The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Massekhet Sukkah, has been dedicated by Celia and Isaac Jamal, may they be blessed with success for their dear children. May they derive much joy from all of them; may they all grow up, marry at the proper time, and have healthy, happy children with blessing and success. May they see descendants and the descendants of their descendants, until the coming of the righteous redeemer. Amen.
The tractate has also been dedicated to the memory of Sara bat Adel. May her soul rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen. Again, by Celia and Isaac Jamal. May they merit to perform many mitzvot.
Today's page has been dedicated to the memory of Abraham ben Esther. May his soul rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen.
Today's page is also being studied for the complete recovery of Shlomo ben Esther, who is undergoing surgery today. May the Healer heal him; may he have healing of the soul, healing of the body, and a complete recovery. Amen.
We begin today's page on page 5, side 2, starting four, five, or six lines from the bottom.
We learned yesterday that, according to Rabbi Meir, the source for the requirement that a sukkah wall be at least ten handbreadths high—that is, that there must be at least ten handbreadths of airspace within the interior of the sukkah—is the cherubim. We know that the cherubim in the Tabernacle extended one-third of the way up the height of the Tabernacle, a measurement that we learned from the Temple.
The height of the Tabernacle was sixty handbreadths, or ten cubits, based on a cubit of six handbreadths. Since the cherubim extended upward one-third of that height, they reached the level of twenty handbreadths. The Ark and its cover together were ten handbreadths high, and the verse says that the cherubim were “sheltering,” like a sukkah. They were above the cover, slightly higher than the heads of the cherubim. If one measures from beneath the wings of the cherubim to the top of the cover, there are exactly ten handbreadths. Since the verse uses a word related to sukkah, this is the source for the requirement that a sukkah be ten handbreadths high.
This should not be confused with what we learned on the first side of the page, namely, the source for the cover of the Ark being one handbreadth thick. There, we brought other proofs: either we derived it from the word “wonderful,” together with the teaching that a face is one handbreadth, or from the frame around the table, whose measurement was one handbreadth. That is a separate derivation. Here we are discussing the derivation of the minimum height of a sukkah, and we explain that it comes from the Tabernacle and the cherubim.
The problem is that, according to Rabbi Judah, a cubit in the case of vessels is five handbreadths rather than six. According to him, the Ark and its cover together were eight and a half handbreadths high. The cherubim still reached the level of twenty handbreadths, because Rabbi Judah follows the measurement of six handbreadths for the structure of the Tabernacle, while he follows the measurement of five handbreadths for vessels. From the level of twenty down to the top of the Ark and its cover, which were eight and a half handbreadths high, there would be eleven and a half handbreadths. According to this calculation, one might conclude that a sukkah must be eleven and a half handbreadths high. Is that really the case?
Rabbi Judah answers that we have a received tradition: the measurements, interpositions, and partitions are all from a law given to Moses at Sinai. The measurements refer to the various minimum quantities for prohibitions—for example, the size of an olive, the size of an egg, or the size of a date. All of those measurements are from the law given to Moses at Sinai. The same applies to interpositions, the laws of something separating a person's body from the water when he immerses in a ritual bath, which we will study today. It also applies to partitions. What is the measurement of a partition? In the case of a sukkah, it must be ten handbreadths. These are the different approaches to determining why the minimum height of a sukkah is ten handbreadths.
The Gemara challenges this: What do you mean when you say that these measurements are from a law given to Moses at Sinai? There is an explicit verse in the Torah that teaches the measurements. The verse states: “A land of wheat and barley, and vine, fig, and pomegranate; a land of olive oil and honey.” Rabbi Hanin said that this entire verse, when it lists the different species, is actually coming to teach different measurements for different matters.
When the verse mentions wheat, it refers to the amount of time required for a person who enters a house afflicted with a leprous condition to become impure. A person who enters such a house does not render his clothing impure immediately. There is a specific amount of time that he must remain in the house before the clothing he is wearing becomes impure.
This should not be confused with clothing that he is carrying. If he walks in while carrying clothing or vessels—for example, on his shoulder, or holding his shoes and rings in his hands—those items are considered to have entered the house immediately and become impure at once. The discussion concerns the clothing he is wearing. How long does he have to remain there before the impurity takes effect and the clothing must be immersed in a ritual bath?
The measure is the amount of time required to eat half a loaf of bread, where the loaf consists of four eggs' volume of wheat bread. What type of bread is intended? Wheat bread, and not barley bread, because wheat bread tastes better and can therefore be eaten more quickly.
The person is eating while reclining, in the normal manner of eating in those days, rather than eating while running or otherwise hurrying. He is also eating with a relish or dip. Some say that when a person eats bread together with something else, he eats more slowly because he must eat the accompanying food as well, unlike someone who simply puts bread into his mouth immediately. There are different ways of understanding whether these details make the measure longer or shorter, and the authorities present two opinions. The point is that the verse mentions wheat in order to teach that the clothing a person is wearing when he enters the afflicted house becomes impure after the time required to eat four egg-volumes of wheat bread while reclining and eating with a relish. If he leaves before that amount of time, the clothing he is wearing does not become impure.
Rashi explains that the verse is speaking specifically about someone who eats while reclining. It is not referring to someone who eats without reclining, someone who reclines without eating, or someone who does neither. From where do we know that the impurity applies to other activities as well? The verse repeatedly says that he must wash his clothing. The word “clothing” serves to include other cases.
However, the Gemara asks why the verse specifically discusses eating. It is teaching a general rule: the impurity takes effect after the amount of time required for a person to eat a meal, even if the person who entered the house does not himself eat. The verse uses eating to establish the measure of time.
In other words, the impurity does not take effect until he has remained there for the period required to eat a meal. The person himself becomes impure immediately, but the clothing he is wearing becomes impure only after that period. A person who enters afterward also becomes impure immediately. The verse is discussing anything besides the person himself and the clothing he is wearing. Anything that he carries into the house is considered to have entered immediately, while the clothing he is wearing requires the specified period of time.
When the Gemara speaks of half a loaf, it means half of a meal. One meal is two such portions, so half a loaf consists of four egg-volumes, assuming that a full loaf contains eight egg-volumes. Rashi says that wheat bread can be eaten more quickly because it is tastier. Rashi also explains that reclining is considered a manner of eating in which a person is focused on the meal and not occupied with other matters. If he were walking or doing something else, his mind would be preoccupied, and he would eat more slowly.
The next species in the verse is barley. We learned in the Mishnah that a bone fragment the size of a barley grain conveys impurity through contact or through being lifted. It conveys impurity if someone touches it, or if someone lifts it even without touching it. For example, if it is on a plate and the plate is lifted, that is considered lifting the bone fragment, and it becomes impure.
However, a bone fragment the size of a barley grain does not convey the impurity of a corpse through being under the same roof. If it is in a house with a roof and a person enters that house, the person does not become impure because of that bone fragment.
Rashi explains that the reference is to a bone from a corpse that is less than the size of a barley grain. Some say that it refers to a tooth. A bone of that size does not convey impurity through being under the same roof. The measure required for the impurity of a corpse under one roof is one of three things: the spinal column, the complete skull, or the majority of the bones of the body’s framework, such as the bones of the limbs. These are the three ways in which bones can convey the impurity of a corpse under one roof.
Thus, when the Torah says, “wheat and barley,” it is teaching the measurement of a bone fragment that conveys impurity through contact and lifting, namely, the size of a barley grain.
When the verse mentions the vine, the Gemara says that it teaches the measure of a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite. Drinking wine is prohibited to a nazirite. The discussion here concerns the other items prohibited to a nazirite: grape seeds, grape leaves, and the stems of the grapes. Anything connected with grapes is also prohibited to a nazirite, and the measure for eating these items is a quarter-log.
One might ask how a liquid measure can be used for solid items. The answer is that we use the principle of displacement. If one places the grape seeds, leaves, and stems into a cup filled with wine, the measure is the amount that displaces a quarter-log of wine.
Rashi explains that one cannot compare the displacement of wine to the displacement of water, because wine is thicker. It collects and adheres to the rim of the cup. Since it is thicker than water, more of the solid material must be placed into the cup in order to displace the wine. Therefore, when the verse mentions the vine, it teaches that the forbidden grape products of a nazirite are not prohibited with respect to the measure until one has eaten enough to displace a quarter-log of wine.
Now we come to the fig. We learned in Massekhet Shabbat that, in order to violate the Torah prohibition of carrying on Shabbat, one must carry an item of significance. Carrying less than the size of a fig is not a Torah violation, because that is not considered a significant amount that a person would ordinarily preserve. Thus, with regard to food, the measure of significance for carrying food on Shabbat is at least the size of a fig.
Next we come to the pomegranate. We learned in the Mishnah that the measure for the vessels of a homeowner is the size of a pomegranate. A wooden vessel is susceptible to impurity as long as it remains a functional vessel. When does it lose its capacity to become impure? When it becomes broken and is no longer functional.
For a homeowner who owns private vessels, the vessel is considered broken when it has a hole large enough for a pomegranate to pass through. A homeowner is economical with his vessels and is reluctant to discard them. If there is a hole the size of an olive, he can still place something larger than an olive inside, so the contents will not fall out. Once the hole is as large as a pomegranate, however, he will not begin storing larger fruit in it. He will simply say that he is no longer using the vessel. Therefore, a pomegranate is the measure that renders a homeowner’s vessel pure by demonstrating that it is no longer a functional vessel.
Rashi explains that the Mishnah is referring to holes in the vessels of homeowners that are large enough for a pomegranate to pass through. A homeowner has concern and compassion for his vessels, so long as the hole is only large enough for olives to fall out; he can still use the vessel for larger fruit, such as lemons. A craftsman who manufactures and sells vessels is different. Even a small hole prevents him from selling the vessel, so the measure is smaller in the case of a craftsman.
Tosafot notes that this discussion concerns wooden vessels. In the case of a vessel used for liquids, the measure is a hole through which the liquid can enter and exit, with the opening large enough for the water to pass through from both sides. The point is that there is a distinction between wooden vessels and vessels intended for liquids.
Tosafot then raises a question about the teaching that mentions three pomegranates. It is a very large hole if three pomegranates can pass through it. Tosafot explains that the statement does not mean that the hole is large enough for three separate pomegranates to pass through all at once. It means that three pomegranates can pass through one after another.
Another explanation says that the reference is to three pomegranates attached to one another. Although they are still attached to the branch on which they grew, the opening must be large enough for the three attached pomegranates to be pushed through one after another. Since they are attached, a wider opening is required than if the pomegranates were separate.
Tosafot offers a further explanation. Pomegranates grow in clusters. If there are two pomegranates in a cluster, they are larger; if there are four, they are smaller. The statement is not referring to those sizes. It refers to the size of a pomegranate that grows in a cluster of three, which is an average size. These are the two explanations of Tosafot for the statement about three pomegranates: either it means three attached pomegranates, requiring a somewhat wider opening, or it means the size of a pomegranate from a cluster of three.
The Gemara continues with the words, “a land of olive oil.” This refers to an olive. The word “olive” teaches that the majority of the measurements for prohibited substances are the size of an olive. The examples include the size of an olive from a corpse, the size of an olive of an animal carcass, blood, sacrificial meat invalidated by an improper intention, leftover sacrificial meat, and food that becomes impure. The sciatic nerve also has a measure of the size of an olive. Therefore, with regard to prohibitions, the majority of the measurements are the size of an olive.
The word “honey” in the verse refers to dates. It teaches the measure for eating on Yom Kippur. Since the Torah does not say explicitly, “Do not eat,” but instead commands a person to afflict himself, the measure is the amount of food that removes a person from a state of affliction. That measure is the size of a large date.
The Gemara now asks: These measurements are derived from the Torah, so how can Rabbi Judah say that measurements are from a law given to Moses at Sinai? The answer is that it does not make sense to say that all these measurements are explicitly derived from the Torah. The verse does not mention an afflicted house, nor does it mention a nazirite. The verse merely mentions wheat and the vine.
Rather, the measurements are in fact from a law given to Moses at Sinai, and the verse serves as an allusion to those laws. An allusion is a reference that the Sages attached to a verse so that people would remember an oral law that had already been given. The verse itself is not teaching the law directly; it is teaching something else, and the Sages found an allusion to the received laws within its wording.
The Gemara then discusses interpositions. We said that interpositions refer to the laws of something separating a person’s body from the water when he immerses in a ritual bath. But the law of interposition is a Torah law, and it is stated explicitly. We must therefore read the text carefully.
The verse says that he must wash his flesh in water. This teaches that there must be nothing between his flesh and the water. The Torah is discussing the body, but the wording teaches the law of interposition with regard to hair as well.
In the case of hair, if there is a single strand with a knot in it, that is an interposition. A knot in one strand can be made very tight, preventing the water from penetrating. If three hairs are tied together, however, the knot is not as tight, and the water can penetrate. With two hairs, there is uncertainty; we do not know whether the knot is considered an interposition. This is how the received tradition teaches the laws of interposition with regard to hair.
The Gemara challenges this as well. Interpositions in hair are also explicitly derived from the Torah, as it says, “He shall wash his flesh in water.” Whenever the word “et” appears, it comes to include something additional. The phrase “his flesh” includes what is subordinate or auxiliary to his flesh, namely, his hair. Therefore, the hair is also included in the requirement that there be no interposition.
The Gemara answers that the law from the tradition given to Moses at Sinai concerns a specific teaching attributed to Isaac: the law that the majority of the hair must be affected and that the person must be particular about the substance being there. According to this law, an interposition exists on a Torah level only when the majority of the hair is covered or tied and the person objects to it.
For example, if the majority of a woman’s hair contains dirt, mud, or another substance that she does not want there, it is an interposition. The Torah requires both conditions: the majority of the hair must be affected, and she must be particular about the substance. If the majority of the hair is covered but she does not object to it for whatever reason, she may immerse in the ritual bath on a Torah level. This is the law given to Moses at Sinai, which defines the measure and parameters of an interposition.
The Sages then established a decree concerning the majority of the hair even when the person is not particular about the substance, because of the case in which the majority is affected and the person is particular. They also established a decree concerning any amount when the person is particular, even if only a minority of the hair is affected, because of the case in which the majority is affected and the person is particular.
The Gemara asks why the Sages would establish a further decree concerning a minority of the hair when the person is not particular. That case would be a decree because of a minority in which the person is particular, or because of a majority in which the person is not particular. The Gemara responds that those second-tier cases are already rabbinic decrees. One does not generally establish a further decree upon a decree; that would be two steps removed from the Torah law.
There is an important disagreement between Rashi and Tosafot. Rashi understands the law of the majority and being particular as referring specifically to hair. Rashi gives two examples: mud or dirt in the hair, or a majority of the hairs tied in knots. In those cases, the substance is an interposition only when it affects the majority and the person is particular about it.
According to Rashi, however, with regard to the flesh, even a minority is considered an interposition. The law of a majority was stated only with regard to hair. Tosafot disagrees and says that the same law applies to flesh and hair. The requirement of a majority and being particular applies to both the body and the hair. Thus, Tosafot applies the rule of the majority and being particular universally, whereas Rashi applies it only to hair and is more stringent with regard to the body, where even a minority is considered an interposition.
Therefore, when the Gemara says that the law given to Moses at Sinai concerns interpositions, it is referring to the rule of the majority and being particular. The Torah teaches that hair is included in the requirement of washing the flesh, and the received tradition defines the measure: how much hair must be affected and what intention the person must have for it to constitute an interposition.
The Gemara next discusses partitions. We said that the law of partitions teaches that a sukkah must be ten handbreadths high. Rabbi Meir derives the ten handbreadths from the Tabernacle and the cherubim. Rabbi Judah, however, needs the law given to Moses at Sinai for the laws of partitions. What does that tradition teach? It teaches the principles of extending a partition, treating a gap as closed, and considering a bent partition as though it were upright.
“Extension” means that in certain circumstances we extend a wall upward or downward. As we learned yesterday, there is a principle that allows a wall to be extended. We also learned that when an item is within three or four handbreadths of a wall, it can sometimes be treated as though it reaches the wall. We will see practical applications of these principles.
There is also the principle of a bent wall. Sometimes a wall rises and then extends across, and this can allow the sukkah to be considered properly enclosed. These principles—extending a wall, treating a gap as closed, and treating a bent partition as upright—are the laws of partitions included in the tradition given to Moses at Sinai. This is how the Gemara explains the different uses of that tradition.
The Gemara continues by reviewing our Mishnah. What is the minimum number of valid walls for a sukkah? Our Mishnah says that a sukkah has three walls. The Sages say that two walls must be full, valid walls, while the third wall need be only a handbreadth. Rabbi Shimon says that three full, valid walls are required, while the fourth wall may be only a handbreadth.
This is a major disagreement: what is the minimum measurement of the walls of a valid sukkah? Is it two full walls and a third wall of one handbreadth, or three full walls and a fourth wall of one handbreadth?
The Gemara explains that the disagreement depends on whether priority is given to the way a word is read or to the way it is written according to the received spelling. The Torah is sometimes read one way while its written form is spelled differently. For example, the word “sukkot” is sometimes written with a silent letter, even though it is read as a plural. According to the reading, it is plural; according to the written form, it can appear singular.
There is a major disagreement throughout the Talmud when both possibilities are available: do we interpret the word according to the way it is read, or according to the received written form? One authority says that priority is given to the reading. Another says that priority is given to the written form.
The Gemara says that the Sages follow the written form. The word for sukkot appears three times in the relevant verses. According to the written form, one occurrence is plural and two are singular, giving a total of four references. One reference must be set aside to teach the law of the sukkah itself, leaving three references. These three references teach two full walls, while the remaining reference teaches that the third wall does not have to be complete and may be only a handbreadth.
Rabbi Shimon says that we follow the way the word is read. Since the word is read as a plural in all three places, there are six references, with each occurrence representing two. One reference must be used to teach the law of the sukkah itself, leaving four. Those four references teach three full walls, while the fourth wall may be only a handbreadth.
The Gemara offers another explanation. Everyone agrees that the word must be understood according to its reading, giving six references. The disagreement concerns whether an additional reference is needed to teach the requirement of roofing. One authority says that a separate verse is needed for the roofing, leaving three references for the walls: two full walls and a third wall of one handbreadth. The other authority says that the word sukkah itself already includes the roofing, so no additional reference is needed. That leaves four references: three full walls and a fourth wall of one handbreadth.
The Gemara gives a third approach based on the written form. Everyone begins with four references, because the word is written in a way that produces one plural and two singular forms. Everyone agrees that the tradition given to Moses at Sinai comes to minimize the final wall, allowing it to be only a handbreadth. The question is whether the first occurrence must be set aside entirely to teach the law of the sukkah, or whether it can also be counted as part of the number.
One authority says that the first occurrence is needed to teach the law of the sukkah, but it can also be interpreted and counted in the total. Thus, there are three references for the walls, and the tradition minimizes the fourth wall to a handbreadth. The result is two full walls and a third wall of one handbreadth. The other authority says that the first occurrence is used only for itself and cannot be counted in the total. The remaining references therefore produce the alternative arrangement.
According to the Sages, the spelling of the word for sukkah itself reflects these levels. The first letter has four sides, representing the most complete sukkah, with four walls. The next letter has three sides, representing the next level, with three walls. The final letter has two sides and a projecting line, representing the minimum valid sukkah of two walls and a third wall of one handbreadth. This reflects the position of the Sages.
The Gemara then presents the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who requires three full walls and a fourth wall of one handbreadth. The verse teaches that the purpose of a sukkah is to be a shelter. A shelter protects a person from rain and water. If a sukkah has only two walls, half of it is open, and it will not adequately protect a person from the rain. Therefore, a sukkah that serves as a shelter requires three full walls and a fourth wall of one handbreadth.
The Sages respond that the first purpose of a sukkah is shade from the sun. The verse also teaches protection from water and rain. Rabbi Shimon understands each of these expressions as adding another wall, resulting in three full walls and a fourth wall of one handbreadth. The Sages understand water and rain as referring to one matter, so the result is two full walls and a third wall of one handbreadth. This is an important disagreement to remember concerning the minimum number of valid walls for a sukkah.
For the benefit of our listeners, when we refer to illustrations and diagrams in Massekhet Sukkah, we will be referring to several books. One is HaMaor HaMevoar, the illustrated book on Massekhet Sukkah. We will also refer to a new book called HaHod VeHaHadar, as well as Perush Hai on Massekhet Sukkah.