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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 13, 2021 | 讚壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Sukkah 6

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) NYC “with much thanks to Hashem for the very speedy refuah shlema of Robert Weiss (Aaron ben Chana) from very recent partial knee replacement. Thank you to the entire staff of HSS for restoring Robert’s life. And also with gratitude for the refuah slema of Yaacov Shimon ben Yisraela.” And by Malka Abraham in honor of her father, Chaim Goodman’s 97th birthday. “My dad has always been supportive of my continuing to learn. Even at 97, he is a sweet, kind, caring dad.”

When Rav Chiya bar Ashi says that requisite amounts, barriers, and walls are halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai, to what was he referring? Aren’t some of those learned out from the Torah? The gemara answers these questions and explains what is meant by each of these terms. There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding how many walls does a sukkah need – two whole walls and a third that is only one handbreadth? Or three whole walls and a fourth that is one handbreadth? What is the root of their debate? The gemara brings five possibilities.

讛讬讛 诇讘讜砖 讻诇讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪讬讚 讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 注讚 砖讬砖讛讛 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜诇讗 驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 诪讬住讘 讜讗讜讻诇 讘诇讬驻转谉

However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is based on wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not on barley bread, and it relates to one who is reclining and eating it together with relish or a condiment, which hastens the eating. This is a Torah measurement connected specifically to wheat.

砖注讜专讛 讚转谞谉 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not render all the articles in the house ritually impure.

讙驻谉 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专

The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarterlog of wine for a nazirite. A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure.

转讗谞讛 讻讙专讜讙专转 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转

Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulk with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat. One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food.

专诪讜谉 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讻诇讬 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖讬注讜专谉 讻专诪讜谞讬诐

Pomegranate teaches the following measure, as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken, as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual impurity. They are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates.

讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 (讜讚讘砖) 讗专抓 砖讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐 讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖专讜讘 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐

The Sages interpreted: 鈥淎 land of olive oil and honey,鈥 as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks. The Gemara poses a question: Does it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are olive-bulks? But aren鈥檛 there those measures that we just mentioned above, which are not olive-bulks? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are olive-bulks, as most measures relating to forbidden foods, e.g., fats, blood, piggul, leftover sacrificial flesh, ritually impure food, and the sciatic nerve, are olive-bulks, as are the measures for a corpse to transmit impurity in a tent and for an animal carcass to transmit impurity through contact.

讚讘砖 讻讻讜转讘转 讛讙住讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulk of food.

讗诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜转住讘专讗 砖讬注讜专讬谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘讬 讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Apparently, all these halakhic measurements are derived from this verse in the Torah and are not halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara refutes this argument: And how can you understand it in that manner that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse cited is mere support for these halakhot, not a source.

讞爪讬爪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讞抓 (讗转 讘砖专讜) 讘诪讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛诪讬诐

Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said earlier that Rav said that the halakhot governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion: These, too, are written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bathe his flesh in the water鈥 (Leviticus 14:9), and the Sages derived that nothing should interpose between his flesh and the water. Apparently, the halakhot of interposition are derived from a verse in the Torah and not through oral tradition.

讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇砖注专讜 讻讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讗 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 拽砖讜专讛 讞讜爪爪转 砖诇砖 讗讬谞谉 讞讜爪爪讜转 砖转讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注

The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition on one鈥檚 skin, which is indeed derived from verses in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach that an interposition in one鈥檚 hair invalidates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar 岣na, as Rabba bar bar 岣na said: A single hair [nima] tied in a knot interposes and invalidates the immersion. Three hairs tied together in a knot do not interpose, because three hairs cannot be tied so tightly that water cannot penetrate them. With regard to two hairs tied together in a knot, I do not know the halakha. This halakha with regard to hair is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

砖注专讜 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讞抓 讗转 讘砖专讜 讘诪讬诐 讗转 讛讟驻诇 诇讘砖专讜 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖注专讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to one鈥檚 hair is also written in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to that which is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bathe [et besaro] his flesh in the water.鈥 The superfluous word et comes to include that which is subordinate to his flesh, and what is that? That is his hair. The fact that, like the body, there can be no interposition between one鈥檚 hair and the water is also derived from a verse.

讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition in one鈥檚 hair, which is indeed derived from a verse in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said:

讚讘专 转讜专讛 专讜讘讜 讜诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讞讜爪抓 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讜讙讝专讜 注诇 专讜讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 讜注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚

By Torah law, if there is an interposition between a person and the water, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular about it and wants the interposing substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. However, if he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. The Sages, however, issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the majority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is particular. And, they issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which one is particular.

讜诇讬讙讝专 谞诪讬 注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 诪讬注讜讟讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚

The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is not particular an interposition, due to substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which he is particular, or alternatively, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which he is not particular.

讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛

The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree because the halakha that deems both an interposition covering the minority of his body about which one is particular and an interposition covering the majority of his body about which one is not particular an interposition is itself a decree. Shall we then arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? In any case, these details with regard to interpositions are neither written nor alluded to in the Torah; rather, they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

诪讞讬爪讬谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the minimum height for partitions is ten handbreadths is as we stated earlier. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no verse in the Torah from which this halakha can be derived, as he therefore concludes that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. However, according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that all of the cubits in the Temple consist of six handbreadths and therefore the measure of ten handbreadths can be derived from verses in the Torah, what is there to say? What is the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to partitions?

讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙讜讚 讜诇讘讜讚 讜讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛

When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is with regard to other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of a curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is fit even if there are up to four cubits of unfit roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the unfit roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah.

讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛 砖诇砖 讚驻谞讜转

搂 Among the factors listed in the mishna that render a sukka unfit is: And one that does not have three walls.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜专讘讬注讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In order to construct a fit sukka, two of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, sealing the entire length and height of the sukka, and the third wall may be even one handbreadth long. Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and the fourth wall may be even one handbreadth long.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Rabbis hold: The tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讘住讻转 讘住讻转 讘住讻讜转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注

With regard to sukka, the Rabbis hold: The tradition of the verses is authoritative, as the word basukkot is written three times in the context of the mitzva of sukka. It is written twice in the verse: 鈥淚n sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]鈥 (Leviticus 23:42). In both of these instances, the word in Hebrew is spelled without a vav, as are Hebrew words in the singular. And one time it is written with a vav, as are Hebrew words in the plural: 鈥淪o that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot]鈥 (Leviticus 23:43). There is mention here of sukka four times, two singular plus one plural hinted at here in these verses.

讚诇 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转诇转讗 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讙专注转讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讗讜拽诪讛 讗讟驻讞

Subtract one to teach the mitzva of sukka itself, and three remain. These three remaining sukkot teach that the sukka requires three walls; two of the three are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the third and establishes it as one handbreadth. That tradition teaches that one wall need not be any longer than one handbreadth.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讘住讻讜转 讘住讻讜转 讘住讻讜转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 讚诇 讞讚 拽专讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注 砖诇砖 讻讛诇讻转谉 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讙专注转讛 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜讗讜拽诪转讛 讗讟驻讞

On the other hand, Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. Therefore, although two of the instances are written without a vav, since they are all vocalized in the plural, basukkot, basukkot, basukkot, there is mention here of sukka six times in these two verses. Subtract one verse to teach the mitzva of the sukka itself, and two mentions of basukkot, which equal four sukkot, remain and teach that the sukka requires four walls. Three of the walls are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the fourth and establishes it as one handbreadth.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 住讻讻讛 讘注讬讗 拽专讗 讜诪专 住讘专 住讻讻讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 拽专讗

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that to derive its roofing requires a verse; therefore, only three of the original six sukkot remain from which walls can be derived. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai reduces the dimension of one of the three walls to one handbreadth. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that to derive its roofing does not require a verse, as the essence of sukka is its roofing. No additional source beyond the verse from which the mitzva of sukka is derived is required for the roofing. Therefore, walls are derived from four of the six sukkot Three full-fledged walls and a fourth measuring one handbreadth.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙专注 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讛讜住讬祝

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce to one handbreadth the dimension of one of the three walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to add another wall to the three walls derived from the verses; however, the dimension of that fourth wall may be one handbreadth.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙专注 讜讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜讛讻讗 讘讚讜专砖讬谉 转讞讬诇讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚讜专砖讬谉 转讞讬诇讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 转讞讬诇讜转

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that when the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce the dimension of one of the three walls. And everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and there are four mentions of sukka in the verse. And here it is with regard to whether one derives numbers for halakhic matters from the first mention of a term in the Torah that they disagree. When that total is derived from the number of instances a certain word appears in the Torah, there is a dispute whether the first instance is included in the tally, or whether the first instance is necessary to teach the mitzva itself and the number may be counted only from subsequent mentions. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives numbers from the first mention and therefore four walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that one does not derive numbers from the first mention, and therefore only three walls are derived from the verses.

专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛讻讗 讜住讜讻讛 转讛讬讛 诇爪诇 讬讜诪诐 诪讞讜专讘 讜诇诪讞住讛 讜诇诪住转讜专 诪讝专诐 讜诪诪讟专

Rav Mattana said that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is derived from here: 鈥淎nd there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain鈥 (Isaiah 4:6). A sukka without three full-fledged walls does not provide shelter nor serve as refuge.

讜讗讜转讜 讟驻讞 讛讬讻谉 诪注诪讬讚讜 讗诪专 专讘 诪注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜爪讗

搂 The Gemara asks: According to the opinion that a sukka can be built with two full-fledged walls and a third that is one handbreadth, where does one position that third wall that measures one handbreadth? Rav said: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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 2 – 6 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

In this Tractate we will learn about the main mitzvot, commandments, of the Festival of Sukkot. The first chapter will...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 6: The Tefach-long Wall

Measurements! Barley. The vine. Fig. Pomegranate. Date. Olive. Also, a sukkah must have 3 walls - though that third wall...
Introduction to Sukka Sukkah by Gitta Neufeld

Introduction to Masechet Sukkah by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Compiled by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld In loving memory of her father 专' 讬讜住祝 讘谉 诪谞讞诐 诪注谞讚诇 讜驻注砖讬 注" 讛 who exemplified...

Sukkah 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 6

讛讬讛 诇讘讜砖 讻诇讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪讬讚 讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 注讚 砖讬砖讛讛 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜诇讗 驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 诪讬住讘 讜讗讜讻诇 讘诇讬驻转谉

However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is based on wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not on barley bread, and it relates to one who is reclining and eating it together with relish or a condiment, which hastens the eating. This is a Torah measurement connected specifically to wheat.

砖注讜专讛 讚转谞谉 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not render all the articles in the house ritually impure.

讙驻谉 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专

The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarterlog of wine for a nazirite. A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure.

转讗谞讛 讻讙专讜讙专转 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转

Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulk with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat. One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food.

专诪讜谉 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讻诇讬 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖讬注讜专谉 讻专诪讜谞讬诐

Pomegranate teaches the following measure, as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken, as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual impurity. They are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates.

讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 (讜讚讘砖) 讗专抓 砖讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐 讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖专讜讘 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐

The Sages interpreted: 鈥淎 land of olive oil and honey,鈥 as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks. The Gemara poses a question: Does it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are olive-bulks? But aren鈥檛 there those measures that we just mentioned above, which are not olive-bulks? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are olive-bulks, as most measures relating to forbidden foods, e.g., fats, blood, piggul, leftover sacrificial flesh, ritually impure food, and the sciatic nerve, are olive-bulks, as are the measures for a corpse to transmit impurity in a tent and for an animal carcass to transmit impurity through contact.

讚讘砖 讻讻讜转讘转 讛讙住讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulk of food.

讗诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜转住讘专讗 砖讬注讜专讬谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘讬 讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Apparently, all these halakhic measurements are derived from this verse in the Torah and are not halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara refutes this argument: And how can you understand it in that manner that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse cited is mere support for these halakhot, not a source.

讞爪讬爪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讞抓 (讗转 讘砖专讜) 讘诪讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛诪讬诐

Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said earlier that Rav said that the halakhot governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion: These, too, are written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bathe his flesh in the water鈥 (Leviticus 14:9), and the Sages derived that nothing should interpose between his flesh and the water. Apparently, the halakhot of interposition are derived from a verse in the Torah and not through oral tradition.

讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇砖注专讜 讻讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讗 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 拽砖讜专讛 讞讜爪爪转 砖诇砖 讗讬谞谉 讞讜爪爪讜转 砖转讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注

The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition on one鈥檚 skin, which is indeed derived from verses in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach that an interposition in one鈥檚 hair invalidates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar 岣na, as Rabba bar bar 岣na said: A single hair [nima] tied in a knot interposes and invalidates the immersion. Three hairs tied together in a knot do not interpose, because three hairs cannot be tied so tightly that water cannot penetrate them. With regard to two hairs tied together in a knot, I do not know the halakha. This halakha with regard to hair is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

砖注专讜 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讞抓 讗转 讘砖专讜 讘诪讬诐 讗转 讛讟驻诇 诇讘砖专讜 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖注专讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to one鈥檚 hair is also written in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to that which is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bathe [et besaro] his flesh in the water.鈥 The superfluous word et comes to include that which is subordinate to his flesh, and what is that? That is his hair. The fact that, like the body, there can be no interposition between one鈥檚 hair and the water is also derived from a verse.

讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition in one鈥檚 hair, which is indeed derived from a verse in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said:

讚讘专 转讜专讛 专讜讘讜 讜诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讞讜爪抓 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讜讙讝专讜 注诇 专讜讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 讜注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚

By Torah law, if there is an interposition between a person and the water, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular about it and wants the interposing substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. However, if he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. The Sages, however, issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the majority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is particular. And, they issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which one is particular.

讜诇讬讙讝专 谞诪讬 注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 诪讬注讜讟讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚

The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is not particular an interposition, due to substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which he is particular, or alternatively, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which he is not particular.

讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛

The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree because the halakha that deems both an interposition covering the minority of his body about which one is particular and an interposition covering the majority of his body about which one is not particular an interposition is itself a decree. Shall we then arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? In any case, these details with regard to interpositions are neither written nor alluded to in the Torah; rather, they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

诪讞讬爪讬谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the minimum height for partitions is ten handbreadths is as we stated earlier. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no verse in the Torah from which this halakha can be derived, as he therefore concludes that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. However, according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that all of the cubits in the Temple consist of six handbreadths and therefore the measure of ten handbreadths can be derived from verses in the Torah, what is there to say? What is the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to partitions?

讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙讜讚 讜诇讘讜讚 讜讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛

When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is with regard to other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of a curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is fit even if there are up to four cubits of unfit roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the unfit roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah.

讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛 砖诇砖 讚驻谞讜转

搂 Among the factors listed in the mishna that render a sukka unfit is: And one that does not have three walls.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜专讘讬注讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In order to construct a fit sukka, two of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, sealing the entire length and height of the sukka, and the third wall may be even one handbreadth long. Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and the fourth wall may be even one handbreadth long.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Rabbis hold: The tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讘住讻转 讘住讻转 讘住讻讜转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注

With regard to sukka, the Rabbis hold: The tradition of the verses is authoritative, as the word basukkot is written three times in the context of the mitzva of sukka. It is written twice in the verse: 鈥淚n sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]鈥 (Leviticus 23:42). In both of these instances, the word in Hebrew is spelled without a vav, as are Hebrew words in the singular. And one time it is written with a vav, as are Hebrew words in the plural: 鈥淪o that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot]鈥 (Leviticus 23:43). There is mention here of sukka four times, two singular plus one plural hinted at here in these verses.

讚诇 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转诇转讗 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讙专注转讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讗讜拽诪讛 讗讟驻讞

Subtract one to teach the mitzva of sukka itself, and three remain. These three remaining sukkot teach that the sukka requires three walls; two of the three are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the third and establishes it as one handbreadth. That tradition teaches that one wall need not be any longer than one handbreadth.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讘住讻讜转 讘住讻讜转 讘住讻讜转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 讚诇 讞讚 拽专讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注 砖诇砖 讻讛诇讻转谉 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讙专注转讛 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜讗讜拽诪转讛 讗讟驻讞

On the other hand, Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. Therefore, although two of the instances are written without a vav, since they are all vocalized in the plural, basukkot, basukkot, basukkot, there is mention here of sukka six times in these two verses. Subtract one verse to teach the mitzva of the sukka itself, and two mentions of basukkot, which equal four sukkot, remain and teach that the sukka requires four walls. Three of the walls are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the fourth and establishes it as one handbreadth.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 住讻讻讛 讘注讬讗 拽专讗 讜诪专 住讘专 住讻讻讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 拽专讗

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that to derive its roofing requires a verse; therefore, only three of the original six sukkot remain from which walls can be derived. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai reduces the dimension of one of the three walls to one handbreadth. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that to derive its roofing does not require a verse, as the essence of sukka is its roofing. No additional source beyond the verse from which the mitzva of sukka is derived is required for the roofing. Therefore, walls are derived from four of the six sukkot Three full-fledged walls and a fourth measuring one handbreadth.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙专注 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讛讜住讬祝

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce to one handbreadth the dimension of one of the three walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to add another wall to the three walls derived from the verses; however, the dimension of that fourth wall may be one handbreadth.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙专注 讜讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜讛讻讗 讘讚讜专砖讬谉 转讞讬诇讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚讜专砖讬谉 转讞讬诇讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 转讞讬诇讜转

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that when the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce the dimension of one of the three walls. And everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and there are four mentions of sukka in the verse. And here it is with regard to whether one derives numbers for halakhic matters from the first mention of a term in the Torah that they disagree. When that total is derived from the number of instances a certain word appears in the Torah, there is a dispute whether the first instance is included in the tally, or whether the first instance is necessary to teach the mitzva itself and the number may be counted only from subsequent mentions. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives numbers from the first mention and therefore four walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that one does not derive numbers from the first mention, and therefore only three walls are derived from the verses.

专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛讻讗 讜住讜讻讛 转讛讬讛 诇爪诇 讬讜诪诐 诪讞讜专讘 讜诇诪讞住讛 讜诇诪住转讜专 诪讝专诐 讜诪诪讟专

Rav Mattana said that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is derived from here: 鈥淎nd there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain鈥 (Isaiah 4:6). A sukka without three full-fledged walls does not provide shelter nor serve as refuge.

讜讗讜转讜 讟驻讞 讛讬讻谉 诪注诪讬讚讜 讗诪专 专讘 诪注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜爪讗

搂 The Gemara asks: According to the opinion that a sukka can be built with two full-fledged walls and a third that is one handbreadth, where does one position that third wall that measures one handbreadth? Rav said: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

Scroll To Top