Sukka, Standard Color [Noe ed.] 9653015710, 9789653015715

Citation preview

Koren Talmud Bavli THE NOÉ EDITION Sukka

‫תלמוד בבלי‬ koren talmud bavli THE NOÉ EDITION

‫סוכה‬

sukka Commentary by

Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)

Editor-in-chief

Rabbi Dr Tzvi Hersh Weinreb executive Editor

Rabbi Joshua Schreier

· Shefa foundation koren publishers jerusalem

Supported by the Matanel Foundation

Koren Talmud Bavli, The Noé Edition Volume 10: Tractate Sukka Standard Size Color Edition, ISBN 978 965 301 571 5 Daf Yomi Size B&W Edition, ISBN 978 965 301 616 3 First Hebrew/English Edition, 2013 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. PO Box 4044, Jerusalem 91040, ISRAEL PO Box 8531, New Milford, CT 06776, USA www.korenpub.com Shefa Foundation Shefa Foundation is the parent organization of institutions established by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) PO Box 45187, Jerusalem 91450 ISRAEL Telephone: +972 2 646 0900, Fax +972 2 624 9454 www.hashefa.co.il Talmud Commentary © 1965, 2013 Adin Steinsaltz and Shefa Foundation Talmud Translation © 2013 Shefa Foundation Vocalization and punctuation of the Hebrew/Aramaic text © 2013 Shefa Foundation Koren Tanakh & Siddur Fonts © 1962, 1981, 2013 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. Talmud Design © 2013 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. Original Illustrations © 1965, 2013 Shefa Foundation Revised Illustrations © 2013 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. (except as noted) Cover image © MaestroBooks/iStockphoto.com Hardcover design by Ben Gasner Considerable research and expense have gone into the creation of this publication. Unauthorized copying may be considered geneivat da’at and breach of copyright law. No part of this publication (content or design, including use of the Talmud translations and Koren fonts) may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embedded in critical articles or reviews.

,‫ וְ ִה ׁ ְש ַל ְח ִּתי ָר ָעב ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬,‫ נְ ֻאם ֲאדֹנָי יֱ הֹוִ ה‬,‫ִה ֵּנה יָ ִמים ָּב ִאים‬ .‫ם־ל ׁ ְשמ ַֹע ֵאת דִּ ְב ֵרי יהוה‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ִא‬,‫ֹא־ר ָעב ַל ֶּל ֶחם וְ ל ֹא־צָ ָמא ַל ַּמיִ ם‬ ָ ‫ל‬ Behold, days are coming – says the Lord God – I will send a hunger to the land, not a hunger for bread nor a thirst for water, but to hear the words of the Lord. 

(Amos 8:11)

The Noé edition of the Koren Talmud Bavli with the commentary of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (Even-Israel) is dedicated to all those who open its cover to quench their thirst for Jewish knowledge, in our generation of Torah renaissance. This beautiful edition is for the young, the aged, the novice and the savant alike, as it unites the depth of Torah knowledge with the best of academic scholarship. Within its exquisite and vibrant pages, words become worlds. It will claim its place in the library of classics, in the bookcases of the Beit Midrash, the classrooms of our schools, and in the offices of professionals and businesspeople who carve out precious time to grapple with its timeless wisdom. For the Student and the Scholar Dedicated by Leo and Sue Noé

Managing Editor

Senior Content Editor

Editors

Rabbi David Sedley Shira Shmidman Rabbi Michael Siev Avi Steinhart Rabbi David Strauss Rabbi Abe Y. Weschler Rabbi Binyamin Zimmerman

Rabbi Jason Rappoport

Rabbi Joshua Amaru, Coordinating Editor Menucha Chwat Rabbi Yoel Domb Rabbi Yonatan Shai Freedman Raphael Friedman Nechama Greenberg Rabbi Alan Haber Rabbi David Hojda Rabbi Dov Karoll Rabbi Tzvi Chaim Kaye Rabbi Yonatan Kohn Rabbi Adin Krohn Catriel Lev Sholom Licht Elisha Loewenstern Adina Luber Rabbi Avishai Magence, Content Curator Sally Mayer Sarit Nagus Yedidya Naveh Rabbi Eli Ozarowski

Design & Typesetting

Raphaël Freeman, Design & Typography Dena Landowne Bailey, Typesetting Rina Ben Gal, Typesetting Tani Bayer, Jacket Design

Images

Rabbi Eliahu Misgav, Illustration Yehudit Cohen, Image Acquisition

Rabbi Dr. Shalom Z. Berger

Copy Editors

Aliza Israel, Coordinator Bracha Hermon Ita Olesker Debbie Ismailoff Shira Finson Ilana Sobel Deena Nataf

Language Consultants

Dr. Stephanie E. Binder, Greek & Latin Yaakov Hoffman, Arabic Dr. Shai Secunda, Persian

Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: It is stated here, with regard to Sukkot: “On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot for seven days unto the Lord.” And it is stated: “And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the festival of Matzot unto the Lord” with regard to the festival of Passover. Just as there, with regard to Passover, on the first night there is an obligation to eat matza and from that point onward it is optional, so too here, with regard to Sukkot, on the first night there is an obligation to eat in the sukka and from that point onward it is optional. (SUKKa 27a)

Matza is referred to in the Holy Zohar as the “food of faith.” So too, sukka is termed “the shadow of faith.” Faith is especially essential during moments of darkness and distress, as it is written, “...and Your faithfulness at night.” Whatever one apprehends simply and with clarity of vision is not faith, but rather knowledge. Faith transcends ordinary human reason. Symbolically, the prescribed times for these two mitzvot are during the night, so that we assert our great faith precisely at times of darkness and profound mystery. By virtue of these two mitzvot, we attain a faith that envelops and surrounds us [sukka], and that becomes absorbed into our very bodies [matza]. (Yismach Yisrael, Sukkot, by the Rebbe of Alexandrow, Poland)

Contents

Haskamotx Message from Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)xiv Acknowledgmentsxv Introduction by the Editor-in-Chiefxvii Preface by the Executive Editorxix Introduction by the Publisherxxi Introduction to Sukka

1

Sukka

5

Index of Background

283

Index of Language

285

Index of Personalities

286

Image Credits

286

For the vocalized Vilna Shas layout, please open as a Hebrew book.

Haskama

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

…These new commentaries – which include a new interpretation of the Talmud, a halakhic summary of the debated issues, and various other sections – are a truly outstanding work; they can be of great benefit not only to those familiar with talmudic study who seek to deepen their understanding, but also to those who are just beginning to learn, guiding them through the pathways of the Torah and teaching them how to delve into the sea of the Talmud. I would like to offer my blessing to this learned scholar. May the Holy One grant him success with these volumes and may he merit to write many more, to enhance the greatness of Torah, and bring glory to God and His word… Rabbi Moshe Feinstein New York, 7 Adar 5743

I have seen one tractate from the Talmud to which the great scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz ‫ שליט״א‬has added nikkud (vowels) and illustrations to explain that which is unknown to many people; he has also added interpretations and innovations, and is evidently a talmid ĥakham. Talmidei ĥakhamim and yeshiva students ought to study these volumes, and synagogues and batei midrash would do well to purchase them, as they may find them useful. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein New York, Adar 5730

x 

This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based

Haskama

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson

…I have just had the pleasant surprise of receiving tractate Shabbat (part one), which has been published by [Rabbi Steinsaltz] along with his explanations, etc. Happy is the man who sees good fruits from his labors. May he continue in this path and increase light, for in the matters of holiness there is always room to add – and we have been commanded to add – for they are linked to the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who is infinite. And may the Holy One grant him success to improve and enhance this work, since the greater good strengthens his hand… Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson The Lubavitcher Rebbe Brooklyn, 5 Marĥeshvan 5729

This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based 

xi

Haskama

Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria

The translation of the books of our past into the language of the present – this was the task of the sages of every generation. And in Israel, where the command to “teach them repeatedly to your children” applies to all parts of the nation, it was certainly the task of every era. This is true for every generation, and in our time – when many of those who have strayed far are once again drawing near – all the more so. For many today say, “Who will let us drink from the well” of Talmud, and few are those who offer up the waters to drink. We must, therefore, particularly commend the blessed endeavor of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz to explain the chapters of the Talmud in this extensive yet succinct commentary, which, in addition to its literal interpretation of the text, also explicates the latter’s underlying logic and translates it into the language of our generation. It appears that all those who seek to study Talmud – the diligent student and the learned adult – will have no difficulty understanding when using this commentary. Moreover, we may hope that the logical explanation will reveal to them the beauty of the talmudic page, and they will be drawn deeper and deeper into the intellectual pursuit which has engaged the best Jewish minds, and which serves as the cornerstone of our very lives… Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria

xii 

This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based

Haskama

Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu

The Talmud in Eruvin 21b states: “Rava continued to interpret verses homiletically. What is the meaning of the verse: ‘And besides being wise, Kohelet also taught the people knowledge; and he weighed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs’? (Ecclesiastes 12:9). He explains: He taught the people knowledge; he taught it with the accentuation marks in the Torah, and explained each matter by means of another matter similar to it. And he weighed [izen], and sought out, and set in order many proverbs; Ulla said that Rabbi Eliezer said: At first the Torah was like a basket without handles [oznayim] until Solomon came and made handles for it.” And as Rashi there explains: “And thus were Israel able to grasp the mitzvot and distance themselves from transgressions – just as a vessel with handles is easily held, etc.” Such things may be said of this beloved and eminent man, a great sage of Torah and of virtue. And far more than he has done with the Oral Torah, he does with the Written Torah – teaching the people knowledge. And beyond that, he also affixes handles to the Torah, i.e., to the Talmud, which is obscure and difficult for many. Only the intellectual elite, which are a precious few, and those who study in yeshiva, can today learn the Talmud and understand what it says – and even though we have Rashi, still not everyone uses him. But now the great scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz ‫ שליט״א‬has come and affixed handles to the Torah, allowing the Talmud to be held and studied, even by simple men. And he has composed a commentary alongside the text, a fine commentary in clear, comprehensible language, “a word fitly spoken” with explanations and illustrations, so that all those who seek to study the work of God can do so. Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu Former Chief Rabbi of Israel, 7 Tishrei 5754 This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based 

xiii

Message from Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)

The Talmud is the cornerstone of Jewish culture. True, our culture originated in the Bible and has branched out in directions besides the Talmud, yet the latter’s influence on Jewish culture is fundamental. Perhaps because it was composed not by a single individual, but rather by hundreds and thousands of Sages in batei midrash in an ongoing, millennium-long process, the Talmud expresses not only the deepest themes and values of the Jewish people, but also of the Jewish spirit. As the basic study text for young and old, laymen and learned, the Talmud may be said to embody the historical trajectory of the Jewish soul. It is, therefore, best studied interactively, its subject matter coming together with the student’s questions, perplexities, and innovations to form a single intricate weave. In the entire scope of Jewish culture, there is not one area that does not draw from or converse with the Talmud. The study of Talmud is thus the gate through which a Jew enters his life’s path. The Koren Talmud Bavli seeks to render the Talmud accessible to the millions of Jews whose mother tongue is English, allowing them to study it, approach it, and perhaps even become one with it. This project has been carried out and assisted by several people, all of whom have worked tirelessly to turn this vision into an actual set of books to be studied. It is a joyful duty to thank the many partners in this enterprise for their various contributions. Thanks to Koren Publishers Jerusalem, both for the publication of this set and for the design of its very complex graphic layout. Thanks of a different sort are owed to the Shefa Foundation and its director, Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, for their determination and persistence in setting this goal and reaching it. Many thanks to the translators, editors, and proofreaders for their hard and meticulous work. Thanks to the individuals and organizations that supported this project, chief among them the Matanel Foundation and the Noé family of London. And thanks in advance to all those who will invest their time, hearts, and minds in studying these volumes – to learn, to teach, and to practice. Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) Jerusalem 5773

xiv 

A Message from Rabbi Adin Even-israel (Steinsaltz) 

Acknowledgments

We are indeed privileged to dedicate this edition of the Koren Talmud Bavli in honor of the generous support of Leo and Sue Noé of London. The name Noé is synonymous with philanthropy. The family’s charitable endeavors span a vast range of educational projects, welfare institutions, and outreach organizations across the globe, with a particular emphasis on the “nurturing of each individual.” Among so many other charitable activities, the Noés have been deeply involved with Kisharon, which provides the British Jewish community with vital support for hundreds of people with learning difficulties and their families; they provide steadfast support of SEED, which stands at the forefront of adult Jewish education in the UK, and Kemach, an organization in Israel that “helps Haredi students sustain themselves in dignity,” providing both professional and vocational training for the Haredi community in Israel. The Noés are not simply donors to institutions. They are partners. Donors think of a sum. Partners think of a cause, becoming rigorously and keenly involved, and giving of their time and energy. We are honored that they have chosen to partner with our two organizations, Shefa and Koren Publishers Jerusalem, enabling us to further and deepen learning among all Jews. Leo and Sue are the proud parents and grandparents of five children and their families. The next generation has been taught by example that with life’s gifts come the responsibilities to be active within and contribute to society – both Jewish and non-Jewish – as is consistent with the noblest of Jewish values.



Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) Matthew Miller, Publisher Jerusalem 5773

Acknowledgments 

xv

Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief

The vastly expanded audience of Talmud study in our generation is a phenomenon of historical proportions. The reasons for this phenomenon are many, and include the availability of a wide array of translations, commentaries, and study aids. One outstanding example of such a work is the translation of the Talmud into modern Hebrew by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz). The product of a lifetime of intense intellectual labor, this translation stands out in its uniqueness. But what can the interested student do if he or she does not comprehend the Hebrew, even in its modern form? Where is the English speaker who wishes to access this instructive material to turn? The Koren Talmud Bavli that you hold in your hand is designed to be the answer to those questions. This work is the joint effort of Rabbi Steinsaltz himself, his closest advisory staff, and Koren Publishers Jerusalem. It is my privilege to have been designated Editor-in-Chief of this important project, and to have worked in close collaboration with a team of translators and proofreaders, artists and graphic designers, scholars and editors. Together we are presenting to the English-speaking world a translation that has all the merits of the original Hebrew work by Rabbi Steinsaltz, and provides assistance for the beginner of any age who seeks to obtain the necessary skills to become an adept talmudist. This is the tenth volume of the project, tractate Sukka. It includes the entire original text, in the traditional configuration and pagination of the famed Vilna edition of the Talmud. This enables the student to follow the core text with the commentaries of Rashi, Tosafot, and the customary marginalia. It also provides a clear English translation in contemporary idiom, faithfully based upon the modern Hebrew edition. At least equal to the linguistic virtues of this edition are the qualities of its graphic design. Rather than intimidate students by confronting them with a page-size block of text, we have divided the page into smaller thematic units. Thus, readers can focus their attention and absorb each discrete discussion before proceeding to the next unit. The design of each page allows for sufficient white space to ease the visual task of reading. The illustrations, one of the most innovative features of the Hebrew edition, have been substantially enhanced and reproduced in color.

Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb 

xvii

The end result is a literary and artistic masterpiece. This has been achieved through the dedicated work of a large team of translators, headed by Rabbi Joshua Schreier, and through the unparalleled creative efforts of Raphaël Freeman and the gifted staff at Koren. The group of individuals who surround Rabbi Steinsaltz and support his work deserve our thanks as well. I have come to appreciate their energy, initiative, and persistence. And I thank the indefatigable Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, whom I cannot praise highly enough. The quality of his guidance and good counsel is surpassed only by his commitment to the dissemination and perpetuation of his father’s precious teachings. Finally, in humility, awe, and great respect, I acknowledge Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz). I thank him for the inspirational opportunity he has granted me to work with one of the outstanding sages of our time. Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb Jerusalem 5774

xviii 

Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb

Preface by the Executive Editor

Toward the beginning of tractate Pesaĥim (3a), the Gemara questions the Mishna’s use of the term or rather than the standard term leil when referring to the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan. The Gemara introduces a discussion of the value of euphemism and refraining from the use of crude language. It concludes that despite the importance of euphemism, if the euphemism comes at the expense of clarity and requires a less succinct formulation, it is preferable to speak concisely. Only when the choice is between equally concise phrases is the euphemism preferred. In his peirush, Rabbi Steinsaltz’s language is both concise and aesthetic. While explaining often difficult passages, he avoids the temptation to over-explain, inviting the reader to study the Talmud with him rather than doing all the thinking in the reader’s place. We have attempted to follow his path in translating and editing the Koren Talmud Bavli. My involvement in the production of the Koren Talmud Bavli has been both a privilege and a pleasure. The Shefa Foundation, headed by Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel and devoted to the dissemination of the wide-ranging, monumental works of Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz), constitutes the Steinsaltz side of this partnership; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, headed by Matthew Miller, with the day-to-day management of the project in the able hands of Dena Landowne Bailey, constitutes the publishing side of this partnership. The combination of the inspiration, which is the hallmark of Shefa, with the creativity and professionalism for which Koren is renowned and which I experience on a daily basis, has lent the Koren Talmud Bavli its outstanding quality in terms of both content and form. I would like to express my appreciation for Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, the Editorin-Chief, whose insight and guidance have been invaluable. The contribution of my friend and colleague, Rabbi Dr. Shalom Z. Berger, the Senior Content Editor, cannot be overstated; his title does not begin to convey the excellent direction he has provided in all aspects of this project. In addition, I would like to thank Rabbi Jason Rappoport, Managing Editor; Rabbi Joshua Amaru, Coordinating Editor; and Rabbi Avishai Magence, Content Curator, whose tireless devotion to this project has been and continues to be crucial to the continued success of this project. The erudite and articulate men and women who serve as translators, editors and copy editors have ensured that this project adheres to the highest standards.

preface by the Executive editor 

xix

There are several others whose contributions to this project cannot be overlooked. On the Steinsaltz side: Meir HaNegbi, Yacov Elbert, and Tsipora Ifrah. On the Koren side, my colleagues at Koren: Rabbi David Fuchs, Rabbi Hanan Benayahu, Efrat Gross, Rachel Hanstater Meghnagi, Rabbi Eliahu Misgav, and Rabbi Yinon Chen. Their assistance in all matters, large and small, is appreciated. At the risk of being repetitious, I would like to thank Rabbi Dr. Berger for introducing me to the world of Steinsaltz. Finally, I would like to thank Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, with whom it continues to be a pleasure to move forward in this great enterprise. Rabbi Joshua Schreier Jerusalem 5773

xx 

preface by the Executive editor

Introduction by the Publisher

The Talmud has sustained and inspired Jews for thousands of years. Throughout Jewish history, an elite cadre of scholars has absorbed its learning and passed it on to succeeding generations. The Talmud has been the fundamental text of our people. Beginning in the 1960s, Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) ‫ שליט״א‬created a revolution in the history of Talmud study. His translation of the Talmud, first into modern Hebrew and then into other languages, as well the practical learning aids he added to the text, have enabled millions of people around the world to access and master the complexity and context of the world of Talmud. It is thus a privilege to present the Koren Talmud Bavli, an English translation of the talmudic text with the brilliant elucidation of Rabbi Steinsaltz. The depth and breadth of his knowledge are unique in our time. His rootedness in the tradition and his reach into the world beyond it are inspirational. Working with Rabbi Steinsaltz on this remarkable project has been not only an honor, but a great pleasure. Never shy to express an opinion, with wisdom and humor, Rabbi Steinsaltz sparkles in conversation, demonstrating his knowledge (both sacred and worldly), sharing his wide-ranging interests, and, above all, radiating his passion. I am grateful for the unique opportunity to work closely with him, and I wish him many more years of writing and teaching. Our intentions in publishing this new edition of the Talmud are threefold. First, we seek to fully clarify the talmudic page to the reader – textually, intellectually, and graphically. Second, we seek to utilize today’s most sophisticated technologies, both in print and electronic formats, to provide the reader with a comprehensive set of study tools. And third, we seek to help readers advance in their process of Talmud study. To achieve these goals, the Koren Talmud Bavli is unique in a number of ways: • The classic tzurat hadaf of Vilna, used by scholars since the 1800s, has been reset for greater clarity, and opens from the Hebrew “front” of the book. Full nikkud has been added to both the talmudic text and Rashi’s commentary, allowing for a more fluent reading with the correct pronunciation; the commentaries of Tosafot have been punctuated. Upon the advice of many English-speaking teachers of Talmud, we have separated these core pages from the translation, thereby enabling the advanced student to approach the text without the distraction of the translation. This also reduces the number of volumes in the set. At the bottom of each daf, there is a reference to the corresponding English pages. In addition, the Vilna edition was read against other manuscripts and older print editions, so that texts which had been removed by non-Jewish censors have been restored to their rightful place. Introduction by the publisher 

xxi

• The English translation, which starts on the English “front” of the book, reproduces the menukad Talmud text alongside the English translation (in bold) and commentary and explanation (in a lighter font). The Hebrew and Aramaic text is presented in logical paragraphs. This allows for a fluent reading of the text for the non-Hebrew or non-Aramaic reader. It also allows for the Hebrew reader to refer easily to the text alongside. Where the original text features dialogue or poetry, the English text is laid out in a manner appropriate to the genre. Each page refers to the relevant daf. • Critical contextual tools surround the text and translation: personality notes, providing short biographies of the Sages; language notes, explaining foreign terms borrowed from Greek, Latin, Persian, or Arabic; and background notes, giving information essential to the understanding of the text, including history, geography, botany, archeology, zoology, astronomy, and aspects of daily life in the talmudic era. • Halakhic summaries provide references to the authoritative legal decisions made over the centuries by the rabbis. They explain the reasons behind each halakhic decision as well as the ruling’s close connection to the Talmud and its various interpreters. • Photographs, drawings, and other illustrations have been added throughout the text – in full color in the Standard and Electronic editions, and in black and white in the Daf Yomi edition – to visually elucidate the text. This is not an exhaustive list of features of this edition, it merely presents an overview for the Englishspeaking reader who may not be familiar with the “total approach” to Talmud pioneered by Rabbi Steinsaltz. Several professionals have helped bring this vast collaborative project to fruition. My many colleagues are noted on the Acknowledgments page, and the leadership of this project has been exceptional. Rabbi Menachem Even-israel, Director of the Shefa Foundation, was the driving force behind this enterprise. With enthusiasm and energy, he formed the happy alliance with Koren and established close relationships among all involved in the work. Rabbi dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb ‫שליט״א‬, Editor-in-Chief, brought to this project his profound knowledge of Torah, intellectual literacy of Talmud, and erudition of Western literature. It is to him that the text owes its very high standard, both in form and content, and the logical manner in which the beauty of the Talmud is presented. Rabbi Joshua Schreier, Executive Editor, assembled an outstanding group of scholars, translators, editors, and proofreaders, whose standards and discipline enabled this project to proceed in a timely and highly professional manner. Rabbi Meir Hanegbi, Editor of the Hebrew Edition of the Steinsaltz Talmud, lent his invaluable assistance throughout the work process, supervising the reproduction of the Vilna pages. Raphaël Freeman created this Talmud’s unique typographic design which, true to the Koren approach, is both elegant and user-friendly. It has been an enriching experience for all of us at Koren Publishers Jerusalem to work with the Shefa Foundation and the Steinsaltz Center to develop and produce the Koren Talmud Bavli. We pray that this publication will be a source of great learning and, ultimately, greater Avodat Hashem for all Jews. Matthew Miller, Publisher Koren Publishers Jerusalem Jerusalem 5773

xxii 

Introduction by the publisher

Introduction to Sukka

The name used in the Torah for the month of Tishrei is the Seventh Month, HaĤodesh HaShevi’i. The Sages interpreted the name homiletically and said that the month is replete with mitzvot, where the word for replete, mesuba, is from the same root as hashevi’i (Vayikra Rabba 29). More specifically, they characterized Sukkot as a Festival whose mitzvot are abundant. This wealth of mitzvot is manifest in the Torah in the numerous verses devoted to the halakhot governing the Festival. However, beyond the mitzvot explicitly mentioned in the Torah, there are additional mitzvot that were received as halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and they too impart a unique character to the Festival. The festival of Sukkot is multifaceted, and its halakhot are not all associated with only one central theme; rather, there are several themes that differ from those of all other Festivals. In addition to the general mitzvot of a Festival, detailed in tractate Beitza, and the mitzvot of the pilgrim Festivals, detailed in tractate Ĥagiga, the festival of Sukkot is characterized by its distinctive mitzvot: The mitzva of sukka, which entails moving one’s residence and dining area; the special ceremony that involves taking the four species; the plethora of additional offerings unique to Sukkot; and the mitzvot and special ceremonies performed in the Temple. In essence, the festival of Sukkot does not commemorate a specific historical event, in contrast to Passover, which commemorates the Exodus, and Shavuot, which commemorates the revelation at Sinai. Nor does it correspond to a specific stage in the agricultural cycle, unlike Passover, when the omer offering is sacrificed from the new barley crop, and Shavuot, when the offering of the two loaves is sacrificed from the new wheat crop. Nevertheless, there is one element that ties together the various, distinct aspects of the Festival: Sukkot is the conclusion and summary of the entire year’s Festivals. It is both the culmination of the calendar year and the encapsulation of the historical events that comprise the history of the Jewish people. This summation does not entail merely remembering the past and giving thanks, but it also contains prayer for success in the vital, creative year that is beginning. One remembers with gratitude one way of life whose culmination is represented by the festival of Sukkot, and one prays for the initiation of a new path that commences with the festival of Sukkot. The sukka does not come to commemorate a particular event; rather, it commemorates the entirety of the experience of the children of Israel in the desert, the life of a people without a country, without claim to land, and without stability. This commemoration includes gratitude for all the miracles of the Exodus that transpired in the past, the clouds of glory, and the contrast between the life of a people wandering in the wilderness and the conclusion of the harvest of the produce of the fields and the trees in Eretz Yisrael. The four species, too, serve on the one hand as a kind

1

of victory procession, celebrating past accomplishments (Vayikra Rabba 30); and on the other hand taking the four species includes saying a prayer for rainfall and a successful crop in the coming year, the very essence of the mitzva. Although the thanksgiving and requests voiced during the festival of Sukkot are intimately connected to the Jewish people, they also include a universal theme. Expressing thanks to God for past kindness and prayer and supplication for future success, and likewise, thanksgiving for the past harvest and prayer for rainfall in the coming year, are not unique to the Jewish people. In that sense, the festival of Sukkot becomes a Festival for the entire world, as an expression of both thanks­giving and entreaty. Therefore, the Sages associated the seventy bulls sacrificed within the framework of the additional offering on the festival of Sukkot with the seventy nations of the world. And the prophet says that the festival of Sukkot is the Festival when, in the future, all the people of the world will participate in the pilgrimage to the Temple (see Zechariah 14:16). In the verses in the Torah addressing the festival of Sukkot, the elements of thanksgiving and rejoicing are conspicuous. Beyond the rejoicing that characterizes all the Festivals, there is a special mitzva of rejoicing on Sukkot, to the extent that the name of the Festival coined by the Sages in the prayers recited during the Festival is: The time of our rejoicing. As an extension of the thanksgiving and rejoicing, there are the special mitzvot received as halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which include mention of and prayer for rain and blessing for the coming year. The mitzva of the libation of water on the altar, a central component of the rejoicing of the Festival in the Temple; the mitzva of surrounding the altar with willow branches; and the waving of the willow branch on the seventh day of the Festival all evoke and inspire prayer for rain during the coming year. These are not explicit prayers and are certainly not accompanied by fasting and pleading. Rather, rain is a theme that arises in the course of the great rejoicing. Indeed, though the primary mitzvot of Sukkot were elucidated at length in the Torah, most of the discussion in tractate Sukka is based on halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai and on tradition, primarily due to the need to translate the verses in the Torah into a structured system of halakhot with clearly demarcated limitations. While in many tractates in the Talmud, most of the discussion is dedicated to clarifying the details of the mitzvot or to analyzing the myriad possibilities and intermediate cases, in this tractate the central problems relate to definition of terms. The fundamental concepts associated with the mitzvot of the Festival, e.g., sukka and the four species, require precise definitions in terms of determining their essence, size, measures, and the manner of their use. Most of these definitions are learned through the traditions transmitted from previous generations. The significance of tradition is even more conspicuous with regard to those mitzvot of the Festival that have no clear source in the Torah. Specifically because those mitzvot aroused the resistance of the various deviant sects, e.g., Sadducees and Boethusians, the Sages were compelled to greatly underscore their significance. Another category of fundamental problems addressed in tractate Sukka stems from the contrast between the mitzvot of the Festival practiced in the Temple and those practiced outside the Temple. Although there are some mitzvot associated with Sukkot totally independent of the Temple, e.g., the mitzva of sukka, and there are others exclusive to the Temple, e.g., the additional offerings, there are many mitzvot associated with Sukkot in which there is a special connection between the mitzva and the Temple. Although they are mitzvot whose practice is not limited to the Temple,

2

there is a difference between the practice in the Temple and the practice outside the Temple, e.g., the four species. The problematic nature of these mitzvot while the Temple was standing was exacerbated after its destruction, which severed the connection between the mitzva and the Temple. This led the Sages to institute ordinances to commemorate the Temple, which involved the introduction of many new halakhot. Halakhically, the Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself, fundamentally independent of the festival of Sukkot, yet it is closely related to Sukkot and in a certain sense resembles Shavuot  v is-à-vis Passover. Due to the proximity of the Eighth Day of Assembly and Sukkot and due to their similarities, e.g., the Eighth Day of Assembly is also called: The time of our rejoicing, there is a discussion of that Festival within the framework of this tractate. Although not all matters associated with that day are discussed, the basis for the prayer for rain recited on that Festival is located here; it is treated in more detail in tractate Ta’anit. In addition, the basis for the custom of future generations to celebrate the conclusion of the cycle of Torah reading on that day, Simĥat Torah, is discussed. There are five chapters in tractate Sukka, each dealing with a well-defined topic: Chapter One defines of the concept of sukka in terms of its structure and dimensions. Chapter Two determines the parameters of the mitzva of residing in the sukka and its obligations. Chapter Three defines the essence and the measures of the four species and describes the manner in which the mitzva is fulfilled. Chapter Four determines the relationship between the mitzvot of the Festival performed in the Temple and those performed outside the Temple, and explains the halakhot of the festival of Sukkot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Chapter Five discusses the celebration of the festival of Sukkot in the Temple, the mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival, and the special offerings sacrificed on Sukkot.

3

In sukkot shall you reside seven days; all that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot. So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot when I took them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 23:42–43) And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying: Go forth to the mount and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and the boughs of dense-leaved trees in order to make sukkot as written. (Nehemiah 8:15)

Introduction to Perek I

The mitzva by Torah law to reside in a sukka immediately raises the fundamental question: What is a sukka? Clearly there is a difference between a sukka and a house. However, that difference must be defined and elucidated in order to ascertain in practical terms what are the meaning and parameters of the term sukka. This primary question can be divided into several independent secondary questions. First, what are the minimum and maximum measures of a sukka? Is a sukka of any size fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva, or are there certain restrictions in terms of height or area? Second, what is the appropriate structure of a sukka? Can it take any form, with any number of walls and any type of configuration, or is a sukka fit for use only if it takes a particular form? Third, what material may be used in construction of a sukka? Are all materials fit for use, or are certain materials restricted? Further, must the entire sukka be constructed from the same material or are there differences between various parts of the sukka in that regard? Fourth, how does one build a sukka? Are there specific times during which it may be constructed, or may it be constructed at any time? Are there specific halakhot or directives governing the method or sequence of construction? Must construction of one section of the sukka precede construction of another, or is the order irrelevant? Fifth, what about the location of the sukka? May it be constructed anywhere or perhaps, in order for it to be considered a sukka, must it be constructed only in certain locations? These questions, all of which address the question of the definition of the sukka, constitute the primary focus of this chapter.

5

Perek I Daf 2 Amud a ‫בֹוהה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ְ ּג‬ .‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ַא ָּמה – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

mishna 

A sukka,n i.e., its roofing, which is the main and most crucial element of the mitzva, that is more than twenty cubitsb highhn is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה‬,‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ָ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְ ּג‬Similarly, a sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high,h and h – ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ַח ָּמ ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּל ָת ּה‬,‫(של ׁ ָֹשה) דְּ ָפנֹות‬ ְ ׁ one that does not have three walls, and one whose sunlight that passes through its roofing is greater than its shadeh are .‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ unfit. ‫בֹוה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ַּ ‫ ָמבֹוי ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּג‬:‫גמ׳ ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬ . ְ‫ ֵאינֹו צָ ִריך‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ַא ָּמה – יְ ַמ ֵעט‬

gemara 

We learned a similar halakha in a mishna there, in tractate Eiruvin (2a): In the case of an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits,h i.e., the beam that was placed across the end of an alleywayn that opens into a public domain in order to permit carrying within the alleyway on Shabbat is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminishn the height of the beam in order to permit carrying within the alleyway. Rabbi Yehuda says he need not do so, and although the beam lies higher than twenty cubits, the alleyway is qualified to permit carrying within.

‫ ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א‬,‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ַ ּג ֵ ּבי סו ָּּכה דְּ ָתנֵי ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬Given the seeming similarity between the two cases, that of the ?‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָמבֹוי דְּ ָתנֵי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬sukka and that of the alleyway, the Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a sukka where the mishna teaches that it is unfit, and what is different with regard to an alleyway where the mishna teaches the method of rectification, that one must diminish the height of the cross beam? Why was a solution not suggested in the case of a sukka? – ‫ ָמבֹוי דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫״פסו ָּלה״‬ ְ ּ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא – ָּתנֵי‬ ַ ְּ‫ סו ָּּכה ד‬The Gemara answers: With regard to sukka, since it is a mitzva .‫ ָּתנֵי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬by Torah law, the mishna teaches that it is unfit, as, if it is not constructed in the proper manner, no mitzva is fulfilled. However, with regard to an alleyway, where the entire prohibition of carrying is only by rabbinic law, the mishna teaches the method of rectification,n as the cross beam comes only to rectify a rabbinic prohibition but does not involve a mitzva by Torah law.

background

Cubit [ama] – ‫א ָּמה‬: ַ Several different lengths are referred to by this name. The physical origin of the measure is the distance from the elbow to the end of the middle finger, which is called ama in Hebrew. The common cubit is six handbreadths long, equal to 48 cm according to one opinion and 57.6 cm according to another. However, in the Talmud one also finds mention of a short cubit, which is five handbreadths long. In addition, there were two other cubits that were used in the Temple for special measurements; one was half a fingerbreadth longer and one was a full fingerbreadth longer than the standard cubit. halakha

A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high – ‫סו ָּּכה‬ ‫בֹוהה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ש ִהיא ְ ּג‬: ֶ ׁ A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:1). A sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high – ‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ָ ‫סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְ ּג‬: A sukka that is less than ten handbreadths high is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:8). A sukka that does not have three walls – ‫סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ‫ל ּה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש דְּ ָפנֹות‬:ָ A sukka that does not have three walls as defined by the Sages is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:2). Whose sunlight is greater than its shade – ‫ׁ ֶש ַח ָּמ ָת ּה‬ ‫מרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּל ָת ּה‬:ְ A sukka through whose roofing more sunlight passes than the shade it provides is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:1). An alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits – ‫ָמבֹוי‬ ‫בֹוה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ַּ ‫שהוּא ָ ּג‬: ֶ ׁ If the cross beam placed over the entrance to an alleyway to permit carrying in the alleyway on Shabbat is more than twenty cubits off the ground, it is unfit, and one may not carry in the alley­way. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 363:26).

notes

The placement of the tractate – ‫ס ֶדר ַה ַּמ ֶּס ֶכת‬:ֵ The Rambam explains the placement of tractate Sukka in the order of Moed. After presenting the halakhot of Shabbat, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sought to elucidate the halakhot of the three pilgrimage Festivals, albeit with certain digressions. He began with the festival of Passover in tractate Pesaĥim. As there is no tractate devoted to the festival of Shavuot, he proceeded to tractate Sukka, in which the numerous mitzvot tied to the festival of Sukkot are discussed. Then he proceeded to tractate Beitza, in which the general halakhot common to all of the Festivals are discussed. According to Rav Sherira Gaon in Sefer Yuĥasin, the order of the tractates is based on the calendar, and therefore tractate Pesaĥim is followed by tractates Rosh HaShana, Yoma, which deals with Yom Kippur, and only then Sukka. In terms of the sequence of topics within the tractate, although the mitzva of lulav and the four species appears in the Torah prior to the mitzva of sukka, the halakhot of the latter appear first in the tractate because the festival of Sukkot is named for that mitzva. Furthermore, one begins to engage in the mitzva of sukka by seeing to its construction prior to the Festival, while one begins to engage in the mitzva of lulav and the four species only on the first day of the Festival (Arukh LaNer).



More than twenty cubits high – ‫בֹוהה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ג‬:ּ ְ Some early commentaries noted a certain redundancy in this phrase, as in the mishna both the term high [gevoha] and the term above [lemala] are used (see Melekhet Shlomo). They explained that the duplication underscores that the reference is to the height of the roofing, i.e., the distance from the roofing to the floor of the sukka, and not to the height of the walls of the sukka or the height of the top of the roofing (see Ritva and others). The beam of an alleyway – ‫קֹורת ָמבֹוי‬: ַ The Gemara is referring to an alleyway that is surrounded by walls on three sides and open on the fourth side, adjacent to the public domain. Although by Torah law the alleyway is a private domain, since it is utilized by the residents of several courtyards that open into the alleyway, the Sages decreed that one may not carry an object from a courtyard to the alleyway, or vice versa, without first establishing a merging of the alleyways. This is accomplished as follows: First, the residents of the different courtyards unite by placing jointly owned food in one of the courtyards, rendering them partners. Second, the open side of the alleyway is sealed off from the public domain with a symbolic partition.

This sealing is effected either by placing a side post adjacent to one side of the entrance to the alleyway or by placing a crossbeam over the entrance. Diminish – ‫יְ ַמ ֵעט‬: The mishna states that one must diminish the height of the beam and does not state that one must lower the beam, because the objective of diminishing the space between the ground and the beam can be accomplished either by lowering the beam or by raising the ground (Ritva). Unfit and rectification – ‫פסו ָּלה וְ ַת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬:ְ ּ Rashi and other commentaries explain that the term unfit is used with regard to halakhot that are explicitly stated in the Torah, as that case calls for unequivocal, decisive language. See Tosafot, who explain that unfit is a harsh expression, and it would have been more appropriate to express the halakha in less severe terms. Others explain that the question of the Gemara was not why the mishna did not use the term unfit in the case of the alleyway, as establishing the merging of the alleyways is optional, and the residents of the courtyards may choose not to establish it. However, in the case of the sukka, which is an obligation, if it was not constructed properly it is indeed unfit (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva). ‫ב ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 2a 

7

notes

And there shall be a sukka for shade, etc. – ‫וְ סו ָּּכה ִּת ְהיֶה ְלצֵ ל‬ ‫וכו׳‬: This is the meaning of the verse: The sukka provides shade, provides shelter from the storm, and shields from the rain (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Tosafot). In sukkot shall you reside seven days – ‫ַ ּב ּסו ּּכֹות ֵּת ׁ ְשב ּו ׁ ִש ְב ַעת‬ ‫יָ ִמים‬: The proof from this verse is from the fact that the verse begins with the words “in sukkot shall you reside.” It means: First build a structure that is a sukka, i.e., a structure that is clearly identifiable as a temporary structure (Ritva; see Rabbeinu Yehonatan and Arukh LaNer).

‫יתא נַ ִמי ָּתנֵי‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ‫ ִ ּב ְד‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ – )‫ישי ִמ ְיל ָתה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ סו ָּּכה (דִּ נְ ִפ‬,ּ‫ ִמיהו‬.‫ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬ ‫ ָמבֹוי דְּ ָלא נָ ֵפ ׁיש‬,‫״פסו ָּלה״‬ ְ ּ ‫ּ ָפ ֵסיק וְ ָתנֵי‬ .‫יה – ָּתנֵי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬ ּ ‫ִמ ֵּיל‬

The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that even with regard to matters prohibited by Torah law, it would have been appropriate for the mishna to teach a method of rectification. However, with regard to sukka, whose matters are numerous, it categorically teaches that it is unfit. Merely diminishing the height of a sukka is insufficient to render it fit; the sukka must also satisfy requirements governing its size, its walls, and its roofing. Teaching the remedy for each disqualification would have required lengthy elaboration. With regard to an alleyway, however, whose matters are not numerous, the mishna teaches the method of rectification. Once the height is diminished, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway.

?‫ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬

§ After clarifying its formulation, the Gemara addresses the

‫״ל ַמ ַען יֵ ְדע ּו‬ ְ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫הֹוש ְב ִּתי ֶאת ְ ּבנֵי‬ ַ ׁ ‫יכם ִּכי ַב ּסו ּּכֹות‬ ֶ ‫דֹורֹות‬ ֵ ‫יֹוד ַע‬ ֵ ‫ ַעד ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה – ָא ָדם‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ‫ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬,‫ׁ ֶשהוּא דָּ ר ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ,‫יֹוד ַע ׁ ֶשדָּ ר ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ֵ ‫ַא ָּמה – ֵאין ָא ָדם‬ .‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא ׁ ָש ְל ָטא ָ ּב ּה ֵעינָ א‬

Rabba said that it is derived as the verse states: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot when I took them out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 23:43). In a sukka up to twenty cubits high, even without a concerted effort, a person is aware that he is residing in a sukka. His eye catches sight of the roofing, evoking the sukka and its associated mitzvot. However, in a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, a person is not aware that he is residing in a sukka because his eye does not involuntarily catch sight of the roof, as at that height, without a concerted effort one would not notice the roofing.

‫ ״וְ סו ָּּכה ִּת ְהיֶ ה‬:‫ ֵמ ָה ָכא‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ָא ַמר‬ – ‫ ַעד ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬,‫חֹורב״‬ ֵ ‫יֹומם ֵמ‬ ָ ‫ְלצֵ ל‬ ‫ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬,‫יֹושב ְ ּבצֵ ל סו ָּּכה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ָא ָדם‬ ‫ ֶא ָלא‬,‫יֹושב ְ ּבצֵ ל סו ָּּכה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ַא ָּמה – ֵאין ָא ָדם‬ .‫ְ ּבצֵ ל דְּ ָפנֹות‬

Rabbi Zeira said that it is derived from here: The verse states: “And there shall be a sukka for shaden in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6). In a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a person is sitting in the shade of the sukka, i.e., the shade of the roofing; in a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, a person is not sitting in the shade of the roofing of the sukka but rather in the shade of the walls of the sukka, as their considerable height provides constant shade, rendering the shade of the roofing irrelevant.

background

Ashterot Karnayim – ‫ע ׁ ְש ְּתרֹות ַק ְרנַיִ ים‬:ַ Many identify this with Ashtarot, a large city east of the Jordan River, whose ruins are approximately 30 km east of the Sea of Galilee. From the description here, it appears that it was located in a valley surrounded by steep mountains to the point that no sunlight reached it at all.

halakha in the mishna and asks: From where are these matters, i.e., the halakha that a sukka may not exceed a height of twenty cubits, derived?

‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָה‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to him: But if it is so that one is required to sit in the ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דְּ ָלא‬,‫ סו ָּּכתֹו ְ ּב ַע ׁ ְש ְּתרֹות ַק ְרנַיִ ם‬shade of the roofing of the sukka, then in the case of one who b !?‫ ָהוֵ י סו ָּּכה‬makes his sukka in Ashterot Karnayim, which is located between two mountains that prevent sunlight from reaching there, so too, it is not a fit sukka, since he is not sitting in the shade of the roofing. – ‫ דַּ ל ַע ׁ ְש ְּתרֹות ַק ְרנַיִ ם‬,‫יה ָה ָתם‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Zeira said to him: The two cases are not comparable; ‫ ָה ָכא דַּ ל דְּ ָפנֹות – ֵל ָּיכא‬,‫ ִא ָּיכא צֵ ל סו ָּּכה‬there, if one theoretically removes the Ashterot Karnayim .‫ צֵ ל סו ָּּכה‬mountains that obstruct the sunlight, there is still the shade of the roofing of the sukka. In that case, the sukka is properly constructed and there are only external factors that affect the sunlight. However, here, in the case of a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, if one theoretically removes the walls of the sukka, there is no shade provided by the roofing of the sukka, since throughout the day sunlight will enter the sukka beneath the roofing from where the walls used to be. ‫״ב ּסו ּּכֹות ֵּת ׁ ְשב ּו‬ ּ ַ :‫ ֵמ ָה ָכא‬,‫וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ַעת‬:‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה‬.‫ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים״‬ ‫ַהּיָ ִמים צֵ א ִמדִּ ַירת ֶק ַבע וְ ׁ ֵשב ְ ּב ִד ַירת‬ ‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ַעד ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה – ָא ָדם‬.‫ֲע ַראי‬ ‫ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬,‫דִּ ָירתֹו דִּ ַירת ֲע ַראי‬ ‫עֹושה דִּ ָירתֹו דִּ ַירת‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ַא ָּמה – ֵאין ָא ָדם‬ .‫ ֶא ָּלא דִּ ַירת ֶק ַבע‬,‫ֲע ַראי‬

8 

Perek I . 2a . ‫ב ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Rava said that the halakha is derived from here: “In sukkot shall you reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42).n The Torah said: For the entire seven days, emerge from the permanent residence in which you reside year round and reside in a temporary residence, the sukka. In constructing a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a person can render his residence a temporary residence, as up to that height one can construct a structure that is not sturdy; however, in constructing a sukka above twenty cubits high, one cannot render his residence a temporary residence; rather, he must construct a sturdy permanent residence, which is unfit for use as a sukka.

‫ ָע ָ ׂשה‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to him: But if that is so, then if he constructed a sukka ‫יכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּבן – ָה ִכי‬ ֵּ ‫יצֹות ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל וְ ִס‬ ּ ‫ ְמ ִח‬with steel partitions and placed roofing over them, so too, there, say !?‫ נַ ִמי דְּ ָלא ָהוֵ י סו ָּּכה‬that it would not be a fit sukka, as any sukka constructed as a permanent residence would be unfit. However, there is no opinion that deems a sukka of that sort unfit. ‫ ַעד ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬: ְ‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ִמינָ א ָלך‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ,‫עֹושה דִּ ָירתֹו דִּ ַירת ֲע ַראי‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ דְּ ָא ָדם‬,‫ַא ָּמה‬ .‫יה דִּ ַירת ֶק ַבע – נַ ִמי נָ ֵפיק‬ ּ ‫ִּכי ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ ‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ דְּ ָא ָדם‬,‫ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ‫יה דִּ ַירת‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ָע ֵביד ֵל‬,‫דִּ ָירתֹו דִּ ַירת ֶק ַבע‬ .‫ֲע ַראי – נַ ִמי ָלא נָ ֵפיק‬

Rava said to him in response that this is what I am saying to you: In a case where one constructs a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a height that a person typically constructs a temporary residence, when he constructs a structure of that height that is sturdy like a permanent residence, he also fulfills his obligation. However, in a case where one constructs a sukka more than twenty cubits high, a height that a person typically constructs a permanent residence, even when he constructs it in a less sturdy fashion like a temporary residence, he does not fulfill his obligation.

Perek I Daf 2 Amud b ‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ ּכו ְּּלה ּו ְּכ ַר ָ ּבה ָלא ָא ְמ ִרי – ַההוּא יְ ִד‬The Gemara explains why each of the Sages cited his own source and .‫ ְלדֹורֹות ִהיא‬did not accept the sources cited by the others. All of them, Rabbi Zeira and Rava, did not say that the fact that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit is derived from the verse: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot when I took them out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 23:43), as did Rabba, because in their opinion that verse does not mandate one to be aware that he is sitting in a sukka; rather, it mandates knowledge for future generations of the exodus from Egypt. ‫ ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא נַ ִמי ָלא ָא ְמ ִרי – ַההוּא ִלימֹות‬Similarly, they, Rabba and Rava, also did not say that it is derived from .‫ ַה ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח הוּא דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬the verse: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat” (Isaiah 4:6), as did Rabbi Zeira, because in their opinion it is with regard to the messianic era that this verse is written. It means that God will be a shield and a shelter for the Jewish people; it is not referring to the structure of a sukka. ‫ימא ְק ָרא ״וְ חו ּ ָּפה‬ ָ ‫ ִאם ֵּכן ֵל‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Zeira, how would he respond to this ‫ ו ַּמאי ״וְ סו ָּּכה ִּת ְהיֶ ה‬,‫יֹומם״‬ ָ ‫ ִּת ְהיֶ ה ְלצֵ ל‬objection? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira could say: If it is so .‫יֹומם״ – ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ִמ ָּינ ּה ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬ ָ ‫ ְלצֵ ל‬that the verse is merely a metaphor, let the verse say: And there shall be a canopy for shade in the daytime from the heat, which is the term used in the previous verse. And what is the meaning of: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat”? Learn from it two matters: One is the plain meaning of the verse, that God will be a canopy of glory for the Jewish people, and the second is that the essence of a sukka is to have the roofing provide shade. ‫ ְּכ ָר ָבא נַ ִמי ָלא ָא ְמ ִרי – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם קו ׁ ְּשיָ א‬They, Rabba and Rabbi Zeira, also did not say that it is derived from .‫ דְּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬the verse: “In sukkot shall you reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), as did Rava, due to the difficulty raised by Abaye with regard to a sukka with steel partitions. Since there is a weakness in each of the sources, it is understandable why the other Sages did not accept it. ‫ֹאשּיָ ה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫לֹוקת ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין דְּ ָפנֹות‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל דְּ ָפנֹות ַמ ִ ּגיעֹות‬,‫ַמ ִ ּגיעֹות ַל ְּס ָכ ְך‬ ‫ַל ְּס ָכךְ – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ?‫ ְּכ ַמאן‬.‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

halakha

A sukka more than twenty cubits high – ‫סו ָּּכה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫מ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬:ֵ A sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit, whether it is large or small, whether or not the walls reach the roofing. That is because the halakha was ruled in accordance with Rava’s understanding of the mishna. The ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava either because the premise throughout rabbinic literature is that a sukka is a temporary residence, or because the discussion in the Gemara here appears to be based on his understanding, or because he is the latest amora cited in the Gemara and the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of the latest amora (Rif; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Ra’avad; Rosh; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:1). notes

And since the walls of the sukka reach the roofing the eye catches sight of the roofing – ‫וְ ֵכיוָ ן דִּ ְד ָפנֹות‬ ‫מ ִ ּגיעֹות ַל ְּס ָכךְ ִמ ׁ ְש ָלט ׁ ָש ְל ָטא ָ ּב ּה ֵעינָ א‬:ַ Many explain that the eye follows the walls of the sukka to the top, leading one sitting in the sukka to see the roofing and be aware that he is indeed sitting in a sukka. Others explain that since the walls reach the roofing, one sitting in the sukka cannot see outside the sukka. Since his sightline is limited to the interior of the sukka, he will take note of the roofing as well (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). Rabbi Aharon HaLevi and the Ritva explain that since the walls reach the roofing, one in the sukka will sense that he is surrounded on all sides by the walls and the roofing of the sukka.

§ The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which

Rabbi Yoshiya said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits highh is specifically in a case where the walls of the sukka do not reach up to the roofing; however, in a case where the walls of the sukka reach up to the roofing, the Rabbis concede that even if the roofing is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it?

‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא ׁ ָש ְל ָטא ָ ּב ּה‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ְּכ ַר ָ ּבה‬It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, who says that the – ‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן דִּ ְד ָפנֹות ַמ ִ ּגיעֹות ַל ְּס ָכ ְך‬,‫ ֵעינָ א‬reason that a sukka that high is unfit is because the eye does not autoof the sukka .‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ָלט ׁ ָש ְל ָטא ָ ּב ּה ֵעינָ א‬matically catch sight of the roofing. And since the walls reach the roofing, the eye catches sight of the roofing,n as the person will follow the walls all the way up to the roofing despite their considerable height. However, if the roofing is not contiguous with the top of the walls, a person does not notice it without a concerted effort. 

‫ב ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 2b 

9

notes

And since the sukka is spacious there is shade – ‫יחא‬ ָ ִ‫וְ ֵכיוָ ן דִּ ְרו‬ ‫יכא צֵ ל‬ ָּ ‫א‬:ִ Apparently these measurements are based on the fact that even at noon, the sun in Eretz Yisrael and in Babylonia is not directly overhead but shines at an angle. Based on that angle and the ratio between the width of the sukka and the height of the walls, it is possible to calculate whether the shade on the floor of the sukka is provided by the roofing.

‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר‬ ‫לֹוקת ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ַרב‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ – ‫יֹותר ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ֵ .‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ?‫ְּכ ַמאן‬

background

And since the sukka is spacious there is shade – ‫יחא ִא ָּיכא‬ ָ ִ‫וְ ֵכיוָ ן דִּ ְרו‬ ‫צֵ ל‬: This is a theoretical discussion, as in reality, at the latitude of Eretz Yisrael and certainly that of Babylonia, in a sukka four cubits wide and twenty cubits high no sun will reach the floor of the sukka from the roofing even at noon on the summer solstice, since the sun will still appear several degrees to the south. Only in areas considerably closer to the equator is the sun ever directly overhead.

‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן‬,‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם צֵ ל הוּא‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, who .‫יכא צֵ ל סו ָּּכה‬ ָ ִ‫ דִּ ְרו‬says that a sukka that high is unfit due to the shade that is ָּ ‫יחא – ִא‬ provided by the walls and not by the roofing; and since the sukka in this case is spacious and has a large area, there is shadenb from the roofing of the sukka and not only from the walls. ‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ָחנָן ַ ּבר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫לֹוקת ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ,‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּב ֹו וְ ׁש ּו ְל ָח נֹו‬ ׁ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵד י ר‬ ‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו‬ ׁ ‫יֹותר ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ר‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ָבל ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת‬ ּ ‫וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו – ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ .‫ ְּכ ַמאן? דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַחד‬.‫ַא ָּמה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Ĥanan bar Rabba said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits high is specifically in a case where the sukka is only large enough to hold one’s head, most of his body, and his table, as, if the sukka were smaller, it would not qualify as a sukka; however, in a case where it is sufficiently large to hold more than one’s head, most of his body, and his table, even if it is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is not in accordance with the opinion of any one of them. This statement cannot be explained according to any of the rationales for the fact that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit.

‫ֹאשּיָ ה ּ ְפ ִליגָ א ַאדְּ ַרב‬ ִ ׁ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ דְּ ִאינְ ה ּו ָקא‬,‫הוּנָ א וְ ַרב ָחנָ ן ַ ּבר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ וְ ִאיה ּו ָלא ָקא‬,‫יָ ֲה ִבי ׁ ִשעו ָּרא ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ָכא‬ .‫יָ ֵהיב ׁ ִשעו ָּרא ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ָכא‬

With regard to the three aforementioned halakhot, the Gemara notes: Granted, the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya differs from the statements of Rav Huna and Rav Ĥanan bar Rabba, as they are providing the measure of the extent of the sukka while he is not providing a measure. In Rabbi Yoshiya’s opinion, the halakha is based on whether the top of the walls reach the roofing, which indicates a fundamentally different understanding of the issue of a sukka more than twenty cubits high.

‫נֵימא‬ ָ ,‫ֶא ָּלא ַרב הוּנָ א וְ ַרב ָחנָן ַ ּבר ַר ָ ּבה‬ :‫יפ ְלגִ י; דְּ ָמר ָס ַבר‬ ַ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה ָק ִמ‬ :‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו‬ ׁ ‫ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה ְ ּב ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת ר‬ ?‫וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו‬

However, in terms of Rav Huna and Rav Ĥanan bar Rabba, let us say that it is with regard to the minimum size required for fitness of a sukka that they disagree; as one Sage, Rav Huna, holds: The minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is four by four cubits, and the other Sage, Rav Ĥanan bar Rabba, holds: The minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table.

‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה ר‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ;‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬.‫וְ רו ּּבֹו וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו‬ ‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּב ֹו‬ ׁ ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת ר‬:‫דְּ ָמר ָס ַבר‬ ‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו‬ ׁ ‫יֹותר ֵמר‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ .‫וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, there is no need to explain their dispute that way, as it could be explained that everyone, i.e., Rav Huna and Rav Ĥanan bar Rabba, agrees that the minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table. And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rav Ĥanan bar Rabba, holds that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a sukka more than twenty cubits high in a case where it holds the person’s head, and most of his body, and his table. However, in a case where it is larger than one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit regardless of its height.

Winter and summer solstices as seen from the northern hemisphere

Winter and summer solstices as seen from the equator

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits high is specifically in a case where there is not an area of four cubits by four cubits in the sukka; however, in a case where there is an area of more than four cubits by four cubits in the sukka, the Rabbis concede that even if the roofing is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it?

‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ַעד‬ ׁ ‫ ֵמר‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬And one Sage, Rav Huna, holds that it is with regard to a ‫יֹותר ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬sukka that ranges in size from one that holds one’s head, and .‫ ַא ּמֹות – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬most of his body, and his table up to one that is four by four cubits that they disagree; however, if the sukka is more than four by four cubits, everyone agrees that it is fit.

10 

Perek I . 2b . ‫ב ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫בֹוהה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ָ ‫ סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ִה יא ְ ּג‬:‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A sukka ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit. Rabbi a sukka fit even if it is up to forty or fifty .‫ ַעד ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ִשים ַא ָּמה‬Yehuda deems cubits high.n ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ֵה ֶילנִי ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Queen Helenep in Lodb where her sukka was more than ‫בֹוהה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה סו ָּּכ ָת ּה ְ ּג‬,‫ְ ּבלֹוד‬ twenty cubits high, and the Elders were entering and ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫נָסין וְ יֹוצְ ִאין ְל ׁ ָשם‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָהי ּו זְ ֵקנִים נִ ְכ‬,‫ַא ָּמה‬ exiting the sukka and did not say anything to her about ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם ְר ָאיָ יה?! ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬.‫ָא ְמר ּו ָל ּה דָּ ָבר‬ the sukka not being fit. ‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן‬.‫ ָהיְ ָתה ו ְּפטו ָּרה ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬The Rabbis said to him: Is there proof from there? She was, ‫יה ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂש‬:‫ וְ עֹוד‬.‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ָ ּבנִים ָהו ּו ָל ּה‬ after all, a woman and therefore exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Consequently, the fact that her sukka was not fit .‫ָע ְ ׂש ָתה ֶא ָּלא ַעל ּ ִפי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ did not warrant a comment from the Elders. Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: Didn’t she have seven sons and therefore require a fit sukka? And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.n ‫יה ל ֹא ָע ְ ׂש ָתה‬ ָ ‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי ְל ִמ ְיתנֵי ״וְ עֹוד ָּכל ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂש‬Before analyzing the objection being raised from the baraita, ?‫ ֶא ָּלא ַעל ּ ִפי ֲח ָכ ִמים״‬the Gemara seeks to understand its content. Why do I need Rabbi Yehuda to teach: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages? His first contention was sufficient. ,ּ‫ֹאמר ּו ָ ּבנִים ְק ַט ּנִים ָהיו‬ ְ ‫ ִּכי ּת‬:ּ‫ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ – ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ָהו ּו‬,‫ו ְּק ַט ּנִים ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר דְּ ָלא ָהוֵ י ְ ּבה ּו ַחד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו צָ ִר‬ .‫ְל ִא ּמֹו‬

‫ ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו צָ ִריךְ ְל ִא ּמֹו – ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬:ּ‫ימרו‬ ְ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ – ‫יהי ִ ּב ְד ַר ָ ּבנַן ָלא ַמ ׁ ְשגַ ָחה‬ ִ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫יחּיַ יב‬ ַ ‫הוּא דְּ ִמ‬ ‫יה ל ֹא ָע ְ ׂש ָתה ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫ וְ עֹוד ָּכל ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂש‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ .‫ַעל ּ ִפי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying to them: If you say that Helene’s sons were minor sons and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and that is why the Elders said nothing; since they were seven sons, then it is not possible that there was not at least one among them who no longer needed his mother to look after him. The halakha is that a minor who no longer needs his mother has reached the age of training and is required to fulfill the mitzva of sukka by rabbinic law. Even if she gave birth to them in consecutive years, the oldest would be seven years old, and at that age a child does not need his mother to constantly look after him. And if you say that a child who no longer needs his mothern is obligated in the mitzva of sukka only by rabbinic law, and Queen Helene did not observe rabbinic law, come and hear that which Rabbi Yehuda said: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.

notes

Forty or fifty cubits high – ‫א ְר ָ ּב ִעים וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ִשים ַא ָּמה‬: ַ The commentaries noted that at times, when amora’im state a halakha with two different measures, they are referring specifically to those precise numbers. In those cases, the Sages will seek to ascertain to understand why those specific numbers were presented. However, at times, as in this case, when the numbers cited are a rhetorical instrument to indicate a large number, and in fact even a sukka of one hundred cubits is fit, there is no attempt to ascertain why those particular numbers were chosen (Ritva; see Tosafot). And furthermore she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages – ‫וְ עֹוד ָּכל‬ ‫יה ל ֹא ָע ְ ׂש ָתה ֶא ָּלא ַעל ּ ִפי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ָ ‫מ ֲע ֶ ׂש‬:ַ An alternate version of this incident appears in the Tosefta and in the Jerusalem Talmud, which renders the Gemara’s discussion of the baraita moot. The alternate version reads: She had seven sons who were Torah scholars. Therefore, there is no need to prove that the sukka that she built was fit. With regard to the second reason cited: She performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages, some explain that it could be understood that although Queen Helene was a woman, she wished to go beyond the letter of the law and reside in a sukka. Since she opted to build the sukka, she certainly built it properly and in accordance with the specifications of the Sages (Sefat Emet). A child who no longer needs his mother – ְ‫ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו צָ ִריך‬ ‫ל ִא ּמֹו‬:ְ The early and later commentaries discussed at length whether the obligation of a minor to reside in a sukka is based on the general mitzva to train the child in the performance of mitzvot, or whether there is a special rabbinic ordinance obligating children who no longer need their mothers to reside in the sukka. background

Lod – ‫לֹוד‬: Lod was one of the oldest towns in Judea. It grew in significance toward the end of the Second Temple period, and it served as an important cultural center for many generations after the destruction of the Temple. Some of the greatest tanna’im lived there, including Rabbi Eliezer the Great, ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi Tarfon, and others. Several important ordinances were instituted in the upper chamber of the house of Nitza in Lod. After the bar Kokheva revolt the town remained an important Torah center. Among the great amora’im who lived there were Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, Rabbi Simlai, Rabbi Yitzĥak bar Naĥmani, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, his son Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Aĥa.

‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין דְּ ָפנֹות ַמ ִ ּגיעֹות‬The Gemara explores the statements of the amora’im who ‫ישב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫לֹוקת – דַּ ְר ָּכ ּה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ְל ָּכה ֵל‬ ֶ ‫ ַל ְּס ָכ ְך ַמ ֲח‬quoted Rav in light of this baraita. Granted, according to ְ‫ ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ֵאין דְּ ָפנֹות ַמ ִ ּגיעֹות ַל ְּס ָכך‬the one, Rabbi Yoshiya, who said that it is specifically in a case where the walls of the sukka do not reach up to the roofing that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, the baraita can be explained as dealing with a sukka of that type, as it is customary for a queen to reside in a sukka in which the walls do not reach up to the roofing, Personalities

Queen Helene – ‫ה ֶילנִי ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬:ֵ Helene, or in Greek Ελένη, was queen of Adiabene, a small country subjugated to the Parthian Empire. Located on the Tigris River, it was situated in what is today northern Syria. More than a generation prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, Helene and her two sons, Munbaz and Izats converted to Judaism, apparently along with much of the local nobility. Queen Helene and her two sons maintained strong ties to the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael. They would send substantial gifts to the Temple and enormous sums of money to assist the poor in years of drought. It is plausible that members of the royal family of Adiabene are buried in the magnificent Graves of the Kings in Jerusalem. As mentioned in the Talmud, Queen Helene was a righteous proselyte who accepted upon herself all elements of halakha as taught to her by the Sages. Sarcophagus of Queen Helene



‫ב ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 2b 

11

Perek I Daf 3 Amud a language

Small rooms [kitoniyyot] – ‫קיטֹונִּיֹות‬:ִ From the Greek κοῖτος, koitos, meaning bedroom. The Sages used this word in reference to any small room. halakha

His head and most of his body and his table – ‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ר‬ ‫וְ רו ּּבֹו וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו‬: A sukka must be large enough to contain the head, most of the body, and at least part of the table of the person sitting in the sukka. Therefore, the sukka must measure seven by seven handbreadths. This ruling is in accordance with Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak, who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai (Rif; Ran). If the sukka is square, seven by seven handbreadths is sufficient. If the sukka is rectangular or triangular with an area of a bit more than forty-nine square handbreadths, the sukka is unfit (Taz; Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 634:1).

‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ֲאוִ ָירא‬ ‫ וְ ִכי דַּ ְר ָּכ ּה ׁ ֶשל‬,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה ַמ ֲח‬ ‫ישב ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה? ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ַמ ְל ָּכה ֵל‬ ‫ ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכה ֶא ָּלא סו ָּּכה‬:‫ַ ּבר ַרב ַאדָּ א‬ .‫ָה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ִקיטֹונִּיֹות ִקיטֹונִּיֹות‬

due to the fresh air that circulates through the openings in the wall. However, according to the one who said that it is specifically in the case of a small sukka that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, in which case the baraita is referring to a case where Queen Helene resided in a small sukka, is it customary for a queen to reside in a small sukka whose area is less than four cubits squared? Rabba bar Rav Adda said: This ruling is necessary only in the case of a sukka that is constructed with several small rooms [kitoniyyot].l The sukka was large, but it was subdivided into many small rooms, each of which was smaller than four square cubits.

‫ישב ְ ּבסו ָּּכה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫וְ ִכי דַּ ְר ָּכ ּה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ְל ָּכה ֵל‬ ‫ָה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ִקיטֹונִּיֹות ִקיטֹונִּיֹות?! ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכה ֶא ָּלא ַל ִּקיטֹונִּיֹות‬:‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה‬

Again, the Gemara asks: Is it then customary for a queen to reside in a sukka constructed with several small rooms without leaving a large room in which she could assemble her family and servants? Rav Ashi said: This ruling is necessary only with regard to the compartments in the sukka. It was indeed a large sukka with a large central room; however, there were many small rooms adjacent to the main room. It is with regard to this type of sukka that there is a tannaitic dispute.

‫נֶיה ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְמ ַע ְליָ א ָהו ּו‬ ָ ‫ ָ ּב‬:‫ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי‬ ‫יהי יָ ְת ָבה ַ ּב ִּקיטֹונִּיֹות ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ִ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫יָ ְת ִבי‬ ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי ָלא ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫צְ נִיעו ָּתא‬ ‫נֶיה ַ ּג ָ ּב ּה ָהו ּו‬ ָ ‫ ָ ּב‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר‬.‫דָּ ָבר‬ .‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָה ִכי ָלא ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה דָּ ָבר‬,‫יָ ְת ִבי‬

The Rabbis hold: Her sons were residing in a full-fledged sukka with a large central room, which everyone agrees was fit. However, she often resided in the small rooms due to modesty, to avoid being in the public eye. And for that reason the Elders did not say anything to her, as even if the small rooms were too small relative to the height of the sukka, there was no problem since her sons did not sit in them. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Her sons would occasionally reside with her in the small room, and even so, the Elders did not say anything to her, indicating that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is fit even in a small sukka. Now that the Tosefta can be explained according to all the statements cited by the amora’im in the name of Rav, no proof can be cited with regard to the essence of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to a small sukka more than twenty cubits high.

,‫ ֲה ָל ָכה‬:‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak said: The halakha is that one’s sukka ‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו‬ ׁ ‫יכה ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת ר‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬must be large enough to hold his head, and most of his body, and h – ‫ ְּכ ַמאן‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו‬his table. Rabbi Abba said to him, astonished: In accordance with whose opinion did you rule? Was it in accordance with the opinion ?‫ ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ַמאן‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ְּכ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי? ָא ַמר ֵל‬of Beit Shammai?n This is the subject of a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and according to Beit Hillel it is sufficient for the sukka to be large enough to hold one’s head and most of his body; it need not be large enough to hold his table as well. The halakhic ruling that you issued is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, despite the fact that in disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak said to him: Rather, in accordance with whose opinion should I rule? Yes, my ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai because in this case that is the halakha. ‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬Some say that the exchange between the amora’im was slightly dif,‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ִהיא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָל ְך ַמ ּנִי? ָא ַמר ֵל‬ferent. Rabbi Abba said: Who stated that opinion to you? Rav .‫ וְ ל ֹא ָּתזוּז ִמ ָּינ ּה‬Shmuel bar Yitzĥak said to him: It was Beit Shammai, and nevertheless do not budge from it, as that is the established halakha. Based on either version of the exchange, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka. notes

In accordance with whose opinion did you rule; was it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai – ‫ְּכ ַמאן ְּכ ֵבית‬ ‫ש ַּמאי‬: ַ ׁ Some explain the different versions of the response of Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak: Rather, in accordance with whose opinion should I rule; and: It is Beit Shammai and nevertheless do not budge from it, to indicate another dispute, namely, whether

12 

Perek I . 3a . ‫ג ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

or not Beit Shammai ruled the practical halakha in accordance with their own opinion. According to the first expression, Beit Shammai never actually issued a ruling in accordance with their opinion, and it is Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak who issued that ruling. According to the second expression, Beit Shammai issued the ruling and Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak adopted that ruling (Arukh LaNer).

‫ ִמ ַּמאי דְּ ֵבית‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ ?‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ‫ ו ְּכגֹון דְּ יָ ֵתיב‬,‫דֹולה ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ָ ‫דִּ ְל ָמא ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְ ּג‬ .‫ וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫ַא ּפו ָּמא ִד ְמטו ְּל ָתא‬ ‫ ָ ּגזְ ִרינַ ן ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ָּמ ׁ ֵש ְך‬:‫דְּ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ָס ְב ִרי‬ .‫ ל ֹא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן‬:‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ָס ְב ִרי‬,‫ַא ַחר ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו‬

Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak strongly objects to this assumption: From where do you conclude that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka? Perhaps it is with regard to a large sukka that they disagree, and in a case where one is sitting at the entrance of the sukka and his table is inside the house.h As Beit Shammai hold that we issue a decree to prohibit one from sitting that way lest he be drawn after his table while eating, to the extent that his head and most of his body will be inside the house and not inside the sukka. And Beit Hillel hold that we do not issue that decree.

‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו‬ ׁ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ר‬:‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫וְ ַדיְ ָקא נַ ִמי‬ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬,‫ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ – ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאם ִא‬.‫ֹוס ִלין ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬ ְ ‫ּפ‬ .‫יה‬ ‫ל‬ ֵ ‫י‬ ‫ע‬ ֵ ‫יב‬ ּ ָ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫ת״‬ ‫ק‬ ֶ ֶ‫ז‬ ‫ח‬ ֲ ‫מ‬ ַ ‫ה‬ ָ‫ינ‬ ‫״א‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ת״‬ ‫ק‬ ֶ ֶ‫ז‬ ‫ח‬ ֲ ‫״מ‬ ַ ּ ּ

And the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And if it is so that the dispute is with regard to the minimum measure of the sukka, the formulation of the mishna is missing the essential point. The distinction between a sukka that holds and a sukka that does not hold his head and most of his body is what the mishna needed to say. Since the mishna does not make that distinction, apparently the dispute is not with regard to the minimum measure of a sukka.

‫ ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת‬:‫ו ְּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י? וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ׁ ‫ר‬ ‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָ ּב ּה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ .‫ַא ּמֹות‬

The Gemara questions this conclusion: And in the case of a small sukka do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel not disagree? But isn’t it taught in another baraita: A sukka that holds his head, and most of his body, and his table is fit. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is unfit until it measures at least four cubits by four cubits.

‫ ָּכל סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬, ְ‫וְ ַתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬ – ‫ָ ּב ּה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ‫יל ּו ֵאינָ ּה‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫ וְ ִאילּ ּו‬,‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ׁ ‫ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת ֶא ָּלא ר‬ ‫ ַק ׁ ְשייָ ן ַא ֲה ָד ֵדי! ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ָלא ָק ָתנֵי‬ – ‫ ָהא‬,‫ ָהא – ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬:‫ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל‬

And it is taught in yet another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any sukka that does not have an area of at least four cubits by four cubits is unfit. And the Rabbis say: Even if it holds only his head and most of his body, it is fit. However, the term: His table, is not taught in this baraita. If so, these two tannaitic sources contradict each other, as each attributes a different opinion to the Rabbis. Rather, must one not conclude from it that this baraita, in which: His table, is taught, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, while that baraita, in which: His table, is not taught, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? Apparently, they do dispute the minimum measure of a small sukka.

,‫נִיתין נַ ִמי דַּ יְ ָקא‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר זו ְּט ָרא‬ ‫ֹוס ִלין ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬ ְ ‫״בית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ּפ‬ ּ ֵ :‫ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫״בית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ּ ֵ – ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאם ִא‬,‫ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין״‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים יָ צָ א״‬ ְ ‫אֹומ ִרים ל ֹא יָ צָ א ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬ ְ .‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬

Mar Zutra said: And the language of the mishna is also precise, and it indicates that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel indeed dispute the minimum measure of a small sukka from the fact that it teaches: Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And if it is so that the dispute is with regard to the conduct of one sitting at the entrance of a large sukka, then Beit Shammai say: He did not fulfill his obligation, and Beit Hillel say: He fulfilled his obligation, is what the mishna needed to say. However, the terms fit and unfit indicate that the dispute is with regard to the halakhic status of the sukka itself, not the individual’s behavior.

halakha

And his table is inside the house – ‫וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬: One sitting in a sukka must have his head, most of his body, and his table with him in the sukka, as in this matter too, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai (Rif; Rambam; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 634:4). notes

Lest he be drawn and a small sukka – ‫ימ ׁ ֵש ְך‬ ָּ ִ‫ׁ ֶש ָּמא י‬ ‫וְ סו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה‬: The Gemara proves that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to two related matters: One dispute is with regard to an individual whose table is outside the sukka, and the other is with regard to the minimum area of a sukka. Ultimately, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai in both matters (see Ritva). However, many of the early commentaries claim that there is no link between these halakhot because they can be understood as unrelated topics: One about the area of the sukka, and the other about the decree: Lest one be drawn after his table. Many of the early authorities claim, in fact, that with regard to the area of the sukka, the halakha was indeed ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai; however, with regard to the decree, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai (Rabbi Yitzĥak ibn Giat; Sefer Hashlama; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi). Some explain that the ruling with regard to the decree: Lest one be drawn, is not based on the Gemara here but on the conclusion in the Jerusalem Talmud that Beit Hillel concede to the opinion of Beit Shammai (Rishon LeTziyyon). And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching – ‫יח ְּס ָרא וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬ ַ ‫וְ ַח ּס ֵֹורי ִמ‬: This explanation appears extensively in the Gemara; however, as a rule, it is not proposing to emend the text of the mishna. The addition introduced by the Gemara is an elaboration upon that which is written in the mishna, which is unclear as written. The addition facilitates understanding of the mishna.

!‫״מי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה״‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara asks: But if that is so, the formulation of the mishna: One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, is difficult, as it indicates that the dispute is with regard to where in the sukka he was sitting. The mishna does not say: A sukka that holds his head and most of his body, which would indicate that the dispute is with regard to the minimum measure of the sukka. ,‫עֹולם ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י; ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה‬ ָ ‫ְל‬ ‫יח ְּס ָרא‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַח ּס ֵֹורי ִמ‬,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ו ְּפ ִליגִ י ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְ ּג‬ ‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ׁ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ר‬:‫וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬,‫וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬.‫ יָ צָ א‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬ ‫ ֵ ּבית‬,‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ׁ ‫ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ר‬ .‫ֹוס ִלין ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬ ְ ‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי ּפ‬



The Gemara answers: Actually, they disagree with regard to two issues; they disagree with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka,n and they disagree with regard to where one may sit in a large sukka. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching:n One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai say that he did not fulfill his obligation and Beit Hillel say that he fulfilled his obligation. And with regard to a sukka that holds only his head and most of his body, Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. In this way, the dispute in the mishna is understood as relating to the measure of a small sukka and the manner in which one fulfills his obligation in a large sukka. ‫ג ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 3a 

13

notes

A house in which there is not an area of four cubits by four cubits – ‫ביִ ת ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬: ּ ַ See Tosafot, who cite additional halakhot from the Jerusalem Talmud in which the legal status of a house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits is not that of a house. However, later commentaries note that not in every case where house is mentioned in the Torah must the structure have an area of at least four by four cubits. The distinction is between mitzvot where the house is integral to the mitzva and therefore requires an area of four by four cubits, and mitzvot where the house is incidental to the mitzva, e.g., in the verse: “Do not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26), and the area of the house is irrelevant (Arukh LaNer; Emek Sukkot). background

Leprosy of the house – ‫נִ גְ ֵעי ָב ִּתים‬: By Torah law (see Leviticus 14:33–57), if leprous spots appear in a house, all the objects in the house must be removed in order to prevent them from becoming ritually impure, after which a priest is brought to examine the house. If the priest confirms that there is evidence of leprosy, the house is quarantined for a week, after which it is reexamined by the priest. If the leprous spots darkened or disappeared, the house is declared ritually pure. If the spots remained unchanged, the house is quarantined for a second week. If the spots have then darkened, the house is declared ritually pure after the purification process described below. However, if the spots remain unchanged or have spread, the affected parts of the house are removed and replaced with new materials, after which the house is quarantined for a third week. If the spots reappear, the entire house must be destroyed, and its stones are disposed of in a ritually impure place. A leprous house renders people and objects inside it ritually impure, with the exception of objects in hermetically sealed earthenware containers. If the house is declared free of leprosy, it is purified by a process involving birds, cedar wood, and red thread, parallel to the purification process of a leprous person. There are many halakhic restrictions with regard to the applicability of the laws pertaining to leprous houses, including the restriction that they apply only to structures at least four by four cubits in size.

‫ ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬:‫ַמאן ְּתנָ א ְל ָהא דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ,‫ּבֹו ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ְּמזוּזָ ה ו ִּמן ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶקה‬ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו נֶ ְח ַלט ְ ּב ָב ֵּתי‬,‫ִמ ַּט ֵּמא ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים‬ ,‫חֹומה‬ ָ ‫ָע ֵרי‬

§ Apropos the above discussion, the Gemara asks: Who is the

tanna who taught that which the Sages taught: The halakhic status of a house in which there is not an area of four cubits by four cubitsn is not that of a house? Therefore, halakhot in the Torah or the mishna that are relevant to a house do not apply to a house that size. Consequently, it is exempt from the mitzva of placing a mezuzah on its doorpost; and it is exempt from the obligation of establishing a parapeth around its roof; and it does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the house.hb And its sale is not rendered final in the same manner as the sale of houses within walled cities.h The owner of a house in a walled city who sells his house has the option to buy it back from the purchaser within one year of the sale. If he fails to do so, the sale is rendered final and the house does not return to the original owner during the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:29–31).

,‫עֹור ֵכי ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵאין חֹוזְ ִרין ָע ָליו ֵמ‬And one does not return from the ranks of soldiers waging war h ,‫ וְ ֵאין ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּת ִפין ּבֹו‬,‫ וְ ֵאין ְמ ָע ְר ִבין ּבֹו‬for a house that size, as would one who built a house with an area ,‫ִיחין ּבֹו ֵעירוּב‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵאין ַמ ּנ‬greater than four by four cubits (see Deuteronomy 20:5). And one need not join the houses in the courtyards for a house with that area. If there is more than one house in a courtyard, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry in that courtyard unless the residents of each of the houses contribute food that is placed in one of the houses, thereby rendering them joint-owners of the courtyard. The resident of a house with an area of less than four by four cubits need not participate in this joining of courtyards. And one need not merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway for a courtyard in which the area of its only house is less than four by four cubits. In this case, too, the resident of that courtyard need not participate in the merging of alleyways. And one does not place the food collected for the aforementioned joining [eiruv] of courtyards in this house but rather in a house with an area of at least four by four cubits.

halakha

A house with regard to the mitzva of placing a mezuza – ‫ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫ל ִחּיוּב ִ ּב ְמזוּזָ ה‬:ְ Only a house with an area of at least four by four cubits requires that a mezuza be affixed upon its doorposts. The house need not be square; rather, a house of any shape with an area of sixteen square cubits is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza (Rambam as interpreted by the Rosh; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 286:13).

as houses, and the legal status of a structure with an area of less than four by four cubits is not that of a house (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Tzara’at 14:6).

A house among houses within walled cities – ‫ַ ּביִ ת ְ ּב ָב ֵּתי‬ ‫חֹומה‬ ָ ‫ע ֵרי‬:ָ The legal status of a house with an area of less than four by four cubits is that of land, not that of a house. Therefore, it is not sold in perpetuity like other houses within A house with regard to a parapet – ‫ביִ ת ְל ִענְיַ ן ַמ ֲע ֶקה‬:ּ ַ A house walled cities; rather, even after one year, one may redeem with an area of less than four by four cubits is exempt from the house from the purchaser, and it reverts back to its origithe mitzva of having a parapet built on the roof because it is nal owner in the Jubilee Year. The Torah uses the term house not classified as a house with regard to those halakhot (Sefer with regard to the halakhot of walled cities, and therefore, Me’irat Einayim). Some say that if the area of the structure is the halakha applies only to a structure at least four by four greater than sixteen square cubits, even if it is not square- cubits in size (Radbaz; Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta shaped, one is obligated to build a parapet on the roof due VeYovel 12:12). to the potential danger (Arukh HaShulĥan; Shulĥan Arukh, A house with regard to return from the ranks of the soldiers Ĥoshen Mishpat 427:2). waging war – ‫ביִ ת ַל ֲחזָ ָרה ִמן ַה ַּמ ֲע ָר ָכה‬:ּ ַ One who builds a house A house that becomes ritually impure with leprosy – ‫ ַ ּביִ ת‬with an area of less than four by four cubits does not return ‫ה ּנ ְִט ָמא ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים‬:ַ A house with an area of less than four by four from the ranks of soldiers waging war, in accordance with cubits does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the the conclusion of the Gemara here (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, house, as by Torah law leprosy afflicts only structures classified Hilkhot Melakhim 7:5).

14 

Perek I . 3a . ‫ג ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Perek I Daf 3 Amud b ‫יבוּר ֵ ּבין ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲעיָ ירֹות‬ ּ ‫עֹושין אֹותֹו ִע‬ ׂ ִ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬And one does not render it an extension of the city limits when n .‫חֹול ִקין ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵאין ָה ַא ִחין וְ ַה ׁ ּשו ָּּת ִפין‬it is located between two cities. Two cities between which there is a distance of more than 141⅓ cubits cannot be joined and considered as a single city for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit for one city from the edge of the second city. However if there is a house equidistant between the two cities, i.e., a bit more than seventy cubits from each town, the house joins the two cities together for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit. A house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits cannot serve this function; and brothers and partners do not divide it, as it is too small to be divided. ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא וְ ל ֹא ַר ָ ּבנַן? ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ָק ָא ְמ ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָה ָתם‬.‫ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ .‫ דְּ ִד ַירת ֲע ַראי ִהיא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ִענְיַ ן סו ָּּכה‬ – ‫ דְּ ִד ַירת ֶק ַבע הוּא‬,‫ֲא ָבל ְלגַ ֵ ּבי ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫יה ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִאי ִאית ֵ ּב‬,ּ‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן מֹודו‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – דָּ יְ ִירי ֵ ּב‬ .‫ינָשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫יה ֱא‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֱא‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִאי ָלא – ָלא דָּ יְ ִירי ֵ ּב‬,‫ינָשי‬

‫ ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ְּמזוּזָ ה ו ִּמן ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶקה‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫וְ ֵאין ְמ ַט ֵּמא ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים וְ ֵאינֹו נֶ ְח ַלט ְ ּב ָב ֵּתי‬ ‫עֹור ֵכי‬ ְ ‫חֹומה וְ ֵאין חֹוזְ ִרין ָע ָליו ֵמ‬ ָ ‫ָע ֵרי‬ ‫״ביִ ת״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ּ ַ ְּ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ד‬.‫ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ .ּ‫ְ ּבה ּו ְ ּבכו ְּּלהו‬

‫וְ ֵאין ְמ ָע ְר ִבין ּבֹו וְ ֵאין ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּת ִפין ּבֹו וְ ֵאין‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ָלא ֲחזִ י‬.‫ִיחין ּבֹו ֵעירוּב‬ ִ ‫ַמ ּנ‬ ,‫ִיחין ּבֹו‬ ִ ‫ ֵעירו ֵּבי ֲחצֵ ירֹות ֵאין ַמ ּנ‬.‫ְל ִד ָירה‬ .‫ִיחין ּבֹו‬ ִ ‫ֲא ָבל ׁ ִש ּיתוּף – ַמ ּנ‬

In answer to the question with regard to the identity of the tanna of the baraita, the Gemara says: Let us say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not the Rabbis, as it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who holds that a sukka with an area of less than four by four cubits is unfit. The Gemara rejects this contention: Even if you say that the tanna of the baraita is the Rabbis, the Rabbis say that a structure with an area smaller than four by four cubits is fit only there, with regard to a sukka, which is a temporary residence, because in a temporary residence one is willing to confine himself to a small area. However, with regard to halakhot relating to a house, which is a permanent residence, even the Rabbis concede that if it has an area of four cubits by four cubits, people reside in it, as it is a functional house, and if not, people do not reside in it, and its legal status is not that of a house at all.

§ The Gemara briefly discusses the halakhot listed in the bara­

ita: The Master said that a house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits it is exempt from the mitzva of placing a mezuza on its doorpost, and it is exempt from the obligation of establishing a parapet around its roof, and it does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the house. And its sale is not rendered final in the same manner as the sale of houses within walled cities, and one does not return from the ranks of soldiers waging war for a house that size. What is the reason for these halakhot? It is due to the fact that “house” is written in the Torah with regard to all these halakhot. The legal status of a structure with an area of less than four by four cubits is not that of a house.

And by rabbinic law, one need not join the houses in the courtyards for a house with that area, and one need not mergen the courtyards that open into an alleyway for a courtyard in which the area of its only house is less than four by four cubits. And one does not place the food collected for the joining of courtyards in this house. What is the reason for these halakhot? It is due to the fact that it is not fit for residence. The point of the joining of courtyards is to transform the courtyard into a residence shared by the residents of all its member households, and this can be accomplished only by placing the joint food in a place whose legal status is that of a house. The Gemara infers this from the fact that it is taught in the baraita: And one does not place the food of the joining of courtyards in this house,h but the food of the merging of alleyways, one places in it.h

notes

An extension of the city limits between two cities – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ִע‬ ‫בין ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲעיָ ירֹות‬:ּ ֵ This is a concept that is relevant with regard to the halakhot of the joining of borders. When determining the city limits of any given town, one considers as part of the city any house within a certain distance of the city. This distance is equal to a bit more than seventy cubits, or the square root of 5,000, to be precise. The Shabbat limit is then measured from that house. However, there are circumstances where an additional vacant area that size is added to the area of the city and the Shabbat limit is measured from there. When there is a distance of slightly less than twice that distance between the cities, the halakhic status of those towns is that of one town. In this context, the early authorities disagreed whether, when the Gemara said that a house with an area of less than four by four cubits is not rendered an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities, it means only with regard to merging two cities (see Tosafot), or perhaps it means that it does not even serve as an extension of one city (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva). According to the latter opinion, when the Gemara said it does not render it an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities, it meant to underscore that even in that case it is ineffective. Joining and merging – ‫עירוּב וְ ׁ ִש ּיתוּף‬:ֵ A joining of courtyards is placed in order to render the legal status of all the residents of a given courtyard like that of a family and thereby render it permitted to carry in the courtyard. For this purpose, jointly owned food is placed in one of the houses in the courtyard that is fit for residence, which renders its status like the joint residence of all the residents of that courtyard. The merging of courtyards is a similar procedure where food belonging to the families in different courtyards that open into a shared alleyway is placed in one of those courtyards, uniting all the residents of the alleyway into residents of the one courtyard. Since the purpose of the merging of the alleyways is to permit the use of the courtyards and not of the particular houses, as long as the food is placed in a secure place inside the courtyard, the merging has been established. halakha

A location suitable for placement of a joining of courtyards – ‫מקֹום ָה ָראוּי ְל ַה ָּנ ַחת ֵעירוּב ֲחצֵ ירֹות‬:ָ One may place a joining of the courtyards only in a house fit for residence, and not in a gatehouse, a portico, or a veranda (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 366:3). A location fit for placement of a merging of the alleyways – ‫מקֹום ָה ָראוּי ְל ַה ָּנ ַחת ׁ ִש ּיתוּף‬:ָ Food that was designated for establishment of a merging of alleyways may be placed in a courtyard or in a house with an area of less than four by four cubits (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 386:1).

.‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? דְּ ָלא ָ ּג ַרע ֵמ ָחצֵ ר ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ָמבֹוי‬What is the reason for this distinction? It is due to the fact that ‫ ׁ ִש ּיתו ֵּפי‬,‫ ֵעירו ֵּבי ֲחצֵ ירֹות – ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬it is no less a residence than a courtyard in the alleyway. An .‫ ָמבֹוי – ַ ּב ָּמבֹוי‬unroofed courtyard is not fit for residence, and nevertheless the food for the merging of alleyways may be placed there, as we learned in a baraita in tractate Eiruvin (85b): The joining of courtyards may be placed in the courtyard and the merging of alleyways may be placed in the alleyway. 

‫ג ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 3b 

15

halakha

One who resides there does not render it prohibited to carry – ‫אֹוסר‬ ֵ ‫הדָּ ר ׁ ָשם ֵאינֹו‬:ַ One who lives in a gatehouse, portico, or veranda in a courtyard, or in a house with an area of less than four by four cubits (Peri Megadim; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav), is not considered to be residing in a fullfledged residence. Therefore, even if he fails to participate in the joining of the courtyards he does not prevent it from taking effect (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 370:1). An extension of city limits between two cities – ‫יבוּר ֵ ּבין‬ ּ ‫ִע‬ ‫ש ֵּתי ֲעיָ ירֹות‬: ְ ׁ A house with an area of four by four cubits that stands a bit more than seventy cubits from the city limit, or from a house close to the city limit, is considered a part of the city for the purposes of determining the actual city limits and the Shabbat limit that extends beyond the city limits (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 398:6). A house that is too small to be divided – ‫ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו‬ ‫דִּ ין ֲחלו ָּקה‬: The owner of a house that has an area of less than four by four cubits does not receive four cubits at its entrance when dividing the courtyard, as its legal status is not that of a house (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 172:8). A courtyard that may be divided – ‫חצֵ ר ַה ִּנ ֶּתנֶ ת ַל ֲח ֻל ָ ּקה‬:ָ One need not accept the demands of a partner to divide up a courtyard unless the courtyard is large enough for each of the partners to receive a portion measuring four by four cubits. The four cubits each partner receives for each entrance is not factored into the area of the courtyard (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 171:1, 3) Division of the courtyard according to entrances – ‫ֲח ֻל ַ ּקת‬ ‫חצֵ ר ְל ִפי ּ ְפ ָת ִחים‬:ָ If one has a house in a courtyard with a single entrance and another has a house in that courtyard with multiple entrances, when dividing up the courtyard each owner receives four cubits per entrance. The rest of the courtyard is divided equally. The early authorities discuss whether this extends only to a courtyard that was originally ownerless (Rabbi Yosef Migash; Rambam; Rashi; and others) or even to an inherited courtyard (Rashi; Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rema; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 172:1). background

Huts – ‫בו ְּר ָ ּגנִין‬:ּ These huts were small guard towers. Some were well built and were as well fortified as military fortifications. The official tasked with guarding the fields and reporting to the military authorities would live in these huts. There were also huts that were not built as sturdily, which were for temporary use.

!?‫ ֵעירו ֵּבי ֲחצֵ ירֹות ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר‬:‫וְ ָהוֵ ינַן ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ֹותן ֵעירוּבֹו ְ ּב ֵבית ׁ ַש ַער‬ ֵ ּ‫ ַהנ‬:‫וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬ ,‫ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ו ִּמ ְר ּ ֶפ ֶסת – ֵאינֹו ֵעירוּב‬ !‫אֹוסר‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַהדָּ ר ׁ ָשם ֵאינֹו‬

And we discussed this halakha: How can the joining of courtyards be placed in the courtyard? Didn’t we learn in the mishna: With regard to one who placed his joining of courtyards in a gatehouse or in a portico [akhsadra],l a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, or on a balcony, it is not a fit eiruv. And one who resides there, in any of these structures, does not render it prohibitedh for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry, even if he did not contribute to the eiruv, as the legal status of these places is not that of a house.

‫ ֵעירו ֵּבי ֲחצֵ ירֹות ַ ּב ַ ּבית‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ ‫יתו ֵּפי ְמבֹואֹות ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר‬ ּ ‫ וְ ׁ ִש‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי ָלא ָ ּג ַרע ֵמ ָחצֵ ר‬.‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ָמ בֹוי‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ָמבֹוי‬

Rather, emend the mishna and say: The joining of courtyards is placed in one of the full-fledged houses that is in the courtyard, and the merging of alleyways is placed even in one of the courtyards that opens into the alleyway. And this house whose area is less than four by four cubits is no less a residence than one of the courtyards that open into the alleyway.

‫יבוּר ֵ ּבין ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬ ּ ‫עֹושין אֹותֹו ִע‬ ִׂ ‫וְ ֵאין‬ ּ ‫ֲעיָ ירֹות – דַּ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ְּכב ּו ְר ָ ּגנִין ָלא‬ – ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ּבו ְּר ָ ּגנִין‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּוינַן ֵל‬ ְּ ‫ֲחז ּו ְל ִמ‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי – ָלא ֲחזִ י‬,‫יל ַתיְ יה ּו‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ִמ ְּיל ֵת‬

It is taught in the baraita: And one does not render it an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities.h The Gemara explains: This means that we do not even render its halakhic status like that of huts [burganin]bl used by grain watchmen in the fields, which join the two cities between which they are located for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit. What is the reason that it is considered less a residence than a watchman’s hut? The Gemara answers: Watchmen’s huts, even though they are not sturdy, are suited for their matters, while this house with an area less than four by four cubits is not suited for its matter, as it is not fit for residence.

.‫חֹול ִקין ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫וְ ֵאין ָה ַא ִחין וְ ַה ׁ ּשו ָּּת ִפין‬ ,‫יה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ּ ‫ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ – ‫יה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמ ֹות‬ ּ ‫ָהא ִא ית ֵ ּב‬ .‫חֹול ִקין‬ ְ

It is taught in the baraita: And brothers and partners do not divide a house that does not measure at least four by four cubits, as it is too small to be divided.h The Gemara infers: The reason that a house that size is not divided is due to the fact that there is not an area of four by four cubits in it; however, if there is an area of four by four cubits in it, they divide it.

‫חֹול ִקין ֶאת ֶה ָחצֵ ר ַעד‬ ְ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna: One divides the ‫ ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָ ּב ּה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ָלזֶ ה וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬courtyard at the request of one of the heirs or partners only if its area !‫ ַא ּמֹות ָלזֶ ה‬is sufficient so that there will be in it four by four cubits for this partner or heir and four by four cubits for that partner or heir? Apparently, in order to divide a courtyard it must be at least four by eight cubits.h ‫ ֵאין ּבֹו דִּ ין ֲחל ּו ָקה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ ‫ ָחצֵ ר ְל ִפי‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫ְּכ ָחצֵ ר‬ :‫ וְ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר‬.‫יה ִמ ְת ַח ֶּל ֶקת‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ָת ֶח‬ ,‫נֹותן ְל ָכל ּ ֶפ ַתח ו ֶּפ ַתח ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ֵ .‫חֹול ִקין אֹותֹו ְ ּב ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬ ְ ‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר‬

Rather, emend the baraita and say that the halakha of division like that of a courtyard does not apply to it. As Rav Huna said: A courtyard is divided according to the number of its entrances.n When the residents of the houses in a courtyard divide the courtyard between them, the division is not based on the number of houses in the courtyard, nor is it based on the size of the houses. Instead, it is divided based on the number of entrances that open into the courtyard. Rav Ĥisda said: One gives the homeowner for each and every entrance four cubits, and the rest of the courtyard is divided equally among the residents of the courtyard.h

language

Portico [akhsadra] – ‫א ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬:ַ From the Greek ἐξέδρα, exedra, that it is related to the German burg, meaning fort or small settlemeaning entranceway, an example of which would be an open ment. The German word reached the Sages by means of Roman veranda. soldiers stationed on the German border, from where it traveled Huts [burganin] – ‫בו ְּר ָ ּגנִין‬: ּ The origin of this word is not clear. through the Roman Empire to its eastern borders, in Eretz Yisrael Some suggest that it is derived from Greek, and others suggest and Babylonia. Guard tower

notes

A courtyard…according to its entrances – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫חצֵ ר ְל ִפי ּ ְפ ָת ֶח‬:ָ This halakha is discussed in tractate Bava Batra and the commentaries discuss its details. Is this referring to partners willingly dividing a courtyard, or to heirs, or even people who claimed and built upon ownerless land? Similarly, there is a dispute whether

16 

Perek I . 3b . ‫ג ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

according to its entrances means the number of doorways in a house, even when there are multiple doorways in a single house; or whether it means that each house is counted as having one entrance (Rambam; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva; Rabbi Yosef Migash; Tur; Rashba; and others).

ֵּ ‫ דְּ ָהנֵי ִמ‬The principle that entrances are factored into the division of a court,‫ילי – ַ ּביִ ת דִּ ְל ֶמ ֱהוֵ י ָק ֵאי‬ ‫יס ַּתר‬ ְ ‫ ַהאי דִּ ְל ִמ‬.‫יה ָחצֵ ר‬ ּ ‫ יְ ָה ִבינָ א ֵל‬yard applies only with regard to a house that stands to endure, as .‫יה ָחצֵ ר‬ ּ ‫ ָק ֵאי – ָלא יְ ָה ִבינַן ֵל‬the owner needs use of the yard to ease access to his house, so we provide him with four cubits according to Rav Ĥisda, or part of the courtyard according to Rav Huna. However, in the case of this small house, which stands to be leveled, its owner has no need for the adjacent courtyard, so we do not provide him with any part of the courtyard, as if it were not even there.

halakha

Diminishing the height of a sukka with cushions and blankets – ‫מיעוּט ג ַֹב ּה ַה ּסו ָּּכה ַעל יְ ֵדי ָּכ ִרים ו ְּכ ָסתֹות‬:ִ One cannot diminish the interior airspace of a sukka more than twenty cubits high by placing cushions and blankets on its floor, even if he designates them exclusively for that use. Some authorities rule that floor rugs may be designated for that use and do diminish the airspace (Biur Halakha); others disagree (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:3).

‫בֹוהה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה ו ָּבא‬ ָ ‫ § ָהיְ ָתה ְ ּג‬With regard to the halakha in the mishna that a sukka more than ‫ ְל ַמ ֲע ָט ּה ְ ּב ָכ ִרים ו ְּכ ָסתֹות ל ֹא ָהוֵ י‬twenty cubits high is unfit, the Gemara states: If the sukka was more ,‫ ִמיעוּט‬than twenty cubits high and one comes to diminish its height by placing cushions and blankets on the floor, it is not a decrease of halakhic significance. It does not render the sukka fit, because in that case one is concerned that the bedding will be ruined and therefore does not intend to leave it there very long.h

Perek I Daf 4 Amud a ,]‫[לכו ְּּלה ּו‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ִב ְט ִלינְ ה ּו‬And even though he nullified them all, intending that for the dura.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָב ְט ָלה דַּ ְע ּתֹו ֵאצֶ ל ָּכל ָא ָדם‬tion of the Festival the halakhic status of these cushions and blankets is nothing more than that of dirt, it is not deemed a fit nullification because his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. People do not typically do so, so the action of one who does so is discounted. ‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫ ֶּת ֶבן ו ִּב ְּטלֹו – ָהוֵ י ִמיעוּט‬If one placed straw on the floor of his sukka in order to diminish its n .‫ ָע ָפר ו ִּב ְּטלֹו‬height, and verbally nullified it by saying that he will not use it for another purpose, it is a decrease of halakhic significance, as the halakhic status of adding straw is like that of adding dirt to the sukka floor and diminishing its height. The same is true, all the more so, if he placed dirt on the sukka floor and nullified it.h – ‫ֶּת ֶבן וְ ֵאין ָע ִתיד ְל ַפנּ ֹותֹו וְ ָע ָפר ְס ָתם‬ ‫ ַ ּביִ ת‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫יֹוסי וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ֵ ‫לֹוקת ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ֲח‬ ְּ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּמ‬ – ‫יטלֹו‬ ְּ ‫יל ָאה ּו ֶּת ֶבן אֹו צְ רֹורֹות ו ִּב‬ .‫ְמבו ָּּטל‬

A case where one placed straw on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it from there, although he did not nullify it, and a case where one placed undesignated dirt that was not nullified, are the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis with regard to whether the actions alone are effective as nullification. As we learned in a mishna: In a house in which there is a corpse or an olive-bulk of a corpse, the halakha is that if there is a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof, the roof serves as a barrier that prevents the ritual impurity from spreading beyond the roof. However, if there is less than a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof, the roof does not serve as a barrier, and the ritual impurity spreads upward. In a house of that sort where one filled the space between the corpse and the roof with straw or pebbles mixed with clods of dirt, and then nullified the straw or dirt, it is effectively nullified, and the ritual impurity spreads upward.

notes

If one placed straw and nullified it – ‫ת ֶבן ו ִּב ְּטלֹו‬:ֶּ The commentaries discuss both the manner and the timing of the nullification. In terms of the manner, the question is whether it must be stated verbally or it is sufficient to indicate that it is his intention to nullify it with his actions (see Rashi and others). In terms of the timing of the nullification, some hold that it is sufficient to nullify the straw or dirt for the duration of the Festival alone (Rashi; Rosh; Ran), while others hold that he must nullify it forever, with the intention that it remain there forever (Rashba; Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Mordekhai). halakha

With what materials does one diminish the height of a sukka – ‫ב ֶּמה ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטים ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬:ּ ַ If one diminishes the interior height of the sukka by placing straw on the floor and nullifying it, that diminution is effective and the sukka is fit. Certainly the same holds true for dirt nullified in that manner. However, if he placed undesignated straw or dirt inside the sukka, then the height is diminished only if he nullifies it verbally, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rif; Rambam; Rosh). This diminution takes effect immediately, and one need not move the roofing in any way (Me’iri; Peri Megadim; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:4). A house that one filled with objects – ‫ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ִּמ ְּלאוּה ּו‬ ‫ב ֲח ָפצִ ים‬: ּ ַ A house filled with straw or dirt nullified by its owner is considered completely filled, and its halakhic status is not that of a tent with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. If the straw or dirt was not nullified, the status of the house is that of a tent with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 24:3).

‫ וְ ָתנֵי‬.‫יטלֹו – ָלא‬ ְּ ‫ ָלא ִ ּב‬,‫יטלֹו – ִאין‬ ְּ ‫ִ ּב‬ ‫ ֶּת ֶבן וְ ֵאין ָע ִתיד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֲע ָל ּה‬ .‫ ו ָּב ֵטל‬,‫ְל ַפנּ ֹותֹו – ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ ָע ָפר ְס ָתם‬ ‫ָע ָפר וְ ָע ִתיד ְל ַפנּ ֹותֹו – ֲה ֵרי הוּא ִּכ ְס ַתם‬ .‫ וְ ל ֹא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬,‫ֶּת ֶבן‬

By inference, if he explicitly nullified it, yes, it is nullified; if he did not nullify it, no, it is not nullified. And it is taught concerning this mishna in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yosei says: If one placed straw on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it, its halakhic status is like that of undesignated dirt and it is nullified. If he placed dirt on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it, its halakhic status is like that of undesignated straw, and it is not nullified.h Apparently, the tanna’im already discussed this matter.

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high but the ends of the palm leaves fall within twenty cubits – ‫ָהיְ ָתה‬ ‫יֹור ִדין ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ְ ‫בֹוהה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה וְ הוּצִ ין‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּג‬: If a sukka is more than twenty cubits high and branches from the roofing fall within twenty cubits of the ground, and the shade provided by the branches hanging down is greater than the sunlight that passes through them, the sukka is fit, in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:2).

‫ וְ הוּצִ ין‬,‫בֹוהה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ָהיְ ָתה ְ ּג‬ ‫ ִאם צִ ָּל ָתם‬,‫יֹור ִדין ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ְ ‫ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָתם ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ִאם ָלאו‬ .‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high, but the ends of the palm leaves [hutzin]l fall within twenty cubits,h then the following distinction applies: If the shade provided solely by the leaves within twenty cubits of the ground is greater than the sunlight in the sukka, it is fit. If not, it is unfit.

Ends of palm leaves [hutzin] – ‫הוּצִ ין‬: From the Arabic ‫خوص‬, khūsִ , meaning the leaf of a palm tree. Its usage was expanded to include loose branches of all sorts of growths, as well as splinters from other trees.



language

‫ד ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 4a 

17

halakha

The ends of the palm leaves fall within ten handbreadths – ‫תֹוך ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ְ ‫יֹור ִדין ְל‬ ְ ‫הוּצִ ין‬: In the case of an otherwise fit sukka in which branches from the roofing are within ten handbreadths of the floor, even if more sunlight passes through them than the shade they provide, the sukka is unfit. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion in disputes with Abaye (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:9). A sukka that one diminished with the construction of a platform – ‫סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ִּמ ֲע ָט ּה ְ ּב ִבנְיַ ן ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא‬: In the case of a sukka more than twenty cubits high in which one constructed a raised platform along the middle wall, and the surface area of this platform itself is sufficient to render a sukka fit, the entire sukka is fit, even the section beyond the platform (Rambam; Maggid Mishne; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:5). Platform along the side – ‫איצְ ַט ָ ּבא ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬:ִ If one built a platform with a surface area sufficient for a fit sukka along one of the side walls of a sukka more than twenty cubits high, and the distance between the edge of the platform and the opposite wall is less than four cubits, then the area of the platform alone constitutes a fit sukka (Rashi; Tosafot; Rambam; and others; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:6).

‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים וְ הוּצִ ין‬ ָ ‫ָהיְ ָתה ְ ּג‬ ‫ ָס ַבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬,‫תֹוך ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ְ ‫יֹור ִדין ְל‬ ְ – ‫ ִאם ַח ָּמ ָתם ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּל ָתם‬:‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ .‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָירה‬

The Gemara applies the same principle to the opposite case. In a case where the sukka was only ten handbreadths high, the minimum height for a fit sukka, but the ends of the palm leaves fall within ten handbreadths,h Abaye thought to say that the same calculation applies here: If the sunlight in the sukka is greater than the shade provided by the leaves within ten handbreadths of the ground, meaning that those leaves do not constitute a fit sukka on their own, the sukka is fit.

‫ ָהא דִּ ָירה ְסרו ָּחה‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to him: That calculation does not apply in this particu.‫ וְ ֵאין ָא ָדם דָּ ר ְ ּב ִד ָירה ְסרו ָּחה‬,‫ ִהיא‬lar case, as, if the branches fall within ten handbreadths of the ground, that is considered a sagging [seruĥa]n residence,n and a person does not reside in a sagging residence. Therefore, it cannot even be considered a temporary residence. ‫ ו ָּבנָ ה‬,‫בֹוהה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ָהיְ ָתה ְ ּג‬ ‫ֹופן ָה ֶא ְמצָ ִעי‬ ֶ ּ‫ָ ּב ּה ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ד‬ – ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה‬,‫ַעל ּ ְפנֵי ּכו ָּּל ּה‬ .‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one built a raised platformh in it opposite the entire middle wall,b as typically a sukka has three walls and the fourth side is open as an entrance, and the platform has an area of at least a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the minimum area required for fitness of a sukka, the sukka is fit. Since the seven-by-seven-handbreadth section from the platform to the roof has three walls and it is less than twenty cubits high, that section is a fit sukka in and of itself, and the rest of the sukka beyond the platform is fit as far as the roofing continues.

‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ִמ ּ ְ ׂש ַפת ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא‬,‫ ו ִּמן ַה ַ ּצד‬And if one built the platform along the sideh wallb of the sukka, ‫ ּ ָפחֹות‬,‫ ַל ּכ ֶֹותל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬then the following distinction applies: If there are four or more .‫ ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬cubits from the edge of the platform to the opposite wall, the sukka is unfit, as the area of the platform has only two walls. However, if the distance to the opposite wall is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit, as the halakhic status of the roofing that covers the distance to the wall is that of a curved extension of the opposite wall.

notes

Sagging [seruĥa] – ‫סרו ָּחה‬:ְ The standard meaning of this term in rabbinic literature is incomplete, damaged. Based on Exodus 26:13, it means hang or sag.

(Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Giat; Rashba). Others maintain that the edges of palm leaves falling into a sukka does not render the sukka unfit per se; however, since sitting in a sukka of that kind would be uncomfortable, one may not A sagging residence – ‫דִּ ָירה ְסרו ָּחה‬: Most commentaries and fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival ab initio. If he were halakhic authorities hold that a sagging residence is funda- to do so he would fulfill his obligation after the fact (Me’iri, in mentally unfit, and therefore the structure is not a sukka at all his understanding of the Rambam and others). background

Platform opposite the middle wall – ‫ֹופן‬ ֶ ּ‫ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ד‬ ‫ה ֶא ְמצָ ִעי‬:ָ

Platform along the side wall – ‫איצְ ַט ָ ּבא ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬:ִ

Left: Platform along the middle wall Right: Platform next to the side wall

18 

Perek I . 4a . ‫ד ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

?‫ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן – דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן דּ ֶֹופן ֲעקו ָּּמה‬ ‫יכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּביו ִאם יֵ ׁש ִמן‬ ֵּ ‫ ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַחת וְ ִס‬:‫ְּתנִינָ א‬ ‫ ָהא‬.‫יכוּךְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ֶ ‫ַה ּכ‬ ּ ‫ֹותל ַל ִּס‬ !‫ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ָּכאן – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

The Gemara asks: What is this halakha teaching us? Is it that we say that the halakha of a curved wallnb applies to the halakhot of sukka? We already learned this halakha in a mishna (17a): In the case of a house that was breached by a hole in the middle of the roof, and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there are four or more cubits of the remaining original roof it is an unfit sukka. By inference, if the distance is less than that, it is a fit sukka. That is due to the halakha of a curved wall. The intact portion of the roof is considered an extension of the wall. As this halakha was already taught with regard to sukka, what is novel in the halakha of the platform?

‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ָה ָתם הוּא דְּ ַחזְ יָ א ַלדּ ֶֹופן‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬The Gemara explains that there is indeed a novel element to the ‫ ָקא‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ֹופן – ֵא‬ ֶ ּ‫ ָה ָכא דְּ ָלא ַחזְ יָ א ַלד‬halakha of the platform. Lest you say that that one applies the .‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬halakha of a curved wall specifically there, in the case of a house that was breached, as the wall of the house is suited to be the wall of a sukka since it is less than twenty cubits high; however, here, in the case of the platform, where the opposite wall is not suited to be the walln of a sukka due to its excessive height, say no, the halakha of a curved wall does not apply. Therefore, it teaches us that in the case of the platform too, the roof is considered an extension of the wall. ‫ ו ָּבנָ ה ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא‬,‫בֹוהה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ָהיְ ָתה ְ ּג‬ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ִמ ּ ְ ׂש ַפת ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא וְ ַלדּ ֶֹופן‬,‫ְ ּב ֶא ְמצָ ִע ָיתה‬ ‫ ּ ָפחֹות‬,‫ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ְל ָכל רו ַּח וְ רו ַּח – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ .‫ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

If the sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one built a platform in the center of the sukkahb if there is from the edge of the platform to the wall in each and every direction a distance of four cubits, it is unfit, as the platform has no walls. If the distance is less than four cubits, then it is fit.

,‫ ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן – דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן ״דּ ֶֹופן ֲעקו ָּּמה״‬The Gemara asks: What is this halakha teaching us? Is it that ! ְ‫ ַהיְ ינ ּו ַהך‬we say that the halakha of curved wall applies to the halakhot of sukka? Then this halakha is identical to that halakha, as we already learned that the halakha of a curved wall applies.

notes

Curved wall – ‫דּ ֶֹופן ֲעקו ָּּמה‬: The precise definition of the principle of curved wall is unclear. In addition, there is a dispute among the halakhic authorities based on the various understandings of the concept. Some maintain that curved wall means that the wall of the sukka is considered as though it curves and forms a single unit with the adjacent unfit roofing; it is one wall, part of which passes overhead (one opinion in Rashi; Me’iri; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva; and others). Another opinion considers the wall as though it were uprooted from its place and moved over so that now it is now adjacent to the platform, and the unfit roofing is on the other side of the wall and does not render the sukka unfit (see Ritva; Me’iri). Not suited to be the wall – ‫לא ַחזְ יָא ַלדּ ֶֹופן‬:ָ Even if the wall is now considered to be adjacent to the platform, it is still too high to serve as a wall for the sukka, and therefore the sukka is unfit (Ritva). The Rid explains the Gemara in a similar manner. In order to render the sukka fit for use on the Festival, one considers the wall curved not only on top of the sukka, but along the floor of the sukka as well so that it will not be too high and render the sukka unfit. halakha

Platform in the center of the sukka – ‫ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬ ‫סו ָּּכה‬: If one built a platform with a surface area sufficient for a fit sukka in the center of the sukka, and the distance between the edge of the platform to the surrounding walls is less than four cubits, it is fit. This is true even if the platform is more than ten handbreadths high (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:7).

,‫ דּ ֶֹופן ֲעקו ָּּמה ֵמרו ַּח ַא ַחת ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬The Gemara explains that there is indeed a novel element to the .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ָּכל רו ַּח וְ רו ַּח – ל ֹא‬halakha. Lest you say that we say that the halakha of a curved wall applies only in one direction, with regard to one wall of the sukka; but in each and every direction with regard to all the walls of the sukka, no, the halakha does not apply; therefore, it teaches us that this halakha may be applied to consider the roof as an extension of all four walls.

background

Curved wall – ‫דּ ֶֹופן ֲעקו ָּּמה‬: If part of the roof of a sukka, adjacent Platform in the center of the sukka – ‫איצְ ַט ָ ּבא ְ ּב ֶא ְמצָ ִע ָית ּה‬:ִ to one of its walls, is made of common roofing material that is unfit for use in a sukka, then this part of the roof is considered an extension of the sukka wall. It is as if the wall is curved at the top. If it is four cubits wide, it invalidates the sukka.

Left: Portion of the sukka roof made of common roofing material Right: Platform in the center



‫ד ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 4a 

19

background

Dug out an area inside the sukka in order to complete the sukka to ten handbreadths – ‫ימ ּה‬ ָ ‫ָח ַקק ָ ּב ּה ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִל‬ ‫ל ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬:ַ

‫ וְ ָח ַקק‬,‫ָהיְ ָתה ּ ְפחו ָּתה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש‬,‫ימ ּה ַל ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ָ ּב ּה ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִל‬ – ‫ִמ ּ ְ ׂש ַפת ֲח ָקק וְ ַל ּכ ֶֹותל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

If the sukka was less than ten handbreadths high and he dug out an area inside the sukkah in order to complete the requisite height of the sukka to ten handbreadths,b if from the edge of the dug-out area to the wall there is a distance of three handbreadths,b it is unfit, as in that case the edge of the dug-out area is not joined to the wall of the sukka. Therefore, even though the interior space is ten handbreadths high, its walls are not the requisite height to be considered a fit sukka.

Sukka with a dug-out floor Handbreadth – ‫ט ַפח‬:ֶ A handbreadth is one of the standard measures of length used in the Talmud. According to some modern halakhic opinions, the length of a handbreadth is 9.6 cm, and according to others it measures 8 cm. One application of this measure is with regard to the principle of lavud: Two solid surfaces are considered to be joined if the gap between them is smaller than three handbreadths.

halakha

If one dug an area in a low sukka – ‫ח ַקק ְ ּבסו ָּּכה נְ מו ָּכה‬:ָ If the sukka was less than ten handbreadths high and he dug out an area in the floor with the dimensions of a fit sukka, and the edge of the dug-out area is within three handbreadths of the wall, then it is fit. If it is more than three handbreadths from the wall,

then it is unfit. There is a dispute among the halakhic authorities with regard to the legal status of the area surrounding the dug-out area; some (Me’iri; Shulĥan Arukh) rule that it is part of the fit sukka, and others (Tur; Baĥ; Taz; Arukh HaShulĥan) rule it unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:10).

Perek I Daf 4 Amud b notes

One built a pillar in the sukka – ‫בנָ ה ָ ּב ּה ַע ּמוּד‬:ּ ָ According to Rashi and most of the commentaries, this is referring to a case where the column was four or more cubits away from the walls and that is why the principle of curved wall is not applicable to this case. However, there are some (Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Giat; Ritva; others) who contend that since the column is ten handbreadths high it is considered a separate domain, and that is why the principle of curved wall is not applicable. Therefore, the walls of the sukka are not relevant to the column, and the same would hold true even if the column were adjacent to the walls.

20 

Perek I . 4b . ‫ד ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

.‫ ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬If the distance from the edge of the dug-out area to the wall was less than three handbreadths then it is fit, as the edge of the dug-out area is joined to the wall of the sukka based on the principle of lavud. ‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ָה ָתם דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ּ ָפחֹות ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the case of a sukka ‫ ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ָה ָכא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ּ ָפחֹות‬,‫ ַא ּמֹות‬with a platform in its center, that you said that it is a fit sukka if the ?‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים‬wall is at a distance of less than four cubits from the edge of the platform, and what is different here that you said the wall must be at a distance of less than three handbreadths for the sukka to be fit? ‫יה ַלדּ ֶֹופן – ּ ָפחֹות ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ֵ ‫ָה ָתם דְּ ִא‬ ּ ‫ית‬ – ‫ֹופן‬ ֶ ּ‫ ָה ָכא ְל ׁ ַש ּווּיֵ י ַלד‬,‫ַא ּמֹות ַסגְ יָ א‬ – ‫ ִאי ָלא‬,‫ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים ִאין‬ .‫ָלא‬

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the sukka more than twenty cubits high, where there already is a wall, but it is removed from the platform, as long as the wall is at a distance of less than four cubits, it is sufficient to render the sukka fit. Here, where the sukka is less than ten handbreadths high, its wall is not a fit wall. In order to render it a wall by adding the height of the dug-out area, if the distance between them is less than three handbreadths, yes, the dug-out area is considered joined to the wall, as based on the principle of lavud two objects are considered joined if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths; and if not, no, they are not considered joined.

‫בֹוהה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה ו ָּבנָ ה ָ ּב ּה‬ ָ ‫ָהיְ ָתה ְ ּג‬ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬,‫בֹוה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ַּ ‫ַע ּמוּד ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּג‬ ‫ ּגֹוד‬:‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ ָס ַבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ֵמ‬,‫ּבֹו ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה‬ .‫יצ ָתא‬ ּ ָ ‫ַא ֵּסיק ְמ ִח‬

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and one built a pillar in the sukka,n far from the walls, that is ten handbreadths high, and the distance from the top of the column to the roofing was less than twenty cubits, and on the horizontal surface of the column there is a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the minimum area required for fitness of a sukka, Abaye thought to say that this is a fit sukka because of the principle: Extend and raise the partitions of this pillar. Given that the column is at least ten handbreadths high, its four sides are therefore considered partitions, and the halakha is that the legal status of a partition is as if it extends and continues upwards indefinitely. Based on that perspective, the surface of the column is supported by four partitions at least ten handbreadths high that extend upward indefinitely, and from the top of the pillar to the roof is less than twenty cubits; therefore, this squared column forms a fit sukka.

,‫ִיכרֹות‬ ָּ ‫יצֹות ַה ּנ‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to Abaye: That is not so, since in order to have a ּ ‫ ָ ּב ֵעינַן ְמ ִח‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬ n .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ֵל‬fit sukka we require conspicuous partitions, and there are none, as the sides of the column do not actually project above the surface. ְ‫יכך‬ ִ ֵּ‫נָעץ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה קוּנְ ד‬ ַ :‫ § ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Sages taught: If one inserted four posts [kundeisin]l ֵּ ‫יסין וְ ִס‬ h ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫ ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּבן‬into the floor and placed roofing over them but no walls, .‫ֹוס ִלין‬ ְ ‫ ּפ‬Rabbi Ya’akov deems it a fit sukka and the Rabbis deem it unfit. ,‫לֹוקת ַעל ְ ׂש ַפת ַה ַ ּגג‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ״גּ ֹוד ַא ֵּסיק‬:‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ָס ַבר‬ ‫ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי‬,‫יצ ָתא״‬ ּ ָ ‫ְמ ִח‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬.‫יצ ָתא״‬ ּ ָ ‫״גּ ֹוד ַא ֵּסיק ְמ ִח‬ :‫ וְ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר‬.‫ַה ַ ּגג – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ .‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ַ ּגג ַמ ֲח‬

,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ַ ּגג ַמ ֲח‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ .‫ֲא ָבל ַעל ְ ׂש ַפת ַה ַ ּגג – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ – ?‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ ֵ ּבין ָ ּבזֹו ו ֵּבין ָ ּבזֹו ַמ ֲח‬:‫אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬ .ּ‫ֵּתיקו‬

Rav Huna said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ya’akov is in a case where the four posts are aligned on the edge of the roof,b directly above the exterior walls of a house, as Rabbi Ya’akov holds that we say the principle: Extend and raise the partitions. Since the exterior walls of the house are full-fledged partitions, they are considered as extending upward indefinitely, constituting the walls of the sukka. And the Rabbis hold that we do not say the principle: Extend and raise the partitions. However, if the posts are placed in the center of the roof,b then the walls of the house are irrelevant and everyone agrees that it is an unfit sukka. And Rav Naĥman said: The dispute is in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof, as according to Rabbi Ya’akov, if the posts themselves are one handbreadth wide, they serve as the partitions, while the Rabbis hold that it is not a fit sukka until it has two complete walls and a partial third wall. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rav Naĥman saying that only if the sukka is in the center of the roof there is a dispute between Rabbi Ya’akov and the Rabbis, but if it is at the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit? Or perhaps he is saying that there is a dispute both in this case and in that case? No resolution was found, so the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

notes

We require conspicuous partitions – ‫ִיכרֹות‬ ָּ ָּ ‫ב ֵעינַן ְמ ִחיצּ ֹות ַה ּנ‬: Although these partitions suffice with regard to the stringent halakhot of Shabbat, the two areas of halakha are not comparable. One reason is the requirement that the walls of the sukka appear together with the roofing. In this case, the walls are not visible at all and are certainly not seen together with the roofing (Rid). Alternatively, since the column is ten handbreadths high, it is distinct from the public domain and is a domain in and of itself with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat; however, a sukka requires actual walls (Me’iri). Others claim based on the conclusion of the Gemara here that the principle: Extend and raise the partition, does not apply at all to the halakhot of sukka (Ran). Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation…on two counts – ‫…ב ַת ְר ֵּתי‬ ּ ְ ‫יה‬ ֱ ‫ימא ֶּת‬ ָ ‫ל‬:ֵ Halakhically speaking, Rav ּ ‫יהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ֵּת‬ Huna’s opinion was already refuted and rejected, and the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ya’akov can be explained otherwise. However, since the ultimate objective here is to ascertain the actual rationales for the various opinions, the Gemara analyzes the second refutation as well, although it has no practical ramifications. language

Posts [kundeisin] – ‫יסין‬ ִ ֵּ‫קוּנְד‬: From the Greek χοντος, chontos, meaning column or post. There is a variant reading, kuntasin. background

Posts on the edge of the roof – ‫על ְ ׂש ַפת ַה ַ ּגג‬:ַ

‫יסין ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ ִ ֵּ‫נָעץ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה קוּנְ ד‬ ַ :‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: If one ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫יכ ְך ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּבן‬ ֵּ ‫ וְ ִס‬drove four posts into the ground and placed roofing over .‫ֹוס ִלין‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ּפ‬them, Rabbi Ya’akov deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit. ‫ וְ ָקא‬,‫ דִּ ְכ ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ַ ּגג דָּ ֵמי‬,‫ וְ ָהא ֶא ֶרץ‬But isn’t the legal status of the ground like that of the center ‫ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב! ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬of the roof, as it is not surrounded by partitions that extend .‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬upward, and nevertheless Rabbi Ya’akov deems it fit? This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that everyone agrees that a sukka in the center of the roof is unfit. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of Rav Huna’s opinion. ‫ ֲא ָבל ַעל‬,‫ ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע הוּא דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬:‫ וְ עֹוד‬And furthermore, there is an additional refutation of the ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬,‫ ְ ׂש ַפת ַה ַ ּגג – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬opinion of Rav Huna. It is apparent from this baraita that they ?‫יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי‬ ֱ ‫ ֶּת‬disagree with regard to the case of posts inserted in the center ּ ‫יהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ֵּת‬ of the roof; however, in the case of the posts inserted on the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit. Let us say, then, that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna on two counts.n First, with regard to his statement that everyone agrees in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof that it is unfit, while the baraita cites a dispute on the matter; second, with regard to his statement that there is a dispute in the case of a sukka on the edge of the roof, while the baraita indicates that everyone agrees that it is fit.

