The Elliot B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Tractate Sukkah, has been dedicated by Celia and Isaac Jamal, may they live and be well, for the success of their dear children. May they derive much satisfaction 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 for the elevation of the soul of Sara bat Adel Ruwa. May her soul rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen. Again, this dedication is by Celia and Isaac Jamal. May they merit to fulfill many mitzvot. Amen.
Today’s page has been generously sponsored by Mr. Harry Ajmi in honor of the premier caterer and our dear friend, Mr. Uri Nidan. We congratulate Uri on the birth of a baby girl. May he derive much satisfaction from all his children. May he see the fulfillment of the blessing, “May God bless you and grant you success.” Amen.
Today’s page, 12, is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther. May his soul rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen. It is also being studied in honor of our dear friend Mr. Uri Nadan, dedicated by Mr. Harry Ajmi, for success in the performance of mitzvot.
We begin today’s page on 11b, ten lines from the bottom, with the words, “This is the general rule: Anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity.”
We learned in the Mishnah a fundamental rule regarding the roofing of the sukkah. In order for the roofing to be valid, it must have two properties. First, it may not be susceptible to ritual impurity. It cannot be an item such as a utensil, a garment, or food, because those items can become ritually impure. Second, it must grow from the ground.
The Gemara now qualifies these principles and asks: What is the source in the Torah that the roofing must not be susceptible to ritual impurity and must grow from the ground?
Reish Lakish said in the name of a verse: “And a mist rose from the earth,” at the very beginning of Bereshit. The verse describes a cloud as rising from the ground. We know that, according to one opinion, the reason we sit in sukkot is to commemorate the Clouds of Glory that accompanied the Jewish people during their journey in the wilderness.
Therefore, just as a cloud is not susceptible to ritual impurity—it is not a human being, food, or a garment—and just as it comes from the ground, so too the roofing of a sukkah, which commemorates the Clouds of Glory, must not be susceptible to ritual impurity and must grow from the ground. Since the entire source of the sukkah is the Clouds of Glory, and the verse describes a cloud as coming from the ground, these are the qualifications for valid roofing.
This proof is satisfactory according to the opinion that the sukkah commemorates the Clouds of Glory. But according to the opinion that the Jewish people actually sat in physical huts, what is the source? If one understands that we sat beneath Clouds of Glory, the verse describing a cloud rising from the earth provides a good proof. But if the sukkot were actual huts, what is the proof?
The Gemara brings a teaching. The Torah says, “I settled the Children of Israel in sukkot.” Rabbi Eliezer says that this refers to the Clouds of Glory, while Rabbi Akiva says that the Jewish people sat in actual huts.
According to Rabbi Eliezer, the proof is clear: the verse describing the cloud establishes that the roofing must not be susceptible to ritual impurity and must grow from the ground. But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the source?
The rabbis of the Land of Israel said in the name of Rabbi Hanan that the source is the verse, “You shall observe the festival of Sukkot.” The word “festival” can also refer to the festival offering. The Gemara therefore compares the sukkah to the festival offering: Just as the festival offering is not susceptible to ritual impurity, because a live animal is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and just as an animal is considered something that grows from the ground, so too the roofing must not be susceptible to ritual impurity and must grow from the ground.
Although an animal does not literally grow from the ground, it receives its nourishment from the ground. Therefore, it is considered to be something that grows from the ground.
At this point, the Gemara understands that the comparison teaches that the sukkah must have the same two properties as the festival offering: it must not be susceptible to ritual impurity, and it must be considered something that grows from the ground.
Let us read Rashi at the bottom of the page. According to the opinion that the Jewish people sat in regular huts, who would tell us that they did not use garments, utensils, or skins as roofing—items that are susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers that the festival offering includes every animal, and animals are considered things that grow from the ground because they are nourished by the ground.
Fish and salt, however, are not considered things that grow from the ground. The same is true of truffles and mushrooms. Even though they come from the ground, they do not receive their nourishment from the ground.
The Gemara brings proof from the laws of the second tithe. Second-tithe produce must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there. If one cannot transport the produce, one may redeem it with money, take the money to Jerusalem, and spend it on food. The Torah says, “You shall spend the money on whatever your soul desires,” and then lists cattle, sheep, wine, and other items.
We know that second-tithe money may be spent only on things that grow from the ground. Since animals are among the things that may be purchased with that money, animals must be considered things that grow from the ground. The common denominator among the items listed by the Torah is that they are products of the ground, and animals are included because they are sustained by the ground.
However, the Gemara will immediately reject this proof. Ultimately, we will learn the law from another verse, as we shall see.
The practical consequence of the comparison to the festival offering is that animal skins would not be permitted as roofing. Even though animals and what comes from animals may be considered things that grow from the ground because the ground sustains them and causes them to grow, the requirement for roofing is that it actually grow from the ground, like a tree. It is not enough that it merely be nourished by the ground.
