes in the sukka and studies Torah in the sukka.

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מִקְרָא וּמִתְנֵא בִּמְטַלַּלְתָּא, וְתַנּוֹיֵי בַּר מִמְּטַלַּלְתָּא! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּמִגְרַס, הָא — בְּעַיּוֹנֵי.

With regard to studying Torah in the sukka, the Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rava say: Studying Bible and studying Mishna are undertaken in the sukka; however, analyzing the Mishna must be undertaken outside the sukka. This indicates that one should not analyze Torah in the sukka. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that one studies in the sukka, is with regard to extensive study, i.e., broad study and memorization. That statement of Rava that one should study outside the sukka is with regard to intensive study; such study requires an environment where one can concentrate properly in order to engage in analysis of the Mishna.