Sukka extending over the whole roof Posts in the center of the roof – ‫ב ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ַ ּגג‬:ּ ְ

Sukka in the center of a roof

halakha

A sukka that is between four posts – ‫סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה מֹוטֹות‬: If one drives four posts into the edge of a roof or its center and places roofing over them, it is an unfit sukka. That is because the ruling in the dispute in the Gemara with regard to the center of the roof is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem it unfit. The case of the posts at the edge of the roof remains unresolved, so the ruling is stringent, as the halakha is ruled stringently in unresolved dilemmas involving ritual matters (Rosh; Rif; Ra’avad; others). Others



deem it fit if the posts were aligned with the edge of the roof, in accordance with the alternative understanding of the dispute that everyone agrees that the sukka is fit in that case, as that appears to be the conclusion of the Gemara (ge’onim; Rambam; Maggid Mishne). The practical ruling is in accordance with the more stringent view (Kesef Mishne; Eliya Rabba; others) although the more lenient ruling was not completely rejected (Peri Megadim; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:6). ‫ד ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 4b 

21

notes

To convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion – ‫יעךָ ּכֹחֹו‬ ֲ ‫הֹוד‬ ִ ‫ל‬:ְ Often, the need arises to formulate a dispute in terms of the opinion of one of the disputants. In those cases, the Gemara states that the dispute was formulated in that manner to convey the far-reaching nature of his opinion, especially when there is a novel element or lenient ruling involved. Wherever this pair of Sages is mentioned – ‫ָּכל ִּכי ַהאי‬ ‫זוּגָ א‬: The Gemara arrives at this understanding because Rav, Rabbi Ĥanina, and Rav Ĥaviva were roughly contemporaries, while Rabbi Yoĥanan was considerably younger. Including him with the other three seems anomalous. background

Grooved and split – ‫יֵח ְלק ּו‬ ָ ְ‫יֵ ָח ְקק ּו ו‬:

,‫ ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ַ ּגג‬:‫ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי דְּ ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬.‫וְ הוּא ַהדִּ ין ַעל ְ ׂש ַפת ַה ַ ּגג‬ ,‫יעךָ ּכֹחֹו דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֲ ‫הֹוד‬ ִ ‫ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ַ ּגג – ְל‬ .‫דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ַ ּגג נַ ִמי ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬

The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna could have said to you that there is no proof from the baraita with regard to the second matter, as it is possible that they disagree in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof and that the same is true in the case of a sukka on the edge of the roof. And the fact that they specifically dispute the case of a sukka in the center of the roof is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinionn of Rabbi Ya’akov, who deems the sukka fit even in the center of the roof.

‫יסין ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ ִ ֵּ‫נָעץ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה קוּנְ ד‬ ַ :‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ,‫רֹואין‬ ִ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬,‫יכ ְך ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּבן‬ ֵּ ‫וְ ִס‬ ּ‫יל‬ ‫ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ִא ּו יֵ ָח ְקק ּו וְ יֵ ָח ְלק ּו וְ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ֶט ַפח‬ ,‫ְל ָכאן וְ ֶט ַפח ְל ָכאן – נִידּ ֹונִין ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ יו ָּמד‬ .‫וְ ִאם ָלאו – ֵאין נִידּ ֹונִין ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ יו ָּמד‬ ‫ דְּ יו ְּמ ֵדי סו ָּּכה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ֶט ַפח‬ .‫ישית ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֶט ַפח‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ִל‬,‫ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן‬

The Sages taught: If one inserted four posts into the ground and placed a roof over them, Rabbi Ya’akov says: One considers whether the posts are wide enough that if they were grooved and split,b forming a piece of wood with two segments at a right angle, and they have a handbreadth to here, in this direction, and a handbreadth to there, in that direction, then they are considered a double post [deyumad].l With regard to certain halakhot, the status of a double post positioned at a corner is that of two full-fledged partitions. And if not, if after splitting them they are narrower than that, they are not considered a double post, as Rabbi Ya’akov would say: The minimum measure of double posts of a sukka to be considered full-fledged partitions is one handbreadth. And the Rabbis say: The sukka is fit only if it has two full-fledged partitions in the standard sense, completely closing each of those two sides, and a third wall, which, based on a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, measures even a handbreadth.

?‫ ְמ ַנָלן‬.‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים״‬ ָ ‫״וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְ ּג‬

§ The mishna continues: A sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high is unfit. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha?

‫יֹוחנָ ן וְ ַרב‬ ָ ‫ ַרב וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ִא ְּת ַמר‬It was stated that Rav, and Rabbi Ĥanina, and Rabbi Yoĥanan, .ּ‫ ֲח ִב ָיבא ַמ ְתנו‬and Rav Ĥaviva taught the matter below. ‫ ָּכל ִּכי ַהאי זוּגָ א ֲחלו ֵּפי‬,‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּבכו ָּּל ּה ֵס ֶדר‬As an aside, the Gemara notes: Throughout the entire order of n .‫יֹוחנָן ו ְּמ ַעּיְ ִילי ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬Mo’ed, wherever this second pair of Sages is mentioned, there are some amora’im who replace Rabbi Yoĥanan and do so by inserting Rabbi Yonatan in his place.

Post viewed as if it has been carved into a corner language

Double post [deyumad] – ‫דְּ יו ָּמד‬: Rabbi Yirmeya teaches that this word is a Greek-Hebrew amalgam. It begins with the ancient Greek prefix δι-, di-, or δύο, duo-, meaning two, and ends with the Hebrew word amud, meaning post. Other authorities say that the whole word deyumad comes from the Greek δίδυμον, didumon, meaning double or paired.

‫ ָארֹון ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה וְ ַכ ּפ ֶֹורת ֶט ַפח – ֲה ֵרי ָּכאן‬And this is what they taught: The Ark of the Covenant was ‫נֹוע ְד ִּתי ְלךָ ׁ ָשם וְ ִד ַ ּב ְר ִּתי‬ ַ ְ‫ ״ו‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬itself nine handbreadths high, as it is stated explicitly in the Torah ‫ ִא ְּתךָ ֵמ ַעל ַה ַּכ ּפ ֶֹורת״‬that it was one and a half cubits high and the cubit used to measure Temple vessels consisted of six handbreadths. And the Ark cover was one handbreadth thick. There is a total height of ten handbreadths here. And it is written: “I will meet with you there and I will speak with you from above the Ark cover” (Exodus 25:22),

Perek I Daf 5 Amud a notes

The Divine Presence never descended – ‫ל ֹא יָ ְר ָדה ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה‬: The profound meaning of this matter is that the realm of God, Heaven, and the realm of man, Earth, are two discrete realms. Even when one achieves prophecy, or when God reveals Himself in the world below, the gap between the two realms remains. Instead, the person remains within his domain of ten handbreadths, and within his limitations, while God remains forever beyond the reality of this world. Some view the ten handbreadths as an allusion to the ten stages of spirituality (see HaKotev; Otzar HaKavod).

22 

Perek I . 5a . ‫ה ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫עֹולם ל ֹא יָ ְר ָדה‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָעל ּו מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ֵא ִלּיָ ה ּו‬,‫ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה ְל ַמ ָּטה‬ ‫״ה ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם ַלה׳‬ ַ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ַל ָּמרֹום‬ .‫וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ נָ ַתן ִל ְבנֵי ָא ָדם״‬

and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The Divine Presence never actually descendedn below, and Moses and Elijah never actually ascended to heaven on high, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the earth He gave to the children of man” (Psalms 115:16), indicating that these are two distinct domains. Apparently, from ten handbreadths upward is considered a separate domain. Consequently, any sukka that is not at least ten handbreadths high is not considered an independent domain and is unfit.

‫ ״וַ ּיֵ ֶרד‬:‫ וְ ל ֹא יָ ְר ָדה ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה ְל ַמ ָּטה?! וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬The Gemara asks: And did the Divine Presence never descend below ten handbreadths? But isn’t it written: “And God .‫ה׳ ַעל ַהר ִסינַי״! ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ descended onto Mount Sinai” (Exodus 19:20)? ‫ ״וְ ָע ְמד ּו ַרגְ ָליו ַ ּבּיֹום ַההוּא ַעל‬:‫וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬ The Gemara answers: Although God descended below, He al.‫יתים״! ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ִ ֵ‫ַהר ַהּז‬ ways remained ten handbreadths above the ground. Since from ten handbreadths and above it is a separate domain, in fact, the Divine Presence never descended to the domain of this world. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And on that day His feet will standn on the Mount of Olives” (Zechariah 14:4)? The Gemara answers: Here, too, He will remain ten handbreadths above the ground. :‫וְ ל ֹא ָעל ּו מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ֵא ִלּיָ ה ּו ַל ָּמרֹום?! וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫״ ּומ ׁ ֶֹשה ָע ָלה ֶאל ָה ֱאל ִֹהים״! ְל ַמ ָּטה‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיַ ַעל ֵא ִלּיָ ה ּו ַ ּב ְס ָע ָרה‬:‫ וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬.‫ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ :‫ וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם״! ְל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬,‫״מ ַא ֵחז ּ ְפנֵי ִכ ֵּסא ּ ַפ ְר ׁ ֵשז ָע ָליו ֲענָ נֹו״‬ ְ ‫ ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ּ ֵפ ֵיר ׁש ׁ ַשדַּ י ִמּזִ יו‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ַּתנְ חוּם‬ .‫ׁ ְש ִכינָ תֹו וַ ֲענָ נֹו ָע ָליו! ְל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬

The Gemara asks: And did Moses and Elijah never ascend to the heavens on high? But isn’t it written: “And Moses went up to God” (Exodus 19:3)? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, he remained below ten handbreadths adjacent to the ground. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenward” (II Kings 2:11)?n The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “He grasps the face of the throne, and spreads His cloud upon him” ( Job 26:9)? And Rabbi Tanĥum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread of the radiance of His Divine Presence and of His cloud upon him. Apparently, Moses was in the cloud with God. The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.

!‫״מ ַא ֵחז ּ ְפנֵי ִכ ֵּסא״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬The Gemara asks: In any case: “He grasps the face of the ‫יה ִּכ ֵּסא ַעד‬ ְ ׁ ‫יש ַּת ְר ּבו ֵּבי ִא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִא‬throne,” is written, indicating that Moses took hold of the ּ ‫יש ַּת ְר ֵ ּבב ֵל‬ The Gemara rejects this: The throne was ex.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ נָ ַקט ֵ ּב‬,‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬Throne of Glory. tended for himn down to ten handbreadths and Moses grasped it; however, he remained below ten handbreadths. And since the Divine Presence speaks to Moses from above the Ark cover ten handbreadths above the ground, clearly a height of ten handbreadths is a distinct domain. ‫ ״וְ ָע ׂש ּו‬:‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָארֹון ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ֲארֹון ֲעצֵ י ׁ ִש ִּטים ַא ָּמ ַתיִ ם וָ ֵחצִ י ָא ְר ּכֹו‬ .‫קֹומתֹו״‬ ָ ‫וְ ַא ָּמה וָ ֵחצִ י ָר ְח ּבֹו וְ ַא ָּמה וָ ֵחצִ י‬ :‫ֶא ָּלא ַּכ ּפ ֶֹורת ֶט ַפח ְמ ַנָלן? דְּ ָתנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ‫ָּכל ַה ֵּכ ִלים ׁ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה מ ׁ ֶֹשה נָ ְתנָ ה ָ ּב ֶהן ּת ָֹורה‬ .‫קֹומ ָתן‬ ָ ‫ִמדַּ ת ָא ְר ָּכן ו ִּמדַּ ת ָר ְח ָ ּבן ו ִּמדַּ ת‬ ,‫ַּכ ּפ ֶֹורת ִמדַּ ת ָא ְר ָּכ ּה ו ִּמדַּ ת ָר ְח ָ ּבה נָ ְתנָ ה‬ .‫קֹומ ָת ּה ל ֹא נָ ְתנָ ה‬ ָ ‫ִמדַּ ת‬

The Gemara wonders about the proof offered: Granted, the height of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: “And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height” (Exodus 25:10), and one and a half cubits equal nine handbreadths. However, from where do we derive the fact that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth? The Torah never states its dimensions explicitly, as Rabbi Ĥanina taught: For all the vessels that Moses crafted for the Tabernacle, the Torah provided in their regard the dimensionn of their length, the dimension of their width, and the dimension of their height. However, for the Ark cover, the Torah provided the dimension of its length and the dimension of its width; but the Torah did not provide the dimension of its height.n

:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫צֵ א ו ְּל ַמד ִמ ּ ָפחֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֵּכ ִלים‬ ‫ ַמה‬,‫ית לֹו ִמ ְס ֶ ּג ֶרת ט ַֹפח ָס ִביב״‬ ָ ‫״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬ ‫נֵילף ִמ ֵּכ ִלים‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ְּל ַה ָּלן ֶט ַפח – ַאף ָּכאן ֶט ַפח‬ ,‫גּ ו ַּפיְ יהוּ! ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת ְמרו ֶ ּּבה – ל ֹא ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת‬ .‫ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת מו ָּעט – ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת‬

The Gemara answers: Go out and learn from the smallest dimension mentioned in connection with any of the Tabernacle vessels, as it is stated with regard to the shewbread table: “And you shall make unto it a border of a handbreadth around” (Exodus 25:25). Just as there, the frame measures one handbreadth, so too, here, the thickness of the Ark cover measures a single handbreadth. The Gemara asks: And let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the vessels themselves, the smallest of which measures a cubit. The Gemara answers: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. If there are two possible sources from which to derive the dimension of the Ark cover, then without conclusive proof one may not presume that the Torah intended to teach the larger dimension. Rather, the presumption is that the Torah is teaching the smaller dimension, which is included in the larger measure.



notes

His feet will stand, etc. – ‫וְ ָע ְמד ּו ַרגְ ָליו וכו׳‬: The question arises: Rabbi Yosei spoke only of the past, and this verse refers to the future; perhaps in the future the Divine Presence will descend to this world? Nevertheless, based on the verse “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord” (Psalms 115:16), the separation is absolute and not merely temporary. Furthermore, the nature of reality will not change in the messianic era (Yad Ne’eman; Arukh LaNer). But isn’t it written: And Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenward – ‫וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב וַ ּיַ ַעל ֵא ִלּיָה ּו ַ ּב ְס ָע ָרה ַה ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם‬: It has already been noted that the term “heavenward” indicates only the direction in which he traveled, toward the heavens. It does not mean that he reached or even intended to reach the heavens (Yad Ne’eman). The throne was extended for him – ‫יש ַּת ְר ֵ ּבב‬ ְ ׁ ‫יש ַּת ְר ּבו ֵּבי ִא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִא‬ ‫יה ִּכ ֵּסא‬ ּ ‫ל‬:ֵ Although not even Moses, the greatest of all human beings, was able to reach beyond the human realm, he was able to reach further than any other man and come into contact with the transcendent when God revealed Himself to him in the Throne of Glory (see Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto and others). All the vessels…the Torah provided in their regard the dimension – ‫כל ַה ֵּכ ִלים…נָ ְתנָ ה ָ ּב ֶהן ּת ָֹורה ִמ ָידה‬:ָּ Although the Torah did not provide the dimensions of the candelabrum, the Sages derived its dimensions by means of allusions in the language of the Torah (Me’iri). The Ark cover…the Torah did not provide the dimension of its height – ‫קֹומ ָת ּה ל ֹא נָ ְתנָ ה‬ ָ ‫ת…מדַּ ת‬ ִ ‫כ ּפ ֶֹור‬:ַּ In an interpretation based on allusion, some explain that since the Ark cover is designated as the place for the Divine Presence to rest, it is inappropriate to assign it specific dimensions. Just as God’s essence is beyond the grasp of man, the Ark cover should transcend limitations and dimensions (HaBoneh).

‫ה ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 5a 

23

background

Frontplate – ‫צִ יץ‬: Some hold that there were different configurations of the frontplate, which would explain why Rabbi Eliezer described a different frontplate than the one described by the Rabbis. Alternatively, the gold of the frontplate was malleable and could be folded in different ways so that the appearance of the Divine Name was not always identical.

Frontplate according to the view of the Rabbis notes

Kodesh followed by lamed below – ‫ק ֶֹד ׁש למ״ד ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬: See the Halakha section (and Tosafot) for different opinions on this matter. An opinion cited in the Jerusalem Talmud states that the Divine Name was elevated above those surrounding it like a king sitting on his throne.

‫ֹומה ְּכ ִמין‬ ֶ ּ‫ צִ יץ ד‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫נֵילף ִמ ִ ּציץ‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ ,‫ וְ ָר ָחב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֶאצְ ָ ּבעֹות‬,‫ַטס ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב‬ ‫ וְ ָכתוּב ָע ָליו ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬,‫וּמו ָ ּּקף ֵמאֹזֶ ן ְלאֹזֶ ן‬ ‫ וְ ׳ק ֶֹד ׁש‬,‫ ‘יו״ד ה״א׳ ִמ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬:‫יטין‬ ִּ ‫ׁ ִש‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫למ״ד׳ ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬ ‫ וְ ָכתוּב‬,‫רֹומי‬ ִ ‫ ֲאנִי ְר ִא ִיתיו ְ ּב‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫יטה ַא ַחת‬ ָּ ‫ָע ָליו ״ק ֶֹד ׁש ַלה׳״ ְ ּב ׁ ִש‬

‫ וְ ֵא ין דָּ נִ ין ְּכ ִלי‬,‫ דָּ נִ ין ְּכ ִלי ִמ ְּכ ִלי‬The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from .‫ ִמ ַּת ְכ ׁ ִשיט‬the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of an ornament. The frontplate is not one of the Tabernacle vessels but one of the ornaments of the High Priest. ‫ זֵ ר ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשהוּ! דָּ נִין‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר‬,‫נֵילף ִמּזֵ ר‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין דָּ נִין ְּכ ִלי ֵמ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬,‫ְּכ ִלי ִמ ְּכ ִלי‬ ‫ ִמ ְס ֶ ּג ֶרת נַ ִמי ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ְּכ ִלי‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫ְּכ ִלי‬ .‫הוּא! ִמ ְס ַ ּג ְר ּתֹו ְל ַמ ָּטה ָהיְ ָתה‬

The Gemara suggests: Let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the crown featured atop several of the Tabernacle vessels, as the Master said: This crown, with regard to which the Torah did not specify its dimensions, could be any size. The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of the finish of a vessel that serves decorative purposes. The Gemara asks: If it is so that one does not derive the dimensions of a vessel from the dimensions of the finish of a vessel, then how can dimensions be derived from the border of the table, which is also the finish of a vessel and not an integral part of the table? The Gemara answers: The border of the table was below, between the legs of the table, and the tabletop rested upon it. As it supports the table, it is an integral part of the table and not merely decoration.

‫נִיחא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ְס ַ ּג ְר ּתֹו ְל ַמ ָּטה‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ְס ַ ּג ְר ּתֹו‬,‫ָהיְ ָתה‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה ָהיְ ָתה‬ !‫ַהאי ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ְּכ ִלי הוּא‬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that its border was below the tabletop; however, according to the one who said that its border was above the tabletop, what can be said? According to that opinion, this border is indeed the finish of a vessel.

‫ דָּ נִין דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְתנָ ה ּבֹו ּת ָֹורה‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ,‫ ִמדָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְתנָ ה ּבֹו ּת ָֹורה ִמדָּ ה‬,‫ִמדָּ ה‬ ‫יֹוכיח ּו צִ יץ וָ זֵ ר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נָ ְתנָ ה ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ִ ‫וְ ַאל‬ .‫ּת ָֹורה ִמדָּ ה ְּכ ָלל‬

Rather, the thickness of the Ark cover must be derived from a different source. One derives the missing dimensions of an object for which the Torah provided part of its dimension, e.g., the Ark cover, for which the Torah provided the dimensions of length and width, from an object for which the Torah provided its dimension, e.g., the border of the table. And the front­plate and the crown, for which the Torah did not provide any dimension at all, and their dimensions were determined by the Sages, will not prove anything. It is certainly appropriate to derive the dimension of the thickness of the Ark cover from that which was stated clearly in the Torah.

There is no face less than one handbreadth – ‫ֵאין ּ ָפנִים ּ ָפחֹות‬ ‫מ ֶּט ַפח‬:ִ An alternative explanation is that no part of any significant area which can be described as its face can measure less than a handbreadth. In matters of halakha, face does not refer to the entire face; rather, it refers to the area down to the nose. Even so, that too does not measure less than a handbreadth (Arukh LaNer). halakha

The configuration of the frontplate – ‫מ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ַה ִ ּציץ‬:ַ The frontplate was a gold plate, two fingerbreadths wide, and stretched from ear to ear. Upon it was etched kodesh laHashem, on two lines: Kodesh on the lower line, and laHashem on the upper line, contrary to the opinion in the Gemara. If it appears on one line, it is nevertheless fit. The Rambam rules in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, based on the version of the Gemara before him. He does not completely reject the testimony of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei. According to Tosafot, kodesh was followed by lamed on the lower line, and Hashem appeared on the upper line (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 9:1).

The Gemara asks: If so, let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate, which is even smaller than a handbreadth, as it is taught in a baraita: The frontplateb is a type of plate made of gold that is two fingerbreadths wide and stretches from ear to ear. And written upon it are two lines: The letters yod, heh, vav, heh, the name of God, above; and the word kodesh, spelled kuf, dalet, shin, followed by the letter lamed, below.n Together it spelled kodesh laHashem, meaning: Sacred to the Lord, with yod, heh, vav, heh written on the upper line in deference to the name of God. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei,p said: I saw the frontplate in the emperor’s treasury in Rome, where it was taken together with the other Temple vessels when the Temple was destroyed, and upon it was written: Sacred to the Lord, on one line.h Why not derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate and say that it was only two fingerbreadths?

‫״על ּ ְפנֵי‬ ַ :‫ ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ֵמ ָה ָכא‬Rav Huna said that the thickness of the Ark cover is derived ‫ ַה ַּכ ּפ ֶֹורת ֵק ְד ָמה״ – וְ ֵאין ּ ָפנִים ּ ָפחֹות‬from here: “Upon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the east” [panim] of a person that .‫( ִמ ֶּט ַפח‬Leviticus 16:14), and there is no face measures less than one handbreadth.n ‫ימא ְּכ ַא ּ ֵפי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: And why say that the face in the verse is specifically the face of a person? Say that the Ark cover is like the face Personalities

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫ר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:ַ Son diplomatic mission to Rome to seek the repeal of harsh decrees of the prominent tanna Rabbi Yosei ben Ĥalafta, Rabbi Eliezer imposed on the Jewish people. On their journey they succeedwas already recognized as a Torah scholar during the lifetime ed in healing the daughter of the emperor, and were rewarded of his father, and some of his halakhic and aggadic statements with a tour of the royal treasury in Rome. It was there that Rabbi appear in the Gemara. Eliezer saw the Temple vessels that had been plundered from Rabbi Eliezer partnered with Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai on a Jerusalem, and he reported some of what he had seen.

24 

Perek I . 5a . ‫ה ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Perek I Daf 5 Amud b ,‫יֹוכנִי! ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת ְמרו ֶ ּּבה – ל ֹא ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַבר‬ ‫ימא ְּכ ַא ּ ֵפי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬.‫ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת מו ָּעט – ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת‬ ‫ דְּ זו ַּטר טו ָּבא! ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא‬,‫דְּ צִ ּ ָיפ ְר ָּתא‬ ‫״פנֵי״ ּ ְפנֵי ָ ּג ַמר; ְּכ ִתיב‬ ְ ּ ‫ ַרב הוּנָ א‬:‫ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬,‫״אל ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּכ ּפ ֶֹורת״‬ ֶ :‫ָה ָכא‬ .‫״מ ֵאת ּ ְפנֵי יִ צְ ָחק ָא ִביו״‬ ֵ

of a bird called bar Yokhani,b whose face is significantly larger than a handbreadth? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. The Gemara asks: If so, say that it is like the face of a bird,b which is extremely small? Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: Rav Huna derives that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth not through an actual comparison to the real faces of different creatures but rather by means of a verbal analogy between the terms penei and penei written in different places in the Torah. It is written here: “Before [penei] the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2), and it is written there: “From the presence of [penei] Isaac his father” (Genesis 27:30). The dimension of the Ark cover is like that of the face of a person, a handbreadth.

‫״כ ְראֹות‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from ִּ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫נֵילף ִמ ּ ָפנִים ׁ ֶשל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ n – ‫ ּ ְפנֵי ֱאל ִֹהים וַ ִּת ְרצֵ נִי״! ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת ְמרו ֶ ּּבה‬the face of God, as it is written: “For I have seen your face as .‫ ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת מו ָּעט – ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת‬,‫ ל ֹא ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת‬one sees the face of [penei] God, and you were pleased with me” (Genesis 33:10). The term penei is used with regard to the face of God as well. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. ‫״אל ַה ַּכ ּפ ֶֹורת יִ ְהי ּו‬ ֶ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫נֵילף ִמ ְּכרוּב‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from n !‫ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ְּכרו ִּבים״‬the face of the cherub in the Tabernacle and the Temple, as it is written: “Toward the Ark cover shall be the faces of [penei] the cherubs” (Exodus 25:20), and their faces were presumably smaller than one handbreadth. ‫ ֵאין ּ ְפנֵי‬:‫ ְ ּג ִמ ִירי‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: We have learned through tradition ‫ וְ ַרב הוּנָ א נַ ִמי‬.‫ ְכרו ִּבים ּ ְפחו ִּתין ִמ ֶּט ַפח‬that the faces of the cherubs were not smaller than a hand.‫ ֵמ ָה ָכא ָ ּג ֵמיר‬breadth, and indeed Rav Huna derived the thickness of the Ark cover from here as well, i.e., from the verbal analogy between the instances of the word penei in the verses: “Upon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the east” and: “The faces [penei] of the cherubs,” indicating that both are the same size.

background

Bar Yokhani – ‫יֹוכנִי‬ ָ ‫בר‬:ּ ַ While the identity of this bird is unclear, in the days of the Sages of the Talmud, the giant Aepyornis bird still lived on the island of Madagascar and perhaps in other places as well. Reports of its existence reached far and wide.

Reconstruction of Aepyornis Bird – ‫צִ ּ ָיפ ְר ָּתא‬: When the Talmud refers to a bird without specifying its species, it generally is referring to the sparrow, whose face is obviously considerably smaller than a handbreadth. notes

From the face of God – ‫מ ּ ָפנִים ׁ ֶשל ַמ ְע ָלה‬:ִ Some explain that this refers to the face of angels when they appear in human form with a face and standing upright (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of the cherub – ‫נֵילף ִמ ְּכרוּב‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬: The cherubs were shorter than a person, as they were only ten handbreadths high, in contrast to a person, who is at least eighteen handbreadths tall. Therefore, it would stand to reason that their faces were also smaller than the face of a person. The Gemara responds that even the faces of the cherubs were no smaller than a handbreadth (Arukh LaNer).

,‫ ְּכ ַר ְביָ א‬:ּ‫ ו ַּמאי ְּכרוּב? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו‬Apropos the cherubs, the Gemara asks: And what is the form .‫נֹוקא ַר ְביָ א‬ ָ ָ‫קֹורין ְלי‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְ ּב ָב ֶבל‬of the face of a cherub [keruv]? Rabbi Abbahu said: Like that of a child [keravya], as in Babylonia one calls a child ravya. :‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫״פנֵי ָה ֶא ָחד ּ ְפנֵי ַה ְּכרוּב ו ְּפנֵי ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ּ ְפנֵי‬ ְּ ‫ָא ָדם״ ַהיְ ינ ּו ְּכרוּב ַהיְ ינ ּו ָא ָדם! ַא ּ ֵפי ַר ְב ְר ֵבי‬ .‫וְ ַא ּ ֵפי זו ְּט ָרא‬

Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so, what is the meaning of that which is written about the faces of the celestial beasts drawing the celestial chariot: “The face of the first was the face of the cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a man” (Ezekiel 10:14)? According to your explanation, this face of the cherub is the same as that face of a man. The Gemara answers: Although two of the celestial beasts drawing that chariot had the face of a man, the difference between them is that one was a large face and one was a small face. In other words, the face described as the face of a man was the face of an adult, and the face described as the face of a cherub was that of a child. This is the source that the Ark and the Ark cover were ten handbreadths high.

?‫ ּו ִמ ַּמאי דַּ ֲח ָל ָל ּה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ַ ּבר ִמ ְּס ָכ ָכ ּה‬However, with regard to the application of this measure to !‫ימא ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ְס ָכ ָכ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬the halakhot of sukka, the Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the interior space of the sukka must be ten handbreadths high without the thickness of the roofing? Say that the ten handbreadths of the sukka are with the thickness of the roofing. Just as the ten handbreadths of the Ark are measured from the bottom of the Ark to the top of the Ark cover, let the sukka be measured to the top of the roofing. 

‫ה ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 5b 

25

background

The height of the first cherub was ten cubits – ‫קֹומת‬ ַ ‫ה ְּכרוּב ָה ֶא ָחד ֶע ֶ ׂשר ָ ּב ַא ָּמה‬:ַ

Cherubs in Solomon’s Temple notes

Intermediate cubits – ‫א ּמֹות ֵ ּבינֹונִּיֹות‬:ַ See Rashi, who explains that there were cubits of different lengths all referred to as six-handbreadth cubits: One that was six handbreadths, one slightly larger, and another slightly smaller. These other cubits were called expansive, slightly larger than average; and depressed, slightly smaller than average. The Gemara here is referring to an intermediate cubit between those two. The Me’iri explains that since there are also five-handbreadth and seven-handbreadth cubits, the six-handbreadth cubit is intermediate.

:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫עֹול ִמים ָ ּג ַמר‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִמ ֵ ּבית‬ ‫״וְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָ ּבנָ ה ַה ֶּמ ֶל ְך ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ַלה׳‬ ‫ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים ַא ָּמ ה ָא ְר ּכֹו וְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ָר ְח ּב ֹו‬ ‫״קֹומת‬ ַ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫קֹומתֹו״‬ ָ ‫ו ׁ ְּשל ׁ ִֹשים ַא ָּמה‬ ‫ַה ְּכרוּב ָה ֶא ָחד ֶע ֶ ׂשר ָ ּב ַא ָּמה וְ ֵכן ַה ְּכרוּב‬ – ‫עֹול ִמים‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ָּמצִ ינ ּו ְ ּב ֵבית‬:‫ וְ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי״‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכן‬,‫עֹומ ִדין‬ ְ ‫ְּכרו ִּבים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִל ׁיש ַה ַ ּביִ ת ֵהן‬ .‫עֹומ ִדין‬ ְ ‫נַ ִמי ְּכרו ִּבים ׁ ְש ִל ׁיש ַה ַ ּביִ ת ֵהן‬

Rather, the dimension of the sukka is not derived from the Ark; one instead derived it from the dimensions of the eternal Temple, as it is written: “And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits” (I Kings 6:2). And it is written: “The height of the first cherub was ten cubits,b and likewise was the second cherub” (I Kings 6:26). And it is taught in a baraita: Just as we find in the eternal Temple that the cherubs stand reaching one-third the height of the Temple, as each cherub was ten cubits high and the Temple was thirty cubits high, in the Tabernacle as well, the cherubs stand reaching one-third the height of the Tabernacle.

:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכן ַּכ ָּמה ָהוֵ י – ֶע ֶ ׂשר ַא ּמֹות‬ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה ָהוֵ י‬.‫אֹור ְך ַה ָ ּק ֶר ׁש״‬ ֶ ‫״ע ֶ ׂשר ַא ּמֹות‬ ֶ ‫יה ַּכ ָּמה‬ ִּ ‫ְלה ּו – ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫ ִּת ְל ֵּת‬.‫יתין ּפ ּו ׁ ְש ֵכי‬ ‫ דַּ ל ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה דְּ ָארֹון‬.‫ָהוֵ י – ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ּפו ׁ ְּש ֵכי‬ ‫ ״וְ ָהי ּו‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫וְ ַכ ּפ ֶֹורת – ּ ָפ ׁש ּו ְלה ּו ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ‫סֹוכ ִכים‬ ְ ‫ַה ְּכרו ִּבים ּפ ְֹור ֵ ׂשי ְכנָ ַפיִ ם ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫יה ַר ְח ָמנָ א‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב ַכנְ ֵפ‬ ּ ֵ‫ ַק ְרי‬.‫יהם ַעל ַה ַּכ ּפ ֶֹורת״‬ .‫ְס ָכ ָכ ּה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬

And to calculate: How many cubits high was the Tabernacle? It was ten cubits, as it is written: “Ten cubits shall be the length of a beam” (Exodus 26:16). How many handbreadths do these ten cubits contain? They contain sixty handbreadths. And one third of that total is how many? It is twenty handbreadths. Subtract from this figure ten handbreadths of the Ark and the Ark cover upon which the cherubs stood, and ten handbreadths remain, which was the height of each individual cherub. And it is written: “And the cherubs shall spread out their wings upward, screening [sokhekhim] the Ark cover with their wings” (Exodus 25:20). Here the Merciful One is referring to the wings using the terminology of roofing [sekhakha] specifically when they are ten handbreadths above the Ark cover. This is a source that the roofing of the sukka is placed at least ten handbreadths high.

?‫ימי‬ ִ ְ‫ישיְ יה ּו ָקי‬ ַ ׁ ‫ִמ ַּמאי דְּ גַ ְד ִפינְ ה ּו ִע ָילוֵ י ֵר‬ ‫ימי! ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ִ ְ‫ישיְ יה ּו ָקי‬ ַ ׁ ‫דִּ ְל ָמא ַל ֲה ֵדי ֵר‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬.‫״ל ַמ ְע ָלה״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ְ :‫ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ‫״ל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ְ ‫דְּ ִמ ְיד ֵלי ט ו ָּבא! ִמי ְּכ ִתיב‬ ?‫ְל ַמ ְע ָלה״‬

The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that their wings were spread above their heads, from which it is derived that roofing is ten handbreadths high? Perhaps they were spread level with their heads. In that case, the ten handbreadths derived would include the roofing, leaving the interior space of the sukka less than ten handbreadths high. Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said that it is written: “Spread out their wings upward,” indicating that the wings were above their heads. The Gemara asks: If so, say that the wings were extremely high to an unspecified height. The Gemara answers: Does the verse say: Upward, upward? It says upward only once, meaning slightly over their heads. There is proof from the verses that the roofing was at least ten handbreadths off the ground.

‫ ָּכל ָה ַא ּמֹות‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫נִיחא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ָהי ּו ֵ ּבינֹונִּיֹות‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל ֵּכ ִלים‬,‫ַא ָּמה ׁ ֶשל ִ ּבנְיָ ן ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬

The Gemara asks: This calculation works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said that all the cubits in the Tabernacle and the Temple were intermediate cubits,n consisting of six handbreadths; however, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the cubit used in the dimensions of a building in the Temple was a cubit consisting of six handbreadths, but the cubit used in the dimensions of vessels was a cubit consisting of only five handbreadths, what is there to say?

‫ ָארֹון וְ ַכ ּפ ֶֹורת ַּכ ָּמה ָהוֵ י ְלה ּו – ְּת ַמנְ יָ א‬Based on that calculation, how many handbreadths was the height of ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫ ּ ָפ ׁש ּו ְלה ּו ַחד ְס ֵרי ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא‬,‫ ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא‬the Ark and the Ark cover? They totaled eight and a half hand!‫ סו ָּּכה ַעד דְּ ָהוְ יָ א ַחד ְס ֵרי ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא‬breadths. The height of the Ark was one and a half cubits, which, based on a five-handbreadth cubit, equals seven and a half handbreadths. Including the additional handbreadth of the Ark cover, the total height is eight and a half handbreadths. If the cherubs were one third of the height of the Tabernacle, which is twenty handbreadths, eleven and a half handbreadths remain for the height of the cherubs, over which their wings were spread. Therefore, say that for a sukka to be fit for use its interior space must be eleven and a half handbreadths high. However, there is no recorded opinion that requires a sukka with that dimension. .‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְ ּג ִמ ִירי ָל ּה‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ :‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ׁ ִשיעו ִּרין ֲחצִ יצִ ין ו ְּמ ִחיצִ ין ֲה ָל ָכה ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה‬ .‫ִמ ִּסינַי‬

26 

Perek I . 5b . ‫ה ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Sages learned the minimum height of a sukka as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. As Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The measures in various areas of halakha, e.g., olive-bulk, dried fig-bulk, egg-bulk, and the various halakhot of interpositions that serve as a barrier between one’s body and the water in a ritual bath and invalidate immersions, and the dimensions and nature of halakhic partitions are all halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. They were not written in the Torah; rather, they were received in the framework of the Oral Law.

:‫יתא נִינְ הוּ! דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ׁ ִשיעו ִּרין? ד‬ ‫עֹורה וְ גֶ ֶפן ו ְּת ֵאנָ ה וְ ִר ּמֹון‬ ָ ‫ּש‬ ׂ ְ ‫״א ֶרץ ִח ָּטה ו‬ ֶ :‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ָחנִין‬,‫ֶא ֶרץ זֵ ית ׁ ֶש ֶמן ו ְּד ָב ׁש״‬ .‫ָּכל ַה ּ ָפסוּק ַהּזֶ ה ְל ׁ ִשיעו ִּרין נֶ ֱא ַמר‬

The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah,h as it is written: “A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav Ĥanin said: This entire verse is stated for the purpose of teaching measuresn with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.

‫ ַה ִּנ ְכנָ ס‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַ ן‬,‫ִח ָּטה ְל ַביִ ת ַה ְמנו ָ ּּגע‬ ,‫ וְ ֵכ ָליו ַעל ְּכ ֵת ָפיו‬,‫ְל ַביִ ת ַה ְמנו ָ ּּגע‬ ‫עֹותיו ְ ּביָ דֹו – הוּא וְ ֵהן‬ ָ ‫וְ ַסנְ דָּ ָליו וְ ַט ְ ּב‬ .‫ְט ֵמ ִאין ִמּיָ ד‬

Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure when entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who enters a house afflicted with leprosyh of the house (see Leviticus, chapter 14), and his clothes are draped over his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure.

halakha

Measures by Torah law – ‫שיעו ֵּרי ּת ָֹורה‬: ִ ׁ All measures by Torah law are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 14:2). One who enters a house afflicted with leprosy – ‫ַה ִּנ ְכנָס ְל ַביִ ת‬ ‫ה ְמנו ָ ּּגע‬:ַ One who enters a house afflicted with leprosy becomes ritually impure immediately. With regard to his garments, if he was carrying them, then they, too, become ritually impure immediately. If he was wearing them, they become ritually impure only if he remained in the house for a period of time sufficient to eat half a loaf of bread (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Tzara’at 16:7). notes

This entire verse is stated for the purpose of teaching measures – ‫כל ַה ּ ָפסוּק ַהּזֶ ה ְל ׁ ִשיעו ִּרין נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:ָּ According to this opinion, not only is there an allusion to these measures in the verse, but a halakha is derived from it as well: All of these measures are based on the produce of Eretz Yisrael in terms of both size and quality (Sefat Emet).

Perek I Daf 6 Amud a ,‫ָהיָ ה ָלב ּו ׁש ֵּכ ָליו וְ ַסנְ דָּ ָליו ְ ּב ַרגְ ָליו‬ ‫עֹותיו – הוּא ָט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫עֹותיו ְ ּב ֶאצְ ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫וְ ַט ְ ּב‬ ‫הֹורים ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ְש ֶהה ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵהן ְט‬,‫ִמּיָ ד‬ ‫ ּ ַפת ִח ִּטין וְ ל ֹא ּ ַפת‬,‫ילת ּ ְפ ָרס‬ ַ ‫ֲא ִכ‬ .‫אֹוכל ְ ּב ִל ְיפ ָּתן‬ ֵ ְ‫יסב ו‬ ֵ ‫ ֵמ‬,‫עֹורין‬ ִ ‫ְ ׂש‬

However, if he was dressedh 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,n 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.

‫עֹורה ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ ָ ‫ ֶעצֶ ם ַּכ ּ ְ ׂש‬:‫עֹורה – דִּ ְתנַן‬ ָ ‫ ְ ׂש‬Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned h .‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא ָ ּבא ֶֹהל‬,‫ ְ ּב ַמ ַ ּגע ו ְּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬in 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. .‫יעית יַ יִ ן ַל ָּנזִ יר‬ ִ ‫ ֶ ּג ֶפן – ְּכ ֵדי ְר ִב‬The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite.nh A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure. .‫ ְּת ֵאנָ ה – ִּכגְ רֹוגֶ ֶרת ְלהֹוצָ ַאת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulkb with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat.hn One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food. ‫ ָּכל ְּכ ֵלי ַב ֲע ֵלי ָב ִּתים‬:‫ ִרמֹון – דִּ ְתנַ ן‬Pomegranate teaches the following measure, as we learned .‫ ׁ ִשיעו ָּרן ָּכ ִר ּמֹונִים‬in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken,h as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual im­pur­ity. They are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates. notes

Wheat bread, etc. – ‫פת ִח ִּטין וכו׳‬:ַ ּ All these measures are stringencies as they curtail the periods of time required to become impure: Wheat bread is eaten more quickly than barley bread, one who sits comfortably can eat faster, and similarly, one who dips his bread in a condiment is able to eat it more quickly. A quarter-log of wine for a nazirite – ‫יעית יַ יִ ן ַל ּנָזִ יר‬ ִ ‫ר ִב‬:ְ The early commentaries wondered with regard to this measurement (see Tosafot), as ostensibly this is not a measure; rather, it is the definition of the prohibition itself. Rashi and others explain that the quarter-log discussed here is a measure specific to wine, as opposed to other liquids. Since wine is thicker



than water, one measures the volume of the quarter-log prohibited to a nazirite using wine (see Rashi). More simply, the quarter-log of wine prohibited to a nazirite is not measured with a cup of water but with a cup of wine, which is slightly greater both in terms of weight and in terms of density.

halakha

A dressed person in a house afflicted with leprosy – ‫ָא ָדם ָלבו ּׁש‬ ‫ב ַביִ ת ַה ְּמנֻ ָ ּגע‬:ּ ְ One who entered a house afflicted with leprosy becomes ritually impure immediately. The clothing he was wearing, however, remains ritually pure as long as he does not stay in the house for the period of time it take to eats a half-loaf of wheat bread with a condiment. The volume of a half-loaf of bread is three egg-bulks according to the Rambam, and four egg-bulks according to Rashi and the Tur (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Tzara’at 16:6). A bone the size of a grain of barley – ‫עֹורה‬ ָ ‫עצֶ ם ַּכ ּ ְ ׂש‬:ֶ A bone from a corpse that is at least the size of a grain of barley impurifies people or objects that come into contact with it or carry it, but that impurity is not transmitted by a tent (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 3:2). A quarter-log of wine for a nazirite – ‫יעית יַ יִ ן ַל ּנָזִ יר‬ ִ ‫ר ִב‬:ְ A nazirite who drinks a quarter-log of wine is flogged, as he has violated a Torah prohibition (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nezirut 5:2). A dried fig-bulk with regard to carrying out on Shabbat – ‫כגְ רֹוגֶ ֶרת ְלהֹוצָ ַאת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ִּ If one carries a dried fig-bulk of food that is fit for consumption by people from one domain to another on Shabbat, he is liable for performing the prohibited labor of carrying out on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 18:1). Ritual purification of vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners – ‫ט ֳה ַרת ְּכ ֵלי ַב ֲע ֵלי ָב ִּתים‬:ָ If a wooden vessel designated as used by an ordinary homeowner has a hole large enough for a pomegranate to pass through, it is considered broken. If it was ritually impure, it reverts to a state of ritual purity (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 6:2). background

Dried fig-bulk – ‫כגְ רֹוגֶ ֶרת‬:ִּ The dried fig-bulk is the measure for which one is liable for performing any form of prohibited labor involving food on Shabbat. Consequently, one who bakes less than a fig-bulk of bread is not liable to bring a sin-offering. Likewise, one who carries food from one domain to another is liable to bring a sin-offering only if he carried a fig-bulk of food. A fig-bulk is slightly larger than an olive-bulk, but smaller than a date-bulk. Its precise size is subject to dispute.

A dried fig-bulk with regard to carrying out on Shabbat – ‫כגְ רֹוגֶ ֶרת ְלהֹוצָ ַאת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ִּ This measure is not unique to the halakhot of carrying on Shabbat; rather, it also applies to prohibited labors involving preparation of food. The reason that carrying is mentioned here is that this measure appears explicitly in that context, and therefore no elaboration is necessary (Emek Sukkot). ‫ו ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 6a 

27

halakha

A large date-bulk on Yom Kippur – ‫ֹות ֶבת ַה ַ ּג ָּסה ְ ּביֹום‬ ֶ ‫ּכ‬ ‫ה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:ַ One who eats a large date-bulk, which is slightly smaller than an egg-bulk, of food on Yom Kippur is liable (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 612:1). Interposition with regard to immersion – ‫חצִ יצָ ה ִ ּב ְט ִב ָילה‬:ֲ One who immerses in order to purify himself from ritual impurity must immerse his entire body all at once. There should not be anything on his body that interposes between him and the water ab initio. If there is an item on his body that an individual is generally particular about removing, it interposes regardless of its size. However, if it is an item with regard to which an individual is generally not particular and would not normally remove it, then it does not interpose unless it covers most of one’s body (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 198:1). Interposition with regard to hair – ‫חצִ יצָ ה ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָערֹות‬:ֲ Two or more hairs knotted together do not interpose, contrary to the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ĥana and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan, who disagrees with him in tractate Nazir (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol; Rambam; Tur). Some say that one should not immerse with two hairs knotted together ab initio; however, they do not interpose after the fact (Beit Yosef, citing the Rashba; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; others). However, a knot in one hair interposes, but that is the case only where the individual is particular about it. In a case where the individual is not particular about it, knotted hair does not interpose until a majority of the hairs are so knotted (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 198:5). notes

When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach it comes to teach an interposition in one’s hair – ‫ִּכי ֲא ַתאי‬ ‫ה ְל ְכ ָתא ִל ְ ׂש ָערֹו‬:ִ In the Rishon LeTziyyon the following question is raised: Why not say that the fundamental halakha that hair requires immersion is derived from here? The answer suggested there is that the halakhot of immersion are derived from the halakhot of interposition (see Ĥiddushei Rabbi Yisrael MiKozhnitz). language

Hair [nima] – ‫נִימא‬: ָ From the Greek νῆμα, nema, meaning string.

‫״א ֶרץ זֵ ית ׁ ֶש ֶמן (ו ְּד ָב ׁש)״ ֶא ֶרץ ׁ ֶש ָּכל‬ ֶ ‫יה ָס ְל ָקא‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ִשיעו ֶּר‬.‫יה ַּכּזֵ ִיתים‬ ָ ‫ׁ ִשיעו ֶּר‬ ‫דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ?! ָהא ִא ָּיכא ָהנֵי דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן! ֶא ָּלא‬ .‫יתים‬ ִ ֵ‫יה ַּכּז‬ ָ ‫ימא ׁ ֶשרֹוב ׁ ִשיעו ֶּר‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬

The Sages interpreted: “A land of olive oil and honey,” as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks.b 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.

‫כֹות ֶב ת ַה ַ ּג ָּס ה ְ ּביֹום‬ ֶ ‫ דְּ ַב ׁש – ְּכ‬Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also deter.‫ ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬mines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulkb of food.h ,‫ וְ ִת ְס ְ ּב ָרא‬.ּ‫יתא נִינְ הו‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ַא ְל ָמא ד‬Apparently, all these halakhic measurements are derived from this ּ ‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬:‫ ׁ ִשיעו ִּרין ִמי ְּכ ִת ִיבי? ֶא ָלא‬verse in the Torah and are not halakhot transmitted to Moses from .‫ ו ְּק ָרא ַא ְס ַמ ְכ ָּתא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬,ּ‫ נִינְ הו‬Sinai. 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. :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יתא נִינְ ה ּו‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ֲחצִ יצִ ין ד‬Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Ashi said earlier that Rav said that the halakhot h ‫(את ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו) ַ ּב ַּמיִ ם״ – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ֵיְהא‬ ֶ ‫ ״וְ ָר ַחץ‬governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are hal!‫ דָּ ָבר חֹוצֵ ץ ֵ ּבינֹו ְל ֵבין ַה ַּמיִ ם‬akhot 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. ‫ ִּכ ְד ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר‬,‫ִּכי ֲא ַתאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ִל ְ ׂש ָערֹו‬ ‫נִימא‬ ָ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ א‬.‫ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬ ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש – ֵאינָן‬,‫ַא ַחת ְק ׁשו ָּרה – חֹוצֶ צֶ ת‬ .‫יֹוד ַע‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ֵאינִי‬.‫חֹוצְ צֹות‬

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 hairn invalidates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ĥana, as Rabba bar bar Ĥana said: A single hair [nima]l 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.

:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,ּ‫יתא נִינְ הו‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ְ ׂש ָערֹו נַ ִמי ד‬The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to one’s hair ‫״את״‬ ֶ – ‫ ״וְ ָר ַחץ ֶאת ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו ַ ּב ַּמיִ ם״‬is also written in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita with regard !‫ ו ַּמאי נִיה ּו – ְ ׂש ָערֹו‬,‫ ַה ָּט ֵפל ִל ְב ָ ׂשרֹו‬to 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.h .‫ ִּכי ֲא ַתאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא – ְל ִכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬from 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 Yitzĥak, as Rabbi Yitzĥak said:

background

Olive-bulk – ‫כזַ ּיִ ת‬:ַּ An olive-bulk is one of the most significant halakhic units of volume. By Torah law, the act of eating is defined as consuming one olive-bulk, and every Torah law that either commands or prohibits eating refers to this measure. The measure is defined in terms of the water displacement of a particular strain of olive, and the precise size of this measurement is not clear. One talmudic passage indicates that it is almost half an egg-bulk, and another indicates that it is less than one-

28 

Perek I . 6a . ‫ו ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

third of an egg-bulk. Given the range of opinions concerning the measure of an egg-bulk, the opinions with regard to the measure of an olive-bulk range from 15 cc to 50 cc. Large date-bulk – ‫כֹות ֶבת ַה ַ ּג ָּסה‬ ֶ ‫כ‬:ְּ A large date-bulk is larger than an olive-bulk but smaller than an egg-bulk. One who eats on Yom Kippur is liable to receive karet, but only if he eats at least a large date-bulk of food.

Perek I Daf 6 Amud b ,‫ רו ּּבֹו ו ַּמ ְק ּ ִפיד ָע ָליו – חֹוצֵ ץ‬,‫דְּ ַבר ּת ָֹורה‬ .‫וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַמ ְק ּ ִפיד ָע ָליו – ֵאינֹו חֹוצֵ ץ‬ ‫וְ גָ זְ ר ּו ַעל רו ּּבֹו ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַמ ְק ּ ִפיד ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ‫ וְ ַעל ִמיעוּטֹו ַה ַּמ ְק ּ ִפיד‬,‫רו ּּבֹו ַה ַּמ ְק ּ ִפיד‬ .‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם רו ּּבֹו ַה ַּמ ְק ּ ִפיד‬

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 itn 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.

‫ וְ ִליגְ זַ ר נַ ִמי ַעל ִמיעוּטֹו ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַמ ְק ּ ִפיד‬The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree ‫ ִאי נַ ִמי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִמיעוּטֹו ַה ַּמ ְק ּ ִפיד‬deeming substances covering the minority of one’s body with !‫ רו ּּבֹו ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַמ ְק ּ ִפיד‬regard 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. ‫ וַ ֲאנַ ן נֵיקוּם וְ נִ גְ זַ ר‬,‫ ִהיא גּ ו ָּפא ְ ּגזֵ ָירה‬The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree because the ?‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ִלגְ זֵ ָירה‬halakha 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.

notes

The majority of his body and he is particular about it – ‫רו ּּבֹו‬ ‫ו ַּמ ְק ּ ִפיד ָע ָליו‬: The commentaries and halakhic authorities disagree whether majority in this passage is referring to a majority of the hair (Rashi) or a majority of the body (Rabbeinu Tam; Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rashba). Similarly, they disagree whether the hair is considered as a separate entity, in which case if there is an interposition on the majority of the hair it invalidates the immersion (ge’onim; Rashi; Rabbeinu Yeruĥam; Ra’avad; Rosh), or whether the hair is merely considered part of the body, in which case an interposition in the majority of one’s hair would invalidate the immersion only if it constitutes part of an interposition on the majority of his body as well (Rambam). The rationale for the opinion of the ge’onim is that there are apparently two verses, one for the hair and one for the body. Consequently, each has an independent halakhic status (Tosefot Rabbeinu Peretz). Two in the standard sense – ‫ש ַּתיִ ם ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן‬: ְ ׁ Some explain that in the standard sense means that the two walls are adjacent and not parallel (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). halakha

Three walls in a sukka – ‫של ֹׁש דְּ ָפנֹות ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬: ָ ׁ A full-fledged sukka consists of two complete walls, each at least seven handbreadths and a bit long, and a third wall that measures as little as a single handbreadth, provided that the configuration of the walls is as prescribed in the Gemara (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:2).

‫נִיחא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ָה‬.‫יצין – ָהא דַּ ֲא ָמ ַרן‬ ּ ִ ‫ ְמ ִח‬The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the minimum ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַמאי ִא‬,‫ יְ הו ָּדה‬height for partitions is ten handbreadths is as we stated earlier. ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ ְל ֵמ‬The 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? ‫דֹופן‬ ֶ ְ‫ ִּכי ֲא ַתאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא – ְלגֹוד וְ ָלבוּד ו‬When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is with .‫ ֲעקו ָּּמה‬regard 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. .‫״וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש דְּ ָפנֹות״‬

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

‫ישית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ִל‬,‫ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In order to construct a fit sukka, n ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֶט ַפח‬two 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 .‫יעית ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֶט ַפח‬ ִ ‫ ו ְּר ִב‬,‫ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן‬ 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. 

‫ו ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 6b 

29

notes

The vocalization and the tradition of the text are authoritative – ‫סֹורת‬ ֶ ‫אם ַל ִּמ ְק ָרא וְ ַל ָּמ‬:ֵ This dispute appears in several discussions in the rabbinic literature. In fact, neither opinion entirely excludes the other, as everyone agrees that both the vocalization and the traditional text must be taken into consideration (see Tosafot). The dispute is only with regard to instances where the conclusions derived by means of the two approaches are contradictory. When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes – ‫ִּכי ֲא ַתאי‬ ‫ה ְל ְכ ָתא‬:ִ Some explain that the halakha that a wall measuring a single handbreadth in length can be considered a complete wall is an extension of the halakhic category of extending the partition [gode], typically employed to raise and lower a partition. In this case, rather than raising or lowering, it is extended horizontally (Rashash). However, others hold that gode is limited to vertical and not horizontal extensions. Furthermore, several sources indicate that the horizontal extension of a sukka wall is based on an independent tradition (Emek Sukkot).

‫ יֵ ׁש ֵאם‬:‫יפ ְלגִ י? ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי‬ ַ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ‬The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? ‫ יֵ ׁש ֵאם‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָס ַבר‬,‫סֹורת‬ ֶ ‫ ַל ָּמ‬The Rabbis hold: The tradition of the manner in which the verses .‫ ַל ִּמ ְק ָרא‬in 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,n meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling. ‫״ב ֻּס ּכֹת‬ ּ ַ ,‫סֹורת‬ ֶ ‫ יֵ ׁש ֵאם ַל ָּמ‬:‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬With regard to sukka, the Rabbis hold: The tradition of the verses ,‫ ַ ּב ֻּס ּכֹת ַ ּב ֻּס ּכֹות״ – ֲה ֵרי ָּכאן ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬is 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]l shall you reside seven days; all that are homeborn 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. .‫יה – ּ ָפ ׁש ּו ְלה ּו ְּת ָל ָתא‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ל ַחד ְלגו ֵּפ‬Subtract one to teach the mitzva of sukka itself, and three remain. ‫ וַ ֲא ַתאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬,‫ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן‬These three remaining sukkot teach that the sukka requires three .‫אֹוק ָמ ּה ַא ֶּט ַפח‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ישית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וּגְ ַר ֲע ָת ּה ִל ׁ ְש ִל‬walls; 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. :‫ יֵ ׁש ֵאם ַל ִּמ ְק ָרא‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָס ַבר‬ ‫״ב ֻּס ּכֹות ַ ּב ֻּס ּכֹות ַ ּב ֻּס ּכֹות״ – ֲה ֵרי ָּכאן‬ ַּ ‫יה – ּ ָפ ׁש ּו ְלה ּו‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ל ַחד ְק ָרא ְלגו ֵּפ‬,‫ׁ ֵש ׁש‬ ‫ ֲא ַתאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬,‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן‬.‫ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ .‫אֹוק ְמ ָת ּה ַא ֶּט ַפח‬ ַ ְ‫יעית ו‬ ִ ‫וּגְ ַר ֲע ָת ּה ִל ְר ִב‬

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.

‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא יֵ ׁש‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬ ;‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ‬,‫ֵאם ַל ִּמ ְק ָרא‬ :‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ ְס ָכ ָכה ָ ּב ֲעיָ א ְק ָרא‬:‫ָמר ָס ַבר‬ .‫ְס ָכ ָכה ָלא ָ ּב ֲעיָ א ְק ָרא‬

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.

‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא יֵ ׁש ֵאם‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫ ָמר‬:‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ‬,‫סֹורת‬ ֶ ‫ַל ָּמ‬ ‫ ו ָּמר‬,‫ ִּכי ֲא ַתאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא – ִלגַ ֵר ַע‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ .‫הֹוסיף‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ֲא ַתאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא – ְל‬:‫ָס ַבר‬

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 comesn 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.

language

In sukkot [basukkot] – ‫ב ֻּס ּכֹת‬:ּ ַ This interpretation is based on the independent noun can end with a tav. In poetry, and especially fact that although the letter tav at the end of a noun often indi- in the liturgical poetry of Eretz Yisrael, nouns that typically end cates the construct state, that is not always the case. At times an with the letter heh end with a tav.

30 

Perek I . 6b . ‫ו ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ִּכי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ֵאם‬,‫ֲא ַתאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא – ִלגַ ֵר ַע‬ ּ ‫דֹור ׁ ִשין ְּת ִח‬ ‫ילֹות‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב‬,‫סֹורת‬ ֶ ‫ַל ָּמ‬ ,‫ דּ ְֹור ׁ ִשין ְּת ִחילּ ֹות‬:‫ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; ָמר ָס ַבר‬ .‫ ֵאין דּ ְֹור ׁ ִשין ְּת ִח ּילֹות‬:‫ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬

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.

‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ּ ‫ ַט ְע ֵמ‬:‫ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה ָא ַמר‬ ‫יֹומם‬ ָ ‫ ״וְ סו ָּּכה ִּת ְהיֶ ה ְל צֵ ל‬:‫ֵמ ָה ָכא‬ ‫חֹורב ו ְּל ַמ ְח ֶסה ו ְּל ִמ ְס ּתֹור ִמּזֶ ֶרם‬ ֵ ‫ֵמ‬ .‫ו ִּמ ָּמ ָטר״‬

Rav Mattana said that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is derived from here: “And there shall be a sukka for shaden 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.

notes

And there shall be a sukka for shade, etc. – ‫וְ סו ָּּכה ִּת ְהיֶה ְלצֵ ל‬ ‫וכו׳‬: In the Jerusalem Talmud it is taught that both opinions can be derived from this verse. “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat” is one wall; “and for refuge and cover from storm” is a second wall. There is a dispute with regard to the phrase “from storm and from rain”: According to Rabbi Shimon, “from storm” is a third wall and “from rain” is a fourth wall, while according to the Rabbis, “from storm and from rain” together is the source for only one wall, for a total of three.

:‫יכן ַמ ֲע ִמידֹו? ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ָ ‫ § וְ אֹותֹו ֶט ַפח ֵה‬The Gemara asks: According to the opinion that a sukka can be .‫ ַמ ֲע ִמידֹו ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬built 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. :‫יה ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א וְ ַרב ַא ִסי ְל ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

Perek I Daf 7 Amud a .‫ֹאש ּתֹור! ׁ ָש ֵתיק ַרב‬ ׁ ‫ וְ יַ ֲע ִמ ֶידנּ ּו ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ר‬And let him position the wall measuring one handbreadth opposite the wall that emerges like the diagonal line formed by the end of the furrowsnb as the field gradually narrows. This third partition would represent the third side of a triangle and would make the sukka appear more like a full-fledged structure, as the diagonal would represent closure of both unwalled directions. Rav was silentn and did not respond. ‫יה‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬It was also stated that Shmuel said in the name of Levi: He posiּ ‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬,‫ית ַמר נַ ִמי‬ ‫מֹורין‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵכן‬.‫ ַמ ֲע ִמידֹו ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬:‫ דְּ ֵלוִ י‬tions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that b .‫ ַמ ֲע ִמידֹו ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬:‫ ֵ ּבי ִמ ְד ָר ׁ ָשא‬emerges from the other end of that wall. And similarly, they rule in the study hall: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall.

notes

The diagonal line formed by the end [rosh tor] of the furrows – ‫ֹאש ּתֹור‬ ׁ ‫ר‬: The early commentaries dispute the meaning of the term rosh tor. Some explain that it means to place the handbreadth-wide wall diagonal to one of the two standing walls (Rashi; others). Others maintain that this beam is positioned opposite the standing walls in the empty corner, to serve as a marker to indicate that the walls of the sukka extend from the standing walls lengthwise and widthwise to that point (ge’onim; Me’iri; others). Rav was silent – ‫ש ֵתיק ַרב‬: ָ ׁ Similar reactions appear elsewhere in the Talmud, and the meaning behind them is not always the same. At times, a Sage is silent when he does not have a satisfactory answer to the question posed. At other times the Sage remains silent if in his view the question raised is not particularly difficult or is not worthy of discussion at all. Some hold that Rav believes that their suggestion is included in his statement.

background

Opposite the wall that emerges like the diagonal line formed by the end of the furrows – ‫ֹאש ּתֹור‬ ׁ ‫כנֶ גֶ ד ר‬:ְּ

Opposite the wall that emerges – ‫כנֶ גֶ ד ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬:ְּ

Handbreadth-wide wall pointing toward the end of the opposite wall

Handbreadth-wide wall parallel to the opposite wall



‫ז ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 7a 

31

notes

An expansive [soĥek] handbreadth – ‫ֹוחק‬ ֵ ‫ט ַפח ׂש‬:ֶ The Hebrew term soĥek, which means laughing or smiling, also means expansive because when one smiles his mouth widens. All measures slightly larger than the standard are referred to in this manner (Arukh). Some quantify the addition to the standard handbreadth at half a fingerbreadth, approximately 1–1.5 cm (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh).

‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ִסימֹון‬ ‫ ו ַּמ ֲע ִמידֹו‬,‫ֹוחק‬ ֵ ‫עֹושה לֹו ֶט ַפח ׂש‬ ׂ ֶ :‫ָא ַמר‬ ,‫ְ ּב ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים ָסמוּךְ ַלדּ ֶֹופן‬ ‫וְ ָכל ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָסמוּךְ ַלדּ ֶֹופן ְּכ ָלבוּד‬ .‫דָּ ֵמי‬

The form of a doorway – ‫צו ַּרת ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬: This mechanism appears in different areas of halakha where partitions are required. In essence, a doorway is formed by placing two poles of any width upright and placing a third pole across the top. This type of doorway is deemed a fit partition for halakhic purposes even in cases where other mechanisms for creating halakhic partitions are ineffective. And it is permitted only in the form of a doorway – ‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה‬ ‫נִית ֶרת ֶא ָּלא ְ ּבצו ַּרת ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬: ֶּ The explanation cited here is according to Rashi, who combines the two opinions and requires both a handbreadth and the form of a doorway. One takes the beam measuring one handbreadth, divides it into two, positions the two halves separately, and places a crossbeam across them. However, most commentaries reject that understanding outright for different reasons. background

Handbreadth with the form of a doorway – ‫ֶט ַפח ִעם צו ַּרת‬ ‫ה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬:ַ

Handbreadth-wide third wall is split, with the form of a doorway bridging the halves.

Rabbi Simon said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said, that the third wall is positioned differently. He establishes for the third side a wall that measures an expansive handbreadth,nh measured with the fingers spread apart, which is slightly larger than a standard handbreadth. And he then positions it less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall opposite the second wall. And the legal status of any item positioned less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall is like an item joined to that wall. In this way, the handbreadth-wide wall is joined to the adjacent wall, and it is as if it is a wall of four handbreadths, which is the majority of the minimum measure of the wall of a full-fledged sukka, seven handbreadths.

– ‫ סו ָּּכה ָה ֲעשׂ וּיָה ְּכ ָמבֹוי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְהו ָּדה‬Rav Yehuda said: A sukka constructed like an alleyway,h with ‫ וְ אֹותֹו ֶט ַפח – ַמ ֲע ִמידֹו ְל ָכל רו ַּח‬,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬two parallel full-fledged walls, is fit, and with regard to that third .‫ ׁ ֶשּיִ ְרצֶ ה‬wall that measures one handbreadth, he positions it adjacent to one of the walls in any direction that he chooses, as it is merely a conspicuous marker. ‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ִסימֹון‬ ,ּ‫עֹושה לֹו ּ ַפס ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשהו‬ ֶׂ :‫ָא ַמר‬ ,‫ו ַּמ ֲע ִמידֹו ְ ּב ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָסמוּךְ ַלדּ ֶֹופן‬ ‫וְ ָכל ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָסמוּךְ ַלדּ ֶֹופן ְּכ ָלבוּד‬ .‫דָּ ֵמי‬

Rabbi Simon said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said: In the case of a sukka built like an alleyway open on two ends, a third wall measuring a single handbreadth is insufficient. Rather, one establishes for the third side a board with a width of four handbreadths and a bit and positions it less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to either wall, as a wall on either of the open ends. And the legal status of any item positioned less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall is like an item joined to that wall. The result is a full-fledged seven-handbreadth sukka wall.

‫ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ָה ָתם דְּ ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ַסגְ יָ א ֶט ַפח‬ ‫ ּו ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ָה ָכא דְּ ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬,‫ֹוחק‬ ֵ ‫ׂש‬ ‫יכא ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬ ָּ ‫ָ ּב ֲעיָ א ּ ַפס ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה? ָה ָתם דְּ ִא‬ ,‫ֹוחק‬ ֵ ׂ‫יה ְ ּב ֶט ַפח ש‬ ּ ‫ְד ָפנֹות ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן – ַסגִ י ֵל‬ ‫יכא ּ ַפס‬ ָּ ‫ ִאי ִא‬,‫יכא ׁ ְש ֵּתי דְּ ָפנֹות‬ ָּ ‫ָה ָכא דְּ ֵל‬ .‫ ִאי ָלא – ָלא‬,‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ִאין‬

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the case of two attached walls, where you say that a wall with the dimension of an expansive handbreadth suffices to complete the third wall, and what is different here where you say that it requires a board that measures four handbreadths and a bit? The Gemara answers: There, where there are two walls in the standard sense, as they are attached forming a type of structure, it is sufficient to have the third wall measure an expansive handbreadth in order to render the sukka fit; however, here, where there are not two walls in the standard sense, as they are not attached, if there is a board that measures four handbreadths as the third wall, yes, it is fit, and if not, no, it is unfit.

‫ וְ ֵאינָ ּה נִ ֶּת ֶרת ֶא ָּלא ְ ּבצו ַּרת‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said: And the sukka consisting of two adjacent walls with .‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬a third wall measuring one handbreadth is permitted and fit only if the third wall is in the form of a doorway.nb One can render the sukka fit only by splitting the one-handbreadth wall and attaching one half to the standing wall and one half across from the other wall that emerges from the standing wall, and then placing a pole across the two halves.n By creating the form of a doorway, that third wall becomes like an open gate, which is considered a halakhic partition. halakha

He establishes for the third side a wall that measures an expansive handbreadth – ‫ֹוחק‬ ֵ ‫עֹושה לֹו ֶט ַפח ׂש‬: ֶׂ If the sukka has two adjacent walls, the third wall may be even just somewhat more than a handbreadth wide. One places it less than three handbreadths from one of the walls. In addition, he must position a pole at least seven handbreadths removed from that adjacent wall and complete the form of a doorway by placing a crossbeam from the top of the wall that is slightly more than a handbreadth to the pole. The halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as apparently the later amora’im, Rava and Rav Kahana, held in accordance with his opinion. The halakha was also ruled in accordance with the latter version of Rava’s statement and the custom of Rav Kahana that the form of a doorway is also required. Apparently that is a requirement by rabbinic law, as by Torah law a wall

32 

Perek I . 7a . ‫ז ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

measuring one handbreadth is sufficient (Baĥ; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:2). A sukka constructed like an alleyway – ‫סו ָּּכה ָה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ְּכ ָמבֹוי‬: If a sukka has two parallel walls, then in order to complete the sukka one establishes a wall measuring somewhat more than four handbreadths perpendicular to and less than three handbreadths from the edge of one of the standing walls. In addition, here too one must erect the form of a doorway along that third wall, as Rava’s ruling applies to this case as well (Rif; Rambam; others). Some hold that the form of a doorway is not required (Tosefot Rabbeinu Peretz; Rosh). If the third wall measures a bit more than seven handbreadths and there is no reliance on the principle of lavud, the form of a doorway is certainly not required (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:3, and in the comment of the Rema).

‫ וְ נִ ֶּת ֶרת נַ ִמי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬Some say that Rava said: And a sukka consisting of two adjacent .‫ ְ ּבצו ַּרת ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬walls is also permitted and fit if the third wall is in the form of a doorway. In other words, Rava does not reject the remedy of the expansive-handbreadth wall suggested by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi; rather, he suggests an alternative. ‫יכא נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫ וּצְ ִר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬Some say a third version of that which Rava said: And a sukka .‫ צו ַּרת ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬consisting of two adjacent walls, even with a third that is an expansive handbreadth wide as suggested by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, also requires the form of a doorway to be fit. In other words, in addition to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s remedy, one must also create the form of a doorway to render the sukka fit. ‫יה ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ָקא‬ ּ ‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ֵח‬ ‫ וְ ָקא ָע ֵביד צו ַּרת‬,‫ֹוחק‬ ֵ ‫ָע ֵביד ֶט ַפח ׂש‬ ‫ ָלא ָס ַבר ָמר ְל ָהא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬ ‫ וְ נִ ֶּת ֶרת נַ ִמי ְ ּבצו ַּרת‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ‫ישנָ א‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֲאנָ א ְּכ ִא ָידךְ ִל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ וּצְ ִר‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫דְּ ָר ָבא ְס ִב ָירא ִלי‬ .‫נַ ִמי צו ַּרת ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi found Rav Kahana establishing his sukka, which had two adjacent walls, and establishing a third wall that was an expansive handbreadth wide and establishing the form of a doorway as well. Rav Ashi said to him: And does the Master not hold in accordance with that opinion of Rava, as Rava said: And the sukka is also permitted and fit if the third wall is in the form of a doorway? Why are you establishing a wall that is an expansive handbreadth wide as well? Rav Kahana said to him: I hold in accordance with the other version of the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: And the sukka also requires the form of a doorway, in addition to the expansive handbreadth, to be fit.

‫ וְ ֵכן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫״ש ַּתיִ ם ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן״ כו׳‬ ְ ׁ § It is taught in the Tosefta that if the sukka has two walls in the ּ ּ – ‫ ִמגֹו דְּ ָהוְ יָ א דּ ֶֹופן ְל ִענְיַ ן סו ָּּכה‬.‫ ַל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬standard sense and a third wall that measures one handbreadth, .‫ ָהוְ יָ א דּ ֶֹופן ְל ִענְיַ ן ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬it is fit. Rava said: And likewise with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot, since it is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka it is considered a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Were one to construct a sukka in that manner in a public domain adjacent to the entrance to his house, its legal status would be that of a private domain and one would be permitted to move objects from it to his house and vice versa on Shabbat that occurs during the Festival. However, that structure is not considered a private domain on any other Shabbat. ?‫ ּו ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ִמ גּ ֹו‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ ּ ‫יב‬ ,‫דֹופן ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ‫ֹופן סו ָּּכה ְּכ‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יְ ֵהא ֵ ּבין ָקנֶ ה ַל ֲח ֵברֹו‬ .‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים‬

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from a baraita: And do we say that this principle: Since it is considered, etc., applies in this area of halakha? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The specifi­ cations of the wall of a sukka are like those of a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Just as with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, one forms a partition by establishing adjacent reeds, so too, one forms the wall of a sukka in the same manner, provided that the gap from one reed to another will not be as much as three handbreadths. If the gap is three handbreadths or greater, the legal status of the reeds is that they are not considered joined.

‫ ׁ ֶש ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ֵאינָ ּה‬,‫ וִ ֵית ָירה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ַעל סו ָּּכה‬But the stringency of the halakha with regard to Shabbat goes ,‫עֹומד ְמרו ֶ ּּבה ַעל ַה ּ ָפרוּץ‬ ֵ ‫ נִ ֶּת ֶרת ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב‬beyond the stringency of the halakha with regard to sukka, in .‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֵאין ֵּכן ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬terms of the criteria for effective partitions, as with regard to Shabbat, carrying is permitted only in a case where the total of the standing segments of the partition, the actual wall, is greater than the total of the breached segments of the partition, the gaps that are less than three handbreadths. That is not so with regard to the sukka, where, even if the breached segments total more than the standing segments,h e.g., a sukka consisting of two walls in which there are gaps and a third wall measuring only a single handbreadth, it is still fit. ,‫ יְ ֵת ָירה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת דְּ סו ָּּכה ַא ּסו ָּּכה‬:‫ ַמאי ָלאו‬The Gemara analyzes the baraita. What, isn’t the baraita teaching !‫ וְ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן ִמגּ ֹו‬that the stringency with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot goes beyond the stringency with regard to the rest of the festival of Sukkot? And apparently, we do not say the principle: Since it is considered a fit partition for sukka let it also be considered a fit partition for Shabbat. This is difficult according to Rava, in whose opinion that principle is applied in this case. 

halakha

The breached segments total more than the standing segments – ‫עֹומד‬ ֵ ‫פרוּץ ְמרו ֶ ּּבה ַעל ַה‬:ָ ּ When rendering a sukka fit by means of mechanisms like a one-handbreadth wall and the form of a doorway, it is fit even if there are breaches in the two complete walls, provided that no individual breach exceeds ten cubits. This is the ruling even if the total area of the breached segments exceeds the total area of the standing segments (Rashi; others). According to the Rambam, if all of the breaches together exceed ten cubits, then even if they are built in the form of a doorway, they still render the wall and the sukka unfit unless the standing segments exceed the breached segments. However, most authorities disagree (Me’iri; Rosh). Nowadays, the practice is to use full-fledged walls because not everyone is well versed in the details of the halakhot of partitions (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:5, and in the comment of the Rema). ‫ז ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 7a 

33

‫ יְ ֵת ָירה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת דְּ ָע ְל ָמא ַעל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬,‫ ָלא‬Rava rejects that interpretation of the baraita. No, the baraita is .‫ דְּ סו ָּּכה‬teaching that the stringency with regard to Shabbat in general goes beyond the stringency with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot. On Shabbat during the festival of Sukkot, a partition where the total of the breached segments of the partition is greater than the total of the standing segments is effective, as, since it is effective as a wall in a sukka, it is effective as a partition for Shabbat as well. That is not the case on Shabbat during the rest of the year, when a partition of that sort is ineffective on Shabbat. ‫ יְ ֵת ָירה סו ָּּכה‬:‫יתנֵי נַ ִמי‬ ְ ‫ִאי ָה ִכי ִל‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫דְּ ָע ְל ָמא ַא ּסו ָּּכה דְּ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ,‫ֹוחק‬ ֵ ׂ‫סו ָּּכה דְּ ָע ְל ָמא – ָ ּב ֲעיָא ֶט ַפח ש‬ ּ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫יל ּו סו ָּּכה דְּ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ָלא ָ ּב ֲעיָ א‬ .‫ וְ ַסגִ י ַ ּב ֶּל ִחי‬,‫ֹוחק‬ ֵ ‫ֶט ַפח ׂש‬

Abaye asked: If it is so that the distinction in the baraita is not a fundamental distinction between the halakhot of sukka and the halakhot of Shabbat, but is instead a distinction between the halakhot of Shabbat in general and the specific case of Shabbat during the festival of Sukkot, then let the baraita also teach a novel distinction involving Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot. The stringency with regard to sukka in general during the rest of Sukkot goes beyond the stringency with regard to sukka on Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot, as a sukka in general consisting of two parallel walls, like an alleyway, requires that its third wall measure an expansive handbreadth, while a sukka on Shabbat does not require an expansive handbreadth for this purpose, and it is sufficient for the third wall to be established with a side post ten handbreadths high and any width.

‫יכךְ ַעל‬ ֵּ ‫ ִס‬:‫ דְּ ָהא ַא ְּת הוּא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬Since the side post is effective as a partition with regard to the !‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָמבֹוי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ֶל ִחי – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬halakhot of Shabbat, it should also be effective as a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka although it is less than one handbreadth wide, as you are the one who said: If one placed roofing over an alleyway which has a side post on one of the open ends to permit carrying in that alleyway on Shabbat, it is fit as a sukka for that same Shabbat, although it would not be fit during the rest of the week of the Festival.n ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ַההוּא ָלא ִאצְ ְט ִר‬ ּ ‫יכא ֵל‬ ְּ ‫ִמ ִּק‬ ,‫יל ָתא ַל ֲח ִמ ְיר ָּתא – ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן‬ ְּ ‫ֵמ ֲח ִמ ְיר ָּתא ְל ִק‬ ‫יל ָתא – ל ֹא ָּכל‬ !?‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬

Rava replied to him: That is indeed my statement; however, the fact is that the baraita does not cite that distinction, because it is not necessary to state that there are circumstances in which the general halakhot of sukka are stricter than its halakhot on Shabbat, as there is no novelty in the concept that the halakhot of partitions on Shabbat should apply to a sukka. Now that we say that halakhot may be derived from a leniency to a stringency, as a halakha that applies to sukka, which is a positive mitzva, is applied to the halakhot of Shabbat, which is a stringent prohibition punishable by karet; then from a stringency, the halakhot of Shabbat, to a leniency, all the more so may halakhot be derived. Therefore, there is no reason for the baraita to mention that distinction explicitly.

:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫גּ ו ָּפא‬

§  Apropos roofing over an alleyway, the Gemara elaborates about the matter itself. Rava said:

notes

Shabbat and sukka – ‫ש ָ ּבת וְ סו ָּּכה‬: ַ ׁ The relationship between the halakhot of Shabbat and sukka is evident from the start of the tractate, where the two are compared. They are comparable due to the significance of partitions in both areas of halakha. However, despite their similarities, the halakhot are not identical. That is due to the fundamental difference be-

34 

Perek I . 7a . ‫ז ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

tween the function served by the partitions in the different areas. In the halakhot of Shabbat, they serve as boundaries between different domains. In the halakhot of sukka, they serve to establish a structure. This distinction leads to various stringencies and leniencies applicable in each case (see Ĥiddushei Rabbi Meir Arak).

Perek I Daf 7 Amud b – ‫יכ ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָמ בֹוי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ֶל ִחי‬ ֵּ ‫ ִס‬If one placed roofing over an alleywaynh that has a side post, it .‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬is fit for use as a sukka. – ‫ ִס ֵּיכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּ ַפ ֵּסי ִב ָיראֹות‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬And similarly, Rava said: If one placed roofing over upright nbh .‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬boards surrounding wells, it is fit for use as a sukka. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. In order to permit drawing water from the well, the surrounding area must be partitioned off and rendered a private domain. For the benefit of Festival pilgrims, the Sages instituted a special leniency that full-fledged partitions need not be constructed around the well for this purpose. Rather, it is sufficient if there are four double posts at the four corners of the area surrounding the well. Since these symbolic barriers are considered partitions for the halakhot of Shabbat, they are considered partitions for the halakhot of sukka on Shabbat as well. ‫ דְּ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַן ָמבֹוי – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫וּצְ ִר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ָ‫יכא ׁ ְש ֵּתי דְּ ָפנֹות ְמ ַע ְּלי‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ ‫יכא ׁ ְש ֵּתי דְּ ָפנֹות‬ ָּ ‫ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּ ַפ ֵּסי ִב ָיראֹות דְּ ֵל‬ .‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫יתא – ֵא‬ ָ ָ‫ְמ ַע ְּלי‬

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for Rava to state the halakha in each of the two similar cases, as if he had taught us only that the sukka is fit in the case of the alleyway, one could say that it is due to the fact that there are two full-fledged walls; however, in the case of upright boards surrounding wells, where there are not two full-fledged walls and most of the area is breached, say no, it is not considered a fit sukka.

‫וְ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ּ ַפ ֵּסי ִב ָיראֹות – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יכא ׁ ֵשם ַא ְר ַ ּבע דְּ ָפ נֹות‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ ‫יכא ׁ ֵשם ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ָּ ‫ דְּ ֵל‬,‫יכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָמבֹוי‬ ֵּ ‫ִס‬ .‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָפנֹות – ֵא‬

And if he had taught us only the case of upright boards surrounding wells, one could say that it is due to the fact that in that case it is in the category of a sukka with four, albeit virtual, walls; however, in the case where one placed roofing over an alleyway, where it is not in the category of a sukka with four walls, say no, it is not considered a fit sukka.

‫ וְ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ָהנֵי ַּת ְר ֵּתי – ֵמ ֲח ִמ ְיר ָּתא‬And if he had taught us only these two cases, to teach that a – ‫ ֲא ָבל ְמ ִק ְּיל ָתא ַל ֲח ִמ ְיר ָּתא‬,‫ ְל ִק ְּיל ָתא‬partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat is a partition .‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬with regard to the halakhot of sukka, one could say that it is due to the fact that one can derive a halakha from a stringency, the halakhot of Shabbat, to a leniency,n the halakhot of sukka; however, to derive a halakha from a leniency to a stringency, say no. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the third halakha with regard to a sukka consisting of two walls in the standard sense and a third wall measuring a handbreadth: Since the third wall is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka, a leniency, it is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, a stringency.

notes

One placed roofing over an alleyway – ‫יכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָמבֹוי‬ ֵּ ‫ס‬:ִ See Halakha note, where it is noted that the commentaries and the halakhic authorities dispute the matter of this alleyway. Most hold that it refers even to an open-ended alleyway that has a vertical post at one end. Although it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry in such an alleyway on Shabbat, since by Torah law it is permitted to carry there, it is fit as a sukka. Others maintain that this halakha is limited to an alleyway that is open to the public domain at one end and closed at the other. The question arises because the roofing was not placed at the closed end of the alleyway where there are three walls, as that is clearly a fit sukka. Rather, it was placed at the open end of the alleyway, where there are only two parallel walls and a vertical post on the third side. Upright boards surrounding wells – ‫פ ֵּסי ִב ָיראֹות‬:ַ ּ The ordinance of upright boards surrounding wells was instituted to meet a specific need, to allow the Festival pilgrims to draw water for their animals on Shabbat. This method of partitioning the area surrounding the well was permitted only in Eretz Yisrael and only during the period of the pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Others maintain that this ordinance is also in effect when it facilitates the fulfillment of other mitzvot as well, e.g., for yeshiva students returning to their studies (Me’iri). From a stringency to a leniency – ‫מ ֲח ִמ ְיר ָּתא ְל ִק ְּיל ָתא‬:ֵ Most authorities hold that it is permissible to use a sukka built in an alleyway or from upright boards surrounding a well only on Shabbat. Others maintain that the reasoning: Since they are partitions for the halakhot of Shabbat, they are partitions for the halakhot of sukka, permits their use throughout the Festival (cited by Ran). Others (Ĥokhmat Shlomo; Be’er Avraham) ask: According to the first opinion, the sukka should be completely unfit, as it is not suitable for use for the entire Festival. Several answers were suggested. The fact that this sukka is not fit for use all seven days is not due to a fundamental deficiency; therefore, once incomplete walls are permitted, all the more so, the fact that it may not be used throughout the Festival does not render the sukka unfit (see Arukh LaNer, Emek Sukkot, and others). background

Upright boards surrounding wells – ‫פ ֵּסי ִב ָיראֹות‬:ַ ּ

Upright boards framing a space around the well

halakha

One placed roofing over an alleyway – ‫יכ ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָמבֹוי‬ ֵּ ‫ס‬:ִ If one places roofing over an alleyway with a side post at its entrance, the resulting sukka is fit for use on Shabbat during the Festival; since the post is considered a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat it is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka as well. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rava. There is a dispute about the nature of this alleyway. Some hold that this is the halakha even in



the case of an open-ended alleyway (Rashi; Rambam; Rosh), while others maintain that this is the halakha only in a case where the alleyway is closed on three sides (Tosafot; Ran; Me’iri; Rema as explained by the Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:7). Roofing over upright boards surrounding wells – ‫יכ ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬ ֵּ ‫ִס‬ ‫פ ֵּסי ִב ָיראֹות‬:ַ ּ If one places roofing over upright boards or double

posts, since they are considered a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, they are considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka as well, and one may use the resulting sukka on Shabbat. Some restrict the fitness of the sukka to circumstances where these walls are effective with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, i.e., only in Eretz Yisrael and for Festival pilgrims (Ran; Me’iri; Rema as explained by the Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:7). ‫ז ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 7b 

35

halakha

Whose sunlight is greater than its shade – ‫ח ָּמ ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּל ָת ּה‬:ַ A sukka whose sunlight exceeds its shade is unfit. This applies only with regard to sunlight that passes through the roofing; however, sunlight that passes through the sides does not render the sukka unfit. This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya because his opinion is consistent with the approach of the tanna’im that was rejected (Beit Yosef; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:1).

.‫״וְ ׁ ֶש ַח ָּמ ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּל ָת ּה ּ ְפסו ָּלה״‬

§ The mishna continues: And a sukka whose sunlight, i.e., the sunlight that passes through the roofing, is greater than its shade,h is unfit.

‫ וְ ל ֹא‬, ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה – ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִס‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Sages taught in a baraita that in the statement: Whose ‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֹאשּיָ ה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ ֵמ ֲח ַמת דְּ ָפנֹות‬sunlight is greater than its shade, the reference is to sunlight that .‫ ֵמ ֲח ַמת דְּ ָפנֹות‬passes through due to sparse roofing, and not to the sunlight entering due to gaps in the walls. It is possible for a sukka to have more sunlight than shade due to sunlight passing through the sides and not the roofing, in which case the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yoshiya says: If the sunlight exceeds the shade the sukka is unfit, even if the sunlight is due to gaps in the walls. ‫יה‬ ָ ֵ‫ָא ַמר ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ימר ַ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶל ְמיָ ה ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּב י‬ ּ ‫ ַמ אי ַט ְע ֵמ‬:‫דְּ ַא ַ ּב יֵ י‬ ‫ֹות ַעל ָה ָארֹון‬ ָ ‫ ״וְ ַס ּכ‬:‫ֹאשּיָ ה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ִׁ ‫י‬ ‫ וְ ָקא‬,‫יצה‬ ֶ ‫ ּ ָפ‬.‫רֹוכת״‬ ֶ ‫ֶאת ַה ּ ָפ‬ ּ ָ ‫רֹוכת ְמ ִח‬ ‫יצה‬ ּ ֵ‫ַק ְרי‬ ּ ָ ‫ ְמ ִח‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫יה ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְס ָכ ָכה‬ .‫ִּכ ְס ָכךְ ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬

Rav Yeimar bar Shelemya said in the name of Abaye: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya? It is as it is written: “And you shall screen [vesakkota] the Ark with the curtain” (Exodus 40:3). The curtain is a partition and not a covering over the Ark, and nevertheless, the Merciful One calls it roofing [sekhakha]. Apparently, we require the purpose of a partition to be similar to the purpose of roofing; just as the roofing must be mostly impermeable by sunlight, so must the partition.

,‫יה ּפ ּו ְר ָּתא‬ ּ ‫ ַההוּא דְּ נֵיכֹוף ֵ ּב‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoshiya, in. ְ‫ דְּ ֶמ ֱחזִ י ִּכ ְס ָכך‬terpret the term: And you shall screen [vesakkota]? That term teaches that we should bend the top of the curtain a bit so that it appears as roofing over the Ark. ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֹאשּיָ ה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ ו ֵּבית‬,‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון וְ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬,‫יְהו ָּדה‬ ‫ ּכו ְּלה ּו‬,‫ וַ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫ סו ָּּכה דִּ ַירת ֶק ַבע ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬:ּ‫ְס ִב ָירא ְלהו‬

Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yoshiya, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Aĥerim all holdn that we require the sukka to be sturdy and fit for dwelling like a permanent residence.

‫ ָּכל סו ָּּכה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬Abaye cites the relevant statements of the tanna’im listed above. ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states this opinion, as it is taught in a .‫ ַא ּמֹות – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits is unfit. These are the dimensions of a permanent residence. .‫ֹאשּיָ ה – ָהא דַּ ֲא ָמ ַרן‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬The fact that Rabbi Yoshiya holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence can be seen from that which we stated, that the walls must also be impermeable by sunlight like the walls of a permanent residence. ‫בֹוהה‬ ָ ‫ סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ְ ּג‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה – דִּ ְתנַן‬Rabbi Yehuda also holds that a sukka must be a permanent ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬residence, as we learned in the mishna: A sukka that is more .‫ יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬than twenty cubits high is unfit; Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. As explained above, in constructing a sukka more than twenty cubits high, one cannot render his residence a temporary residence; rather, he must construct a sturdy permanent residence. ‫ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן‬:‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון – דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ּ ‫ישית ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫יל ּו ֶט ַפח‬ ִ ׁ ‫ּו ׁ ְש ִל‬ ‫יעית ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ ִ ‫ ו ְּר ִב‬,‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתן‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ֶט ַפח‬

Rabbi Shimon agrees, as it is taught in a baraita: The dimensions of a sukka are two walls in the standard sense, and a third wall that measures even a handbreadth; Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and a fourth wall is required that measures even a handbreadth. Apparently, a sukka must be surrounded on four sides like a permanent residence.

‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָה‬:‫יאל – דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬Rabban Gamliel holds that a sukka must be a permanent resi‫ ַר ָ ּבן‬,‫ֹאש ַה ְּס ִפינָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ֹאש ָה ֲעגָ ָלה אֹו ְ ּבר‬ ׁ ‫ ְ ּבר‬dence, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who estab.‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫יאל ּפ‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬lishes his sukka atop a wagon or atop a boat, Rabban Gamliel deems it unfit; a mobile structure is not a permanent residence. Rabbi Akiva deems it fit. Apparently, Rabban Gamliel requires that a sukka be a permanent residence. notes

They all hold – ‫כו ְּלה ּו ְס ִב ָירא ְלה ּו‬:ּ There is an accepted halakhic principle dating back to the time of the ge’onim that wherever the Gemara presents the opinions of multiple Sages as a single approach, the halakha is not in accordance with

36 

Perek I . 7b . ‫ז ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

that approach. The Gemara presents all the opinions as one approach only to teach that despite nuanced differences between them, they all represent an approach that is rejected and not ruled as halakha.

‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו‬ ׁ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ר‬:‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי – דִּ ְתנַן‬Beit Shammai agree, as we learned in a mishna: In the case ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬,‫תֹוך ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ְ ‫ וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ְ ּב‬,‫ ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka .‫ֹוס ִלין ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬ ְ ‫ ּפ‬and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem the sukka unfit, since a small sukka is unfit for use and one cannot fulfill the mitzva of sukka with it. And Beit Hillel deem it fit. Apparently, Beit Shammai require that the sukka be similar to a permanent structure.

notes

A sukka built like a dovecote – ‫סו ָּּכה ָה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ַּכ ׁ ּש ָֹוב ְך‬: According to most authorities, Rabbi Yoĥanan disagrees with Aĥerim in this matter (see Rashi). Some explain that a sukka built like a dovecote is specifically a small, narrow sukka, like an actual dovecote; however, a sukka of the requisite area is not deemed unfit due to its shape (see Arukh LaNer).

,‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ְּכ ִמין צְ ִריף‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָה‬:‫יעזֶ ר דִּ ְתנַן‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬Rabbi Eliezer holds that a sukka must be a permanent resi‫ֹוסל ְל ִפי‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ֹותל‬ ֶ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ְּס ָמ ָכ ּה ַל ּכ‬dence, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who es.‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬tablishes his sukka like a type of circular hut whose walls slope down from the center and has no roof, or one who rested the sukka against the wall, taking long branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall, establishing a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit. A permanent residence has a roof. ‫ סו ָּּכה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬,‫ ֲא ֵח ִרים – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬Aĥerim agree, as it is taught in a baraita that Aĥerim say: A n ‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה‬,‫ ָה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ַּכ ׁ ּש ָֹוב ְך – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬sukka built in a circular shape like a dovecote is unfit, becorners, and a permanent residence .‫ זָ וִ ּיֹות‬cause it does not have is one with corners.h ‫ ִאם‬,‫ סו ָּּכה ָה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ַּכ ִּכ ְב ׁ ָשן‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ § ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said: With regard to a sukka that is shaped b ‫ישב ָ ּב ּה ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ֶה ֵ ּק ָיפ ּה ְּכ ֵדי ֵל‬like a furnace and is completely round, if its circumference .‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬,‫ ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬has sufficient space for twenty-four people to sit in it, it is fit, and if not, it is unfit. ‫ ָּכל סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did .‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬Rabbi Yoĥanan rule that the sukka must be so expansive? The Gemara answers: It is undoubtedly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits is unfit. Since he requires the sukka with the largest minimum dimensions, Rabbi Yoĥanan must hold in accordance with his opinion.

Dovecote background

Furnace – ‫כ ְב ׁ ָשן‬:ִּ

‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ְ ּב ֶה ֵ ּקיפֹו‬,‫ ַ ּג ְב ָרא ְ ּב ַא ְּמ ָתא יָ ֵתיב‬,‫ ִמ ְּכ ִדי‬However, even if he holds in accordance with the opinion of ‫יסר‬ ַ ‫ ִ ּב ְת ֵר‬,‫רֹוחב ֶט ַפח‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים יֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the question arises: Now, since when !‫ ַס ִ ּגי‬a person sits, he occupies one cubit of space, the circumference required by Rabbi Yoĥanan for the sukka is twenty-four cubits. However, mathematically, for every three handbreadths circumference in a circle, there is a diameter of approximately one handbreadth. Consequently, rather than requiring a sukka that holds twenty-four people, a sukka that holds merely twelve people should suffice, since a sukka with a circumference of twelve cubits has a diameter of approximately four. In that case, why does Rabbi Yoĥanan require the sukka to have double the necessary circumference?

Ruins of cylindrical furnaces in Almería, Spain, used for melting iron ore

halakha

A circular sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ֲעגֻ ָּלה‬: A round sukka is fit, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan. With regard to the required minimum size of a round sukka, since the minimum size of a fit sukka is a bit more than seven by



seven handbreadths, the circumference of a round sukka must measure approximately thirty handbreadths, in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 634:2). ‫ז ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 7b 

37

Perek I Daf 8 Amud a notes

A square circumscribed by a circle – ‫יבו ָּעא דְּ נָ ֵפיק ִמגֹּו ִע ּגו ָּלא‬ ּ ‫ר‬:ִ Some explain the Gemara according to the opinion of the Rambam and others that one does not calculate the internal area of a round sukka to determine its fitness. Rather, one determines whether a square sukka with the requisite area could fit inside the circular one. The same is true with regard to several other halakhot. In certain areas of halakha, e.g., the halakhot of leprosy, a round house is not considered a house at all, or at least it is not deemed a full-fledged permanent dwelling. Every square whose sides measure one cubit, etc. – ‫ָּכל‬ ‫יבו ָּעא וכו׳‬ ּ ‫א ְּמ ָתא ְ ּב ִר‬:ַ Tosafot proved that the measure of one and two-fifths is not precise. The actual measure is the square root of two, which is slightly more than 1.414. In addition, the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter is not precisely 3:1 but is actually greater, approximately 3.141:1. The Rambam explains that since these numbers can never be calculated precisely, as they are irrational numbers, the Sages rounded them. The Me’iri explains that since the discussion here is with regard to measurements of actual structures, the minute difference between the precise figures and the approximations of the Sages is not significant.

– ‫יבו ָּעא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ִר‬,‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ְ ּב ִעי ּגו ָּלא‬The Gemara answers: This applies only in the middle of the circle .‫ ָ ּב ֲעיָ א ְט ֵפי‬that has a circumference of twelve cubits, as the diameter of the circle is four cubits; but in order for a square inscribed within a circle to have a perimeter of sixteen cubits, the circle requires a circumference that is more than twelve cubits. – ‫יֹותר ַעל ָה ִעי ּגוּל‬ ֵ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה ְמרו ָ ּּבע‬,‫ ִמ ְּכ ִדי‬The Gemara asks further: Now, by how much is the perimeter of a !‫ית ַסר ַס ִ ּגי‬ ְ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש‬,‫ ְר ִב ַיע‬square inscribing a circle greater than the circumference of that circle? It is greater by one quarter of the perimeter of the square. If that is the case, a circle with a circumference of sixteen cubits is sufficient. Why, then, does Rabbi Yoĥanan require a circumference of twenty-four cubits? ,‫יבו ָּעא‬ ּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ְ ּב ִעי ּגוּל דְּ נָ ֵפיק ִמ ּגֹו ִר‬The Gemara answers: This statement with regard to the ratio of the – ‫יבו ָּעא דְּ נָ ֵפיק ִמגּ ֹו ִעגּ ו ָּלא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִר‬perimeter of a square to the circumference of a circle applies to a .‫מֹור ׁ ָשא דְּ ַק ְרנָ ָתא‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ ָ ּב ֲעיָא ְט ֵפי‬circle inscribed inn a square, but in the case of a square circumscribed by a circle, the circle requires a greater circumference due to the projection of the corners of the square. In order to ensure that a square whose sides are four cubits each fits neatly into a circle, the circumference of the circle must be greater than sixteen cubits. ‫יבו ָּעא ַא ְּמ ָתא‬ ּ ‫ ָּכל ַא ְּמ ָתא ְ ּב ִר‬,‫ ִמ ְּכ ִדי‬The Gemara calculates precisely how much greater the circumfer‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְיב ַסר‬,‫ ו ְּת ֵרי חו ְּמ ׁ ָשא ַ ּב ֲא ַל ְכסֹונָ א‬ence must be in order to circumscribe the four-by-four-cubit square. n .‫ נְ ֵכי חו ְּמ ׁ ֵשי ַסגְ יָ א! ָלא דַּ ק‬Now, inb every square whose sides each measure one cubit its diagonal measures one and two-fifths cubits, and in a circle that circumscribes a square, the diagonal of the square is the diameter of the circle. In this case, the circumscribed square measures four by four cubits; therefore, the diagonal of the square, which is the diameter of the circle, measures five and three-fifths cubits. Since the Gemara calculates the circumference of the circle as three times its diameter, a circular sukka with a circumference of seventeen cubits minus one-fifth of a cubit should be sufficient. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoĥanan was not precise and rounded the dimensions of the circular sukka to a number higher than the absolute minimum. ,‫ ֵאימ ּור דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ָלא דַּ ק ּפ ּו ְר ָּתא‬The Gemara wonders: Say that we say that the Sage was not precise !?‫ טו ָּבא ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַן ָלא דַּ ק‬when the difference between the number cited and the precise number is slight; however, when the difference is great, do we say the Sage was not precise? After all, Rabbi Yoĥanan stated that the minimum measure is twenty-four cubits, a difference of more than seven cubits.

background

A square and its diagonal – ‫יבו ַּע וַ ֲא ַל ְכסֹון‬ ּ ‫ר‬:ִ This is the proof offered by Tosafot for the fact that the ratio of the side of a square to its diagonal is actually greater than the ratio stated in the Gemara: The square AGIC has an area of one hundred units (ten by ten). The square BDHF is half the size of the square AGIC and so it has an area of fifty units. However, each side of this square (such as BD) is itself a diagonal; in the case of BD, it is the diagonal of the square ADEB. Since each side of square ADEB (e.g., EB) is five units long, based on the rule suggested by the Talmud, BD should measure seven units in length. If this were true, though, the area of square BDHF would be forty-nine units (seven by seven), and it was already noted that its area is fifty units. Therefore, it must be that BD is slightly longer than seven units (7.071) and so the rule provided by the Talmud is an approximation.

C

B

E

F

I

H

Calculation according to Tosafot of the ratio of a square to its diagonal

38 

Perek I . 8a . ‫ח ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

A

D

G

‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ָ ׁ ‫יה ָמר ְק ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫ישא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ִמי ָס ְב ַר ְּת ַ ּג ְב ָרא ְ ּב ַא ְּמ ָתא‬:‫ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ .‫יָ ֵתיב? ְּת ָל ָתא ַ ּג ְב ֵרי ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי ַא ְּמ ָתא יָ ְת ִבי‬ ‫ ֲאנַן ׁ ִש ְיב ַסר נְ ֵכי‬,‫ַּכ ָּמה ָהו ּו ְלה ּו – ׁ ִש ְית ַסר‬ .‫חו ְּמ ׁ ָשא ָ ּב ֵעינַן! ָלא דַּ ק‬

Mar Keshisha, i.e., the elder, son of Rav Ĥisda, said to Rav Ashi: Do you hold that when a man sits, he sits and occupies one cubit, and consequently a sukka that seats twenty-four people must have a circumference of twenty-four cubits? In fact, three people sit and occupy two cubits. The Gemara asks: How many cubits are there in the sukka required by Rabbi Yoĥanan? There are sixteen cubits. But we require a sukka with a circumference of seventeen cubits minus one-fifth, as calculated above. The Gemara answers: He was not precise and rounded the figure down to the lower whole number; actually, the required circumference is four-fifths of a cubit larger.

,‫ ֵאימ ּור דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ָלא דַּ ק ְלח ּו ְמ ָרא‬The Gemara rejects this explanation: Say that we say that the Sage !?‫ ְלקו ָּּלא ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַן ָלא דַּ ק‬was not precise when the result is a stringency, e.g., he required a sukka whose dimensions are greater than the minimum required dimensions; however, when the result is a leniency, do we say the Sage was not precise? In that case, the lack of precision will lead to establishing a sukka whose dimensions are smaller than the minimum requirement. ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫יה ַרב ַא ִסי ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: Actually, a man sits and occupies one n ‫יֹוחנָן ְמקֹום‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ַ ּג ְב ָרא ְ ּב ַא ְּמ ָתא יָ ֵתיב‬cubit, and Rabbi Yoĥanan is not factoring the space that the n .‫ ַ ּג ְב ֵרי ָלא ָק ָח ׁ ֵשיב‬men occupy in his calculation. In other words, to this point, the assumption has been that Rabbi Yoĥanan calculated the circumference of the sukka required to seat twenty-four people. Actually, he merely calculated the circumference of the inner circle formed by the twenty-four people seated. ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְיב ַסר נְ ֵכי‬,‫ ַּכ ָּמה ָהו ּו ְלה ּו – ְּת ָמנֵי ְס ֵרי‬The Gemara asks: How many cubits are there in the circumfer‫ ו ְּלחו ְּמ ָרא‬,‫ חו ְּמ ׁ ָשא ַסגְ יָא! ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָלא דַּ ק‬ence of the inner circle formed by a circle of twenty-four people? .‫ ָלא דַּ ק‬There are eighteen cubits. Based on the principle that for every three cubits of circumference there is one cubit of diameter, the diameter of a circle whose outer circumference surrounds twentyfour people is eight cubits. To calculate the circumference of the inner circle, subtract from the diameter the space occupied by two people, each sitting at one end of the diameter. The result is a diameter of six cubits. Based on the above principle, a circle with a diameter of six cubits will have a circumference of eighteen cubits. However, a circumference of seventeen cubits minus one-fifth of a cubit should be sufficient. The Gemara answers: This is the case where he was not precise, and in this case he is not precise when the result is a stringency, as instead of sixteen and four-fifths, Rabbi Yoĥanan required eighteen cubits. ‫יס ִרי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה דַּ ּיָ ינֵי דְּ ֵק‬,‫יס ִרי‬ ָ ‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן דְּ ֵק‬The Sages of Caesarea, and some say that it was the judges of – ‫יב ּו ָעא‬ ּ ‫ ִעיגּ ו ָּלא דְּ נָ ֵפיק ִמגּ ֹו ִר‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬Caesarea, said that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement could be explained ,‫ ִר ְב ָעא‬using a different calculation: The circumference of a circle inscribed in a square is one-quarter less than the perimeter of the square,

notes

A man sits and occupies one cubit – ‫ ַ ּג ְב ָרא ְ ּב ַא ְּמ ָתא יָ ֵתיב‬: Since a person occupies more space sitting than standing, the calculation of the Gemara is based on the precise formulation of Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement. He spoke of a circular sukka in which people are sitting, not merely a sukka containing twenty-four people. Here, too, the calculation of the space occupied by the average person is based on people sitting (Arukh LaNer).



He is not factoring the space that the men occupy in his calculation – ‫מקֹום ַ ּג ְב ֵרי ָלא ָק ָח ׁ ֵשיב‬:ְ According to this statement, this is referring to a case of one who seeks to build a sukka but has no tools to measure the area precisely. Therefore, he seats people in a circle to demarcate where to place the walls of the sukka (Penei Yehoshua). ‫ח ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 8a 

39

Perek I Daf 8 Amud b background

Two craftsmen’s booths – ‫ש ֵּתי סו ּּכֹות ׁ ֶשל יֹוצְ ִרים‬: ְׁ

Inner and outer booths Samaritans [Kutim] – ‫כו ִּתים‬:ּ These are the descendants of the nations displaced by Sennacherib, king of Assyria, and brought to settle in Eretz Yisrael. Initially, they converted. Over time, they readopted their original religion, but continued to fulfill several mitzvot (see II Kings, chapter 17). At the beginning of the Second Temple period, during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, relations between the Samaritans and the Jews deteriorated. Later, the Samaritans established a center of worship on Mount Gerizim, as they claimed that the sanctity of that mountain was established by one of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, there was a very real possibility that their blessings and prayers, although somewhat similar to the Jewish liturgy, might conclude in a manner antithetical to Judaism. Some generations of Jewish Sages recognized Samaritans as half-Jews. They went so far as to say: In the mitzvot that the Samaritans adopted, they are extremely exacting in their fulfillment, even more than the Jews are. Ultimately, as the Samaritans continued to distance themselves from the Jewish people in virtually every regard, they were accorded the legal status of gentiles.

.‫ דְּ נָ ֵפיק ִמגֹּו ִעי ּגו ָּלא – ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא‬,‫יבו ָּעא‬ ּ ‫ ִר‬while the perimeter of a square circumscribed by a circle is smalln ‫ דְּ ָהא ָק ָחזֵ ינַ ן דְּ ָלא ָהוֵ י‬,‫ וְ ָלא ִהיא‬er than the circumference of that circle by half, i.e., if one adds half the perimeter of the square to the perimeter of the square, that is .‫ּכו ֵּּלי ַהאי‬ equal to the circumference of its circumscribing circle. Therefore, a circle with a circumference of twenty-four cubits would circumscribe a square with a perimeter of sixteen cubits, as prescribed by Rabbi Yoĥanan. The Gemara notes: And that is not the case, as we see that the circumference of the circumscribing circle is not that much. The actual circumference is closer to seventeen cubits. :‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵלוִ י ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי סו ּּכֹות ׁ ֶשל יֹוצְ ִרים זֹו ִל ְפנִים‬ ‫ וְ ַחּיֶ ֶיבת‬,‫נִימית ֵאינָ ּה סו ָּּכה‬ ִ ‫ ַה ּ ְפ‬,‫ִמּזֹו‬ ‫ ו ְּפטו ָּרה‬,‫ וְ ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה סו ָּּכה‬,‫ִ ּב ְמזוּזָ ה‬ .‫ִמן ַה ְּמזוּזָ ה‬

§ Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Meir: With regard to two

craftsmen’s booths,b one within the other, as potters would build two booths, an inner one used as living quarters and an outer one for plying their craft and selling their wares, the inner one is not fit for fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka,n since the potter resides there year-round and it is not evident during the Festival that he is residing there for the sake of the mitzva of sukka. And since it a permanent residence, it is also obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. And the outer booth is fit for fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka,h since he does not reside there year-round, and when he resides there during the Festival it is evident that he is doing so for the sake of the mitzva. Since it is not designated as a year-round residence, but rather serves as an entrance to his residence and a passage for merchants and merchandise, it is not considered a residence and is not obligated in the mitzva of mezuza.h

‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי? ֶּת ֱהוֵ י ִחיצֹונָ ה ְּכ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַער‬The Gemara asks: Why is the outer booth exempt from the mitzva ‫ וְ ִת ְת ַחּיֵ יב ִ ּב ְמזוּזָ ה! ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫נִימית‬ ִ ‫ ַה ּ ְפ‬of mezuza? Let the outer booth be considered like a gatehouse .‫ דְּ ָלא ְק ִב ַיע‬of the inner booth and therefore be obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara answers: It is exempt because even the inner booth is not a permanent residence.n It requires a mezuza because the potter resides there year-round; however, that alone does not render it a full-fledged residence that would obligate one to affix a mezuza to the outer booth as its gatehouse. ‫ סו ַּּכת‬,‫ גנב״ך; סו ַּּכת ּגֹויִ ם‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ,‫ סו ַּּכת ּכו ִּתים‬,‫ סו ַּּכת ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬,‫נָשים‬ ִׁ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד‬,‫סו ָּּכה ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ְמסו ֶּּכ ֶכת ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתה‬

The Sages taught: The booths represented by the mnemonic: Gimmel, nun, beit, kaf, which stands for a booth of gentiles [goyim], a booth of women [nashim], a booth of domesticated animals [behema], a booth of Samaritans [Kutim],bn a booth of any sort, each is fit for use as a sukka, provided it is roofed in the standard sense. None of them is disqualified due to the one who constructed it or the purpose for which it was constructed.

Samaritan high priest with Torah scroll, 1905 notes

A square circumscribed by a circle is smaller than the circumference of that circle by half – ‫יבו ָּעא דְּ נָ ֵפיק ִמגּ ֹו ִעי ּגו ָּלא ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא‬ ּ ‫ר‬:ִ The commentaries encountered difficulty in attempting to explain the opinion of the judges of Caesarea, primarily because it is so obviously wrong, even if it is merely an approximation. Several explanations were proposed (see Tosafot). One explanation is that they are referring to the area of a square circumscribed by a square that in turn is circumscribed by a circle. However, that too is difficult. In any event, the Me’iri points out that the Gemara itself notes: We see that the circumference of the circumscribing circle is not that much larger than the perimeter of the square.

this halakha. According to Rashi and others, since the inner This explanation is based on their opinion that the obligation room is his permanent residence, it is not conspicuous that he to affix a mezuza in a gatehouse is by rabbinic law. According is residing there in order to fulfill the mitzva. Although there is to those who disagree (Rambam; Me’iri) the outer room lacks no requirement to construct the sukka specifically for the sake permanence since the craftsman occasionally destroys and of the mitzva, there is a requirement that one reside there for rebuilds it based on his needs. the sake of the mitzva. Others explain that it is unfit because A booth of Samaritans – ‫סו ַּּכת ּכו ִּתים‬: Although the Gemara the inner room was built for residence and not for shade, and already mentioned a booth of gentiles, it was necessary to a sukka that is not constructed for shade is unfit (Ran; Me’iri). mention the Samaritans specifically in order to teach that their Because it is not a permanent residence – ‫יע‬ ַ ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא ְק ִב‬:ִ sukka may not be used to fulfill the mitzva, even though they There is disagreement whether this statement of the Gemara build these booths for the sake of the mitzva, because they is referring to the inner or the outer booth. According to Rashi are not well versed in the halakhot and do not observe the and others (Rid; Ra’avad), it is referring to the inner room. The mitzvot properly (see Jerusalem Talmud). Therefore, one must The inner one is not fit for fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka – inner room is not sufficiently permanent that it would render its inspect a booth that they built to determine whether it is fit ‫נִימית ֵאינָ ּה סו ָּּכה‬ ִ ‫ה ּ ְפ‬:ַ The commentaries debate the reason for gatehouse, the outer room, obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. (Emek Sukkot).

40 

Perek I . 8b . ‫ח ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫ וְ הוּא‬:‫ ַמאי ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָתה? ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: In the standard .‫ ׁ ֶש ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְלצֵ ל סו ָּּכה‬sense? Rav Ĥisda said that it means: And provided that one established the booth to provide shade of a sukkan from its roofing, it may be used to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. ‫ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום ְל ַא ּת ּויֵ י ַמאי? ְל ַא ּת ּויֵ י‬ ‫ סו ַּּכת‬:‫ דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫סו ַּּכת רקב״ש‬ ,‫ סו ַּּכת ַקּיָ יצִ ים‬,‫רֹועים‬ ִ ‫רקב״ש; סו ַּּכת‬ ,‫ֹומ ֵרי ֵפירֹות‬ ְ ‫ סו ַּּכת ׁש‬,‫סו ַּּכת ּבו ְּר ָ ּגנִין‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד‬,‫סו ָּּכה ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ְמסו ֶּּכ ֶכת ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָת ּה‬

The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: A booth of any sort, come to include? What other booths are included in this generalization? The Gemara answers: It comes to include the booths listed in another baraita with the mnemonic: Reish, kuf, beit, shin, as the Sages taught: The booth known by the mnemonic reish, kuf, beit, shin, which stands for the booth of shepherds [ro’im], the booth of fig driers [kayyatzim], the booth of guards of fields [burganin], the booth of the guards of produce [shomerei peirot], a booth of any sort, each is fit, provided it is roofed in the standard sense.

‫ וְ הוּא‬:‫ ַמאי ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָת ּה? ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬The Gemara asks again: What is the meaning of the term: In the .‫ ׁ ֶש ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְלצֵ ל סו ָּּכה‬standard sense? Rav Ĥisda said that it means: And provided that one established the booth to provide shade of a sukka, it may be used to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. ‫ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום ְל ַא ּת ּויֵ י ַמאי? ְל ַא ּת ּויֵ י‬The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: A booth of any sort, .‫ סו ַּּכת גנב״ך‬come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include the booths listed in the first baraita cited above with the mnemonic gimmel, nun, beit, kaf. ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ַהאי ַּת ָּנא דְּ גנב״ך – ַא ִּל‬ ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ָקא ָּתנָ א‬,‫יעי‬ ִ ‫גנב״ך ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דִּ ְק ִב‬ ‫ דְּ ָלא‬,‫״מ ָּכל ָמקֹום״ – ְל ַא ּתוּיֵ י רקב״ש‬ ִ .‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ְק ִב‬

The Gemara explains: This tanna who taught and detailed the halakhot of booths of gimmel, nun, beit, kaf did so because the fitness of the booths of gimmel, nun, beit, kaf for use in fulfilling the mitzva of sukka is powerful and more obvious to him because they are permanent structures, even though their builders are not obligated in the mitzva. And he taught: Booths of any sort, to include the booths of reish, kuf, beit, shin, which, although they are seasonal and not permanent structures, may still be used to fulfill the mitzva of sukka.

‫יה‬ ָ ‫וְ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא דְּ רקב״ש ַא ִל‬ ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ָתנָ א‬,‫ דִּ ְבנֵי ִחּיו ָּבא נִינְ ה ּו‬,‫רקב״ש‬ ‫״מ ָּכל ָמקֹום״ ְל ַא ּתוּיֵ י גנב״ך – דְּ ָלאו‬ ִ .ּ‫ְ ּבנֵי ִחּיו ָּבא נִינְ הו‬

And that other tanna who taught and detailed the halakhot of booths of reish, kuf, beit, shin did so because the fitness of the booths of gimmel, nun, beit, kaf for use in fulfilling the mitzva of sukka is powerful and more obvious to him because those who constructed the booths are obligated in the mitzva of sukka.h And he taught: Booths of any sort, to include the booths of gimmel, nun, beit, kaf, which, although those who constructed them are not obligated in the mitzva, may still be used to fulfill the mitzva of sukka.

notes

And provided that one established the booth to provide shade of a sukka – ‫וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְלצֵ ל סו ָּּכה‬: There are different opinions with regard to the meaning of the phrase: That he established it to provide shade of a sukka, as there is certainly no requirement to build it for the sake of the mitzva. According to Rashi, if the booth has fit roofing, that indicates that it was built for shade; if not, it appears that one constructed the booth

for privacy, in which case the structure would be fundamentally unfit (see Sefat Emet and Arukh LaNer). Rabbeinu Tam (cited in the Tur) explains that one established it to provide shade of a sukka and not that the roofing was thick like that of a house, which would render the sukka unfit. The Ran explains that it means that the sukka was built to use its shade and not to use it as a storage shed or as a permanent dwelling.

halakha

Booths not made for the purpose of the mitzva – ‫סו ּּכֹות ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ ‫נַע ׂש ּו ְל ִמצְ וָ ה‬: ֲ With regard to booths constructed by those not obligated in the mitzva of sukka, e.g., gentiles, women, livestock, or Samaritans; and booths that are not permanent, e.g., those of shepherds, fig driers, guards of fields, or guards of produce, if they were roofed to provide shade, have fit roof-



ing, and were not made for another purpose, they are fit (Magen Avraham). Although they were built by those not obligated in the mitzva and they are not permanent, they are fit, provided that one adds to the sukka, e.g., a square handbreadth of roofing (Baĥ; Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 635:1) ‫ח ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 8b 

41

Perek I Daf 9 Amud a halakha

Old sukka – ‫יְשנָ ה‬ ָ ׁ ‫סו ָּּכה‬: A sukka constructed more than thirty days prior to the festival of Sukkot is fit, provided that one introduces a minor modification with the Festival in mind. This modification can cover a square handbreadth in one place or any measure stretching across the length of the sukka. If one established the sukka specifically for the Festival, it is fit even if it was established a year earlier, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in the mishna and the ruling in the Jerusalem Talmud, which requires the modification. According to most authorities, the modification is added in the roofing (Ittur; Me’iri; Ritva). Even in a sukka established specifically for the Festival one should introduce a modification to make it clear that the sukka is indeed for the sake of the mitzva (Baĥ; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 636:1). Prohibition against deriving benefit from the wood of the sukka – ‫א ּיסוּר ֲהנָ ָאה ַ ּב ֲעצֵ י סו ָּּכה‬:ִ It is prohibited to derive benefit from the wood of the sukka for the duration of the entire festival of Sukkot; this applies to both the walls and the roofing. It is even prohibited to remove a splinter for use as a toothpick. This ruling is in accordance with the ruling of Rav Sheshet in the name of Rabbi Akiva (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 638:1). notes

However, if he established it expressly for the sake of the festival of Sukkot – ‫א ָבל ִאם ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְל ׁ ֵשם ַחג‬: ֲ According to Rashi and others, this phrase in the mishna modifies the opinion of Beit Shammai, indicating that they do not disagree in a case where the sukka was constructed specifically for the Festival. However, this understanding is difficult, as it is not typical for the mishna to discuss Beit Shammai’s opinion at length. Therefore, some interpret this phrase as explaining that Beit Hillel permit not only an old sukka that was built thirty days before the Festival, but even one that was built much earlier (Ran). See Tosafot, who conclude from here that Beit Hillel do not require even a small modification to the sukka if it was built for the sake of the Festival. Some explain that the term makhshirin in the mishna means render it fit, not deem it fit, alluding to the fact that there is an obligation to make a small modification in the sukka ab initio. Modifications in the sukka – ‫חדּ ו ּׁש ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬:ִ In the Jerusalem Talmud, there is a requirement to introduce a minor modification to render an old sukka fit. Some hold that it is a requirement by Torah law (Beit Yosef; ge’onim). Others say that the requirement to introduce a modification is only to enhance the mitzva, and the sukka is fit even by rabbinic law without modification (Ran; Me’iri; Magen Avraham; see Tosafot). Prohibition of the wood of the sukka – ‫א ּיסוּר ֲעצֵ י סו ָּּכה‬:ִ The nature of this prohibition is subject to dispute. Some maintain that the wood of the sukka is consecrated by Torah law, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it for the duration of the mitzva (see Tosafot). Others hold that the wood was designated for fulfillment of the mitzva, and it may not be used in a manner similar to items that are set aside from use on Shabbat and Festivals. There is also a disagreement whether the Torah prohibition, according to that opinion, applies to the entire sukka or just to its essential component, i.e., its minimum dimensions by Torah law (Rabbeinu Yitzĥak and Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot). An additional question is whether the prohibition applies only to a standing sukka, or even to wood that fell off during the Festival (see Me’iri; Rosh; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav). Some distinguish between different parts of the sukka as follows: The roofing is prohibited due to its sanctity, the walls because they are set aside, and the decorations due to the prohibition of treating a mitzva with contempt (see Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Me’iri).

42 

Perek I . 9a . ‫ט ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫ֹוס ִלין‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ּפ‬,‫מתני׳ סו ָּּכה יְ ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ ‫ וְ ֵאיזֹו ִהיא סו ָּּכה‬.‫ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬ ‫קֹודם ֶל ָחג ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים‬ ֶ ‫יְ ׁ ָשנָ ה? ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ִאם ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְל ׁ ֵשם ַחג‬.‫יֹום‬ ַּ ‫ִמ ְּת ִח‬ .‫ילת ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

mishna 

With regard to an old sukka, h Beit Shammai deem it unfit for the mitzva of sukka and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And which is considered an old sukka? It is any booth that one established thirty days or more prior to the Festival without expressly designating that it was for the mitzva of sukka. In that case, the assumption is that he constructed it for some other purpose. However, if he established it expressly for the sake of the festival of Sukkot,n even if he constructed it at the beginning of the previous year, it is fit for use in the fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka, even according to Beit Shammai.n

gemara 

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale ‫גמ׳ ַמאי ַט ְע ַמיְ יה ּו דְּ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי? ָא ַמר‬ for the opinion of Beit Shammai? The – ‫״חג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים ַלה׳״‬ ַ :‫ְק ָרא‬ Gemara explains that it is as the verse states: “The festival of .‫ סו ָּּכה ָה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ְל ׁ ֵשם ַחג ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬Sukkot is seven days unto the Lord” (Leviticus 23:34), indicating that we require a sukka established for the sake of the Festival. A sukka not constructed expressly for the Festival is unfit. ‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַרב‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַההוּא ִמ‬:‫ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ַל ֲעצֵ י סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ֲאסו ִּרין ָּכל‬:‫ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫״ח ג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים ַלה׳״‬

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Hillel interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In Beit Hillel’s opinion, that verse is necessary to teach in accordance with the statement of Rav Sheshet, as Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From where is it derived that use of the wood of the sukka is prohibitedhn for any purpose other than for the sukka all seven days of the Festival, and it is designated exclusively for the mitzva? It is derived as the verse states: “The festival of Sukkot is seven days unto the Lord.”

‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירה‬,‫וְ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ָחל ׁ ֵשם ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם ַעל ַה ֲחגִ יגָ ה ָּכךְ ָחל ׁ ֵשם‬ ‫״חג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות‬ ַ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם ַעל ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ַמה ַחג ַלה׳ – ַאף‬,‫ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים ַלה׳״‬ .‫סו ָּּכה ַלה׳‬

And it is taught in a baraita in explanation that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Just as the name of Heaven takes effect upon the Festival peace-offering, so too, the name of Heaven takes