The Gemara brings a proof from the law of a worker eating from produce in a field. A worker who is laboring in a field may eat things that grow from the ground. This law is derived from the verse prohibiting the muzzling of an animal while it is threshing. Just as the grain is something from which the worker may eat, so too the animal is connected to this category.
From this, the Gemara demonstrates that derivatives of an animal are not considered things that grow from the ground. A worker may eat wheat and similar produce while working, but may not take the animal’s milk or make cheese from it and eat that. Thus, the Gemara clearly distinguishes between something actually produced by the ground and something that merely comes from an animal that is nourished by the ground.
Therefore, the earlier proof from the festival offering will ultimately be rejected, and animal skins may not be used as sukkah roofing. We now turn to the Gemara’s rejection.
If one derives the law of sukkah from the festival offering, the Gemara asks, perhaps the comparison teaches that just as the festival offering comes only from an animal, so too a sukkah may be made only from an animal. In other words, once the comparison is made, perhaps it limits the valid roofing to animal material. How, then, could we know that other materials may be used?
The rabbis who came from the Land of Israel brought the final proof. The verse says, “You shall make the festival of Sukkot for seven days, when you gather in your grain and your wine.” The grain refers to the produce collected from the fields, and the wine refers to the produce of the vines.
On its simple level, the verse describes the season of the festival: it is the time when one gathers the harvest from the field and the fruit from the vines. The Gemara, however, interprets the verse as teaching that sukkah roofing may be made from the material associated with the grain and the wine harvests.
The Gemara understands this as referring not to the grain and wine themselves, but to the residue of the grain harvest and the wine production: straw and hay left in the field after the wheat is harvested, and the twigs, husks, and other residue left after wine is made. These materials are not food and are not susceptible to ritual impurity, and they grow from the ground. This provides the required proof.
The Gemara challenges this interpretation. Who says that the verse refers to the residue? Perhaps it refers to the actual wheat and the actual grapes. Wheat and grapes are food, and food is susceptible to ritual impurity. If so, how do we know that the verse is referring to material that is not susceptible to ritual impurity?
The Gemara answers that the verse uses a word associated with the winepress. It cannot mean that one makes roofing from the actual wine, because wine is a liquid. Therefore, it must refer to the residue of the winepress—the grape skins, stems, and similar material. Once the verse cannot be understood literally with regard to the winepress, we understand the parallel expression regarding the grain as referring to the residue of the grain as well.
Rabbi Yirmiyah challenges this answer. Perhaps the verse refers to congealed wine from the city of Sinir, which was hardened and resembled a cake of pressed figs. Since the wine had solidified, perhaps it could be used as roofing and would be considered food, meaning that it would be susceptible to ritual impurity.
Rabbi Zeira responds by saying that the answer they had thought was secure was cut apart, as though someone had taken an axe to it. They thought they had found a legitimate source for the laws of roofing, but Rabbi Yirmiyah’s question had raised a serious difficulty.
The Gemara therefore returns to the explanation of Rabbi Hanan. The expression “from your grain harvest” means from the grain harvest, but not the grain itself; and “from your winepress” means from the winepress, but not the winepress itself. The prefix “from” indicates that the verse is referring to the residue of the grain harvest and the winepress—the straw, hay, husks, and stems—not to the produce itself.
The Gemara then brings another verse. When the Jewish people were instructed to celebrate the festival of Sukkot, the verse in Nehemiah says that they should go to the mountain and bring olive branches, branches of the oil tree, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of leafy trees in order to make sukkot.
All the materials listed there grow from the ground and are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This is another indication that sukkah roofing must consist of material that grows from the ground and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.
According to this explanation, Rav Chisda is using the verse in Nehemiah as an independent proof. However, Tosafot understands that Rav Chisda is explaining how to answer the challenge: How do we know that the earlier verse refers to the residue of the grain harvest and the winepress rather than to the actual produce? The verse in Nehemiah reveals that the roofing of the sukkah is made from items that grow from the ground and are not susceptible to ritual impurity. It therefore helps us understand the earlier verse as referring to the straw, husks, and other residue.
The Gemara raises another question. The verse in Nehemiah mentions myrtle branches and also mentions leafy branches. But the Torah itself refers to myrtle as a leafy tree. Why, then, did Ezra list both myrtle branches and leafy branches? Was he telling the people to bring the same item twice?
The Gemara answers that the expression “leafy branches” refers to a myrtle that is suitable for the lulav, while the mention of myrtle refers to a type of myrtle that is not suitable for the lulav but is suitable for sukkah roofing.
A valid myrtle for the lulav has leaves arranged in groups of three, resembling links in a chain. That is why the Torah calls it a leafy branch. A myrtle whose leaves are not arranged in this manner—such as one with two leaves at one level and a third below them—is not valid for the lulav, but it is still valid for sukkah roofing.
Thus, Ezra was instructing the Jewish people to obtain two types of myrtle: one type of myrtle for the roofing, which need not be valid for the lulav, and the leafy, chain-like myrtle for the lulav itself.
We now begin the new Mishnah, which discusses additional materials that are invalid for roofing: bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of a certain type of weed. Rashi explains that when the weeds are moist, they are used as animal fodder, and when they dry, they are used as kindling or wood.
These three materials may not be used for roofing while they remain tied in bundles. The Gemara will explain why. Once the bundles are untied, the materials are valid for roofing. According to most of the commentators, after one unties them, one does not even need to shake them to make them valid.
This differs from the case we learned previously, in which a tree was cut and fell onto the sukkah roofing. Since that roofing was invalid because of the principle that an act must be performed for the sake of the mitzvah, one had to shake the roofing to make it valid. Here, the materials themselves are valid roofing; the problem is only that they were tied in bundles. Once they are untied, they are valid without any additional movement.
The Mishnah concludes that all these materials are valid for the walls of the sukkah. The discussion concerns only the roofing. The picture in the study book illustrates the three types of bundles, and another illustration shows that once the bundles have been untied, they are valid as roofing.
Rabbi Yaakov said that he heard two laws from Rabbi Yohanan. One law was the ruling in our Mishnah that bundles may not be used for sukkah roofing. The second law concerned someone who hollows out a haystack or a stack of grain in order to make a sukkah. Even though he hollows out the middle and is left with walls and a roof, the sukkah is invalid.
Rabbi Yohanan said that one of these rulings is prohibited only by rabbinic decree. The concern is that if we allow a person to use a haystack in this way, he may come to use a storage area as a sukkah. A sukkah must be made for shade. A storage area, however, is not normally used for living, eating, or sleeping, and the material placed there is not ordinarily arranged for shade. It is therefore considered a house or storage structure rather than a sukkah.
Rabbi Yaakov said that he had heard both laws and both reasons, but he did not know which reason applied to which law. Technically, both reasons could apply to both cases.
Regarding the bundles, one possibility is that the Mishnah discusses a case in which the person placed the bundles on the sukkah for storage rather than for shade. Later, when Sukkot arrived, he decided to use them as roofing. Since they were initially placed there for the wrong purpose, the roofing became valid only through a change of intention, without a physical act. This would be a violation of the principle that the sukkah must be made through an act and not become valid on its own.
That could also explain the case of the haystack. The person hollows out the stack, and the roof and walls are created automatically. The sukkah therefore becomes a sukkah through inaction rather than through an act of placing valid roofing.
Alternatively, perhaps the Mishnah discusses a case in which the bundles were placed on the sukkah for the sake of shade. From the standpoint of Torah law, they would then be valid. Nevertheless, the Rabbis prohibited their use as a safeguard, because a person might come to place bundles on the sukkah for storage rather than for shade. He would then change his mind later, creating the problem of roofing that became valid only through a change of intention.
The same rabbinic decree could apply to the person who hollows out a haystack. Even if he intended to make a sukkah, we might be concerned that he would come to use a storage structure as a sukkah.
The Gemara attempts to determine the matter independently. A person may come home from the field carrying a bundle of straw or wood on his shoulder. He may place it on top of his sukkah merely to store it or allow it to dry. Later, he may decide to use it as roofing. Since it was not originally placed there for shade, the roofing would be invalid because it became a sukkah through a change of intention rather than through an act.
This suggests that the prohibition against using bundles is a rabbinic safeguard against such a case. Even when a person places the bundles on the sukkah for the proper purpose of shade, the Rabbis prohibited it because he might otherwise come to place them there for storage and then change his mind.
Once the reason for the bundles is identified as a rabbinic decree, the Gemara asks whether the case of hollowing out the haystack must be based on the principle that the sukkah must be made through an act rather than through inaction. Rabbi Yaakov did not know this distinction because, as he explained, he had not heard the relevant teaching from Rabbi Chiya bar Abba.
The Gemara then reviews the conclusion. The bundles are prohibited even when placed on the sukkah for the sake of shade, because of a rabbinic decree. The decree is intended to prevent a person from placing bundles there for storage or drying and then changing his mind. In that latter case, the roofing would be invalid by Torah law because it became valid through a change of intention rather than through an act.
The case of hollowing out a haystack is invalid by Torah law. The roof came into existence automatically when the person dug out the interior, and this is not considered an act of making a sukkah.
Rashi explains that if the person who hollowed out the haystack subsequently shakes or rearranges the roofing, the sukkah becomes valid. Once he recognizes the problem and performs the necessary act, the roofing is made valid through an action.
Why, then, do we not impose an additional decree and prohibit the sukkah even after he has shaken the roofing, out of concern that another person might fail to shake it? Rashi explains that we do not make such a decree. Once the person has recognized the problem and actively corrected it, we assume that he will not repeat the error.
This differs from the case of bundles. If bundles are permitted when placed on the sukkah for shade, a person might come to place them there for storage, without performing any subsequent act to make them valid. Therefore, the Rabbis made a decree in that case. By contrast, in the haystack case, the person knows that he must shake the roofing to correct the problem, so we do not impose the same decree after he has done so.
Thus, if someone asks for the reason that bundles are prohibited in the Mishnah, the answer is that it is a rabbinic decree against storage. By Torah law, the bundles would be valid when placed for shade. The case of hollowing out the haystack, however, is invalid by Torah law because of the principle that the sukkah must be made through an act and not through inaction.
The Gemara now discusses other materials that may not be used as roofing because they are susceptible to ritual impurity.
It teaches that male arrow shafts are valid for roofing, while female arrow shafts are invalid. A male shaft is a piece of wood that has no opening; the metal arrowhead has the opening into which the wooden shaft is inserted. A female shaft is the reverse: the wooden portion has the opening, and the metal point fits into it.
The wooden portion of the male shaft is an ordinary piece of wood. It is not a utensil and has no receptacle, so it is not susceptible to ritual impurity and may be used as roofing. The female shaft, however, has a receptacle. Since it is considered a utensil that can receive something, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and may not be used as roofing.
The Gemara asks why it is necessary to teach that male shafts are valid. It seems obvious that they are merely simple pieces of wood and are not susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers that one might have thought that male shafts should be prohibited as a safeguard against using female shafts. The Mishnah therefore teaches that we do not make that decree.
The Gemara likewise asks why it is necessary to teach that female shafts are invalid. It seems obvious that they are utensils with a receptacle. The Gemara answers that one might have thought that a receptacle designed to be filled permanently with the arrowhead is not considered a receptacle for purposes of ritual impurity. The Mishnah teaches that even such a receptacle is considered a receptacle, and the shaft is therefore invalid as roofing.
Tosafot notes that the male shaft is not comparable to certain other flat wooden utensils, such as a baker’s board. A baker’s board may also lack a hollow receptacle, yet it is susceptible to ritual impurity because it has a designated use and items are placed upon it. A male arrow shaft, however, is considered merely a simple piece of wood.
It should be emphasized that the Gemara is discussing the wooden shafts before the arrowheads have been attached. Once the metal point has been attached, the item serves the metal utensil and assumes the status of the completed article. At that point, it is invalid for roofing. Even if the point is later removed, once the shaft has been attached to it, the status of the item has changed.
The Gemara then discusses flax. There are three stages in the production of flax. First, the flax is soaked in water to soften it. Then it is beaten or ground in order to open it and release the fibers inside. Finally, it is combed to remove thorns and other refuse, after which the fibers are spun into linen thread.
Flax that has reached the stage of being combed is invalid as roofing. Rashi explains that at this stage the laws of ritual impurity apply to it, and it is therefore susceptible to ritual impurity.
Raw flax that has not been processed at all is valid as roofing. It has not been soaked, beaten, or combed, and is not yet fit to become susceptible to ritual impurity.
There is also an intermediate category of flax that has undergone part of the process. Rabbi Yohanan said that he did not know whether this partially processed flax was valid or invalid as roofing.
Rabbah bar Hanan said that he did not even know precisely which stage was being called the intermediate category. Perhaps it refers to flax that was soaked and beaten but not yet combed. If so, the question is whether it has already reached the stage at which it is susceptible to ritual impurity. Flax that was merely soaked and not beaten would certainly still be considered raw and would be valid.
Alternatively, perhaps the intermediate term refers to flax that was merely soaked but not beaten. In that case, the partially processed flax would be the subject of the uncertainty, while flax that had not undergone even soaking would certainly be raw and valid.
According to Rashi, this uncertainty concerns whether the flax is susceptible to ritual impurity. Since the discussion involves the partially processed material, we must determine at what stage it becomes susceptible to ritual impurity.
Tosafot understands the matter differently. According to Tosafot, flax remains insusceptible to ritual impurity even after it has been combed, until it is spun into actual thread. Therefore, Tosafot understands the discussion as addressing whether the intermediate stage is considered sufficiently processed to be invalid as roofing.
According to Tosafot, one may perhaps be lenient and say that flax becomes invalid only after all three processes have been completed: soaking, beating, and combing. Thus, the dispute between Rashi and Tosafot concerns how far the flax must be processed before it becomes susceptible to ritual impurity and invalid for roofing.
In summary, Rashi may require us to be stringent even with flax that has merely been soaked, while Tosafot allows greater leniency until the later stages of processing. This concludes today’s discussion.
May the One who grants understanding bless us to continue learning with clarity and success. Amen.