Sukkah 6
Share this shiur:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Sukkah 6
הָיָה לָבוּשׁ כֵּלָיו וְסַנְדָּלָיו בְּרַגְלָיו וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּאֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו — הוּא טָמֵא מִיָּד, וְהֵן טְהוֹרִים עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס, פַּת חִטִּין וְלֹא פַּת שְׂעוֹרִין, מֵיסֵב וְאוֹכֵל בְּלִיפְתָּן.
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.
שְׂעוֹרָה — דִּתְנַן: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה — מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.
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.
גֶּפֶן — כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית יַיִן לְנָזִיר.
The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarter–log 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.
תְּאֵנָה — כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת.
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.
רִמּוֹן — דִּתְנַן: כָּל כְּלֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים — שִׁיעוּרָן כְּרִמּוֹנִים.
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.
״אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן (וּדְבָשׁ)״ — אֶרֶץ שֶׁכׇּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים. ״כָּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! הָא אִיכָּא הָנֵי דְּאָמְרִינַן! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שֶׁרוֹב שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים.
The Sages interpreted: “A land of olive oil and honey,” 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’t 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.
דְּבָשׁ — כְּכוֹתֶבֶת הַגַּסָּה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
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.
אַלְמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ! וְתִסְבְּרָא? שִׁיעוּרִין מִי כְּתִיבִי? אֶלָּא הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
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.
חֲצִיצִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ! דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָחַץ (אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ) בַּמַּיִם״, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הַמַּיִם!
Rabbi Ḥiyya 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: “And he shall bathe his flesh in the water” (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.
כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לִשְׂעָרוֹ, כִּדְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָא: נִימָא אַחַת קְשׁוּרָה — חוֹצֶצֶת, שָׁלֹשׁ — אֵינָן חוֹצְצוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם — אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ.
The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition on one’s skin, which is indeed derived from verses in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach that an interposition in one’s hair invalidates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.
שְׂעָרוֹ נָמֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָחַץ אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמַּיִם״, אֶת הַטָּפֵל לִבְשָׂרוֹ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — שְׂעָרוֹ!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to one’s hair is also written in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to that which is written: “And he shall bathe [et besaro] his flesh in the water.” 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’s hair and the water is also derived from a verse.
כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא, לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק:
The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition in one’s hair, which is indeed derived from a verse in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said:
דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, רוּבּוֹ וּמַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — חוֹצֵץ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ. וְגָזְרוּ עַל רוּבּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד מִשּׁוּם רוּבּוֹ הַמַּקְפִּיד, וְעַל מִיעוּטוֹ הַמַּקְפִּיד מִשּׁוּם רוּבּוֹ הַמַּקְפִּיד.
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’s body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one’s 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.
וְלִיגְזַר נָמֵי עַל מִיעוּטוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד מִשּׁוּם מִיעוּטוֹ הַמַּקְפִּיד, אִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם רוּבּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד!
The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one’s 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.
הִיא גּוּפָא גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִגְזֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה?!
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.
מְחִיצִין — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
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?
כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לְגוּד, וְלָבוּד, וְדוֹפֶן עֲקוּמָּה.
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.
וְשֶׁאֵין לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ דְּפָנוֹת.
§ Among the factors listed in the mishna that render a sukka unfit is: And one that does not have three walls.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן, וּשְׁלִישִׁית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ כְּהִלְכָתָן, וּרְבִיעִית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח.
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.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.
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.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, ״בְּסֻכַּת״ ״בְּסֻכַּת״ ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע.
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: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (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: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (Leviticus 23:43). There is mention here of sukka four times, two singular plus one plural hinted at here in these verses.
דַּל חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, פָּשׁוּ לְהוּ תְּלָתָא. שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן, וַאֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא וּגְרַעְתַּהּ לִשְׁלִישִׁית וְאוֹקֵמְתַּהּ אַטֶּפַח.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא, ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ, דַּל חַד קְרָא לְגוּפֵיהּ, פָּשׁוּ לְהוּ אַרְבַּע. שָׁלֹשׁ כְּהִלְכָתָן, אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא וּגְרַעְתַּהּ לִרְבִיעִית וְאוֹקֵמְתַּהּ אַטֶּפַח.
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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: סְכָכָה בָּעֲיָא קְרָא, וּמָר סָבַר: סְכָכָה לָא בָּעֲיָא קְרָא.
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.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לְגָרֵעַ. וּמָר סָבַר: כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לְהוֹסִיף.
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.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לְגָרֵעַ, וְיֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת. וְהָכָא בְּדוֹרְשִׁין תְּחִילּוֹת קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: דּוֹרְשִׁין תְּחִילּוֹת, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין תְּחִילּוֹת.
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.
רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר: טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מֵהָכָא: ״וְסוּכָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל יוֹמָם מֵחוֹרֶב וּלְמַחְסֶה וּלְמִסְתּוֹר מִזֶּרֶם וּמִמָּטָר״.
Rav Mattana said that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is derived from here: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6). A sukka without three full-fledged walls does not provide shelter nor serve as refuge.
וְאוֹתוֹ טֶפַח הֵיכָן מַעֲמִידוֹ? אָמַר רַב: מַעֲמִידוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַיּוֹצֵא.
§ 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.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב:
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Berlin, Germany
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Sukkah 6
הָיָה לָבוּשׁ כֵּלָיו וְסַנְדָּלָיו בְּרַגְלָיו וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּאֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו — הוּא טָמֵא מִיָּד, וְהֵן טְהוֹרִים עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס, פַּת חִטִּין וְלֹא פַּת שְׂעוֹרִין, מֵיסֵב וְאוֹכֵל בְּלִיפְתָּן.
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.
שְׂעוֹרָה — דִּתְנַן: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה — מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.
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.
גֶּפֶן — כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית יַיִן לְנָזִיר.
The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarter–log 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.
תְּאֵנָה — כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת.
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.
רִמּוֹן — דִּתְנַן: כָּל כְּלֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים — שִׁיעוּרָן כְּרִמּוֹנִים.
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.
״אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן (וּדְבָשׁ)״ — אֶרֶץ שֶׁכׇּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים. ״כָּל שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! הָא אִיכָּא הָנֵי דְּאָמְרִינַן! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שֶׁרוֹב שִׁיעוּרֶיהָ כְּזֵיתִים.
The Sages interpreted: “A land of olive oil and honey,” 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’t 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.
דְּבָשׁ — כְּכוֹתֶבֶת הַגַּסָּה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
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.
אַלְמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ! וְתִסְבְּרָא? שִׁיעוּרִין מִי כְּתִיבִי? אֶלָּא הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
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.
חֲצִיצִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ! דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָחַץ (אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ) בַּמַּיִם״, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הַמַּיִם!
Rabbi Ḥiyya 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: “And he shall bathe his flesh in the water” (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.
כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לִשְׂעָרוֹ, כִּדְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָא: נִימָא אַחַת קְשׁוּרָה — חוֹצֶצֶת, שָׁלֹשׁ — אֵינָן חוֹצְצוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם — אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ.
The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition on one’s skin, which is indeed derived from verses in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach that an interposition in one’s hair invalidates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.
שְׂעָרוֹ נָמֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָחַץ אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמַּיִם״, אֶת הַטָּפֵל לִבְשָׂרוֹ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — שְׂעָרוֹ!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to one’s hair is also written in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to that which is written: “And he shall bathe [et besaro] his flesh in the water.” 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’s hair and the water is also derived from a verse.
כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא, לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק:
The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition in one’s hair, which is indeed derived from a verse in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said:
דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, רוּבּוֹ וּמַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — חוֹצֵץ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ. וְגָזְרוּ עַל רוּבּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד מִשּׁוּם רוּבּוֹ הַמַּקְפִּיד, וְעַל מִיעוּטוֹ הַמַּקְפִּיד מִשּׁוּם רוּבּוֹ הַמַּקְפִּיד.
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’s body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one’s 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.
וְלִיגְזַר נָמֵי עַל מִיעוּטוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד מִשּׁוּם מִיעוּטוֹ הַמַּקְפִּיד, אִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם רוּבּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד!
The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one’s 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.
הִיא גּוּפָא גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִגְזֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה?!
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.
מְחִיצִין — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
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?
כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לְגוּד, וְלָבוּד, וְדוֹפֶן עֲקוּמָּה.
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.
וְשֶׁאֵין לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ דְּפָנוֹת.
§ Among the factors listed in the mishna that render a sukka unfit is: And one that does not have three walls.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן, וּשְׁלִישִׁית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ כְּהִלְכָתָן, וּרְבִיעִית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח.
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.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.
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.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, ״בְּסֻכַּת״ ״בְּסֻכַּת״ ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע.
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: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (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: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (Leviticus 23:43). There is mention here of sukka four times, two singular plus one plural hinted at here in these verses.
דַּל חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, פָּשׁוּ לְהוּ תְּלָתָא. שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן, וַאֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא וּגְרַעְתַּהּ לִשְׁלִישִׁית וְאוֹקֵמְתַּהּ אַטֶּפַח.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא, ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ, דַּל חַד קְרָא לְגוּפֵיהּ, פָּשׁוּ לְהוּ אַרְבַּע. שָׁלֹשׁ כְּהִלְכָתָן, אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא וּגְרַעְתַּהּ לִרְבִיעִית וְאוֹקֵמְתַּהּ אַטֶּפַח.
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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: סְכָכָה בָּעֲיָא קְרָא, וּמָר סָבַר: סְכָכָה לָא בָּעֲיָא קְרָא.
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.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לְגָרֵעַ. וּמָר סָבַר: כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לְהוֹסִיף.
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.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, כִּי אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא — לְגָרֵעַ, וְיֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת. וְהָכָא בְּדוֹרְשִׁין תְּחִילּוֹת קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: דּוֹרְשִׁין תְּחִילּוֹת, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין תְּחִילּוֹת.
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.
רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר: טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מֵהָכָא: ״וְסוּכָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל יוֹמָם מֵחוֹרֶב וּלְמַחְסֶה וּלְמִסְתּוֹר מִזֶּרֶם וּמִמָּטָר״.
Rav Mattana said that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is derived from here: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6). A sukka without three full-fledged walls does not provide shelter nor serve as refuge.
וְאוֹתוֹ טֶפַח הֵיכָן מַעֲמִידוֹ? אָמַר רַב: מַעֲמִידוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַיּוֹצֵא.
§ 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.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב:
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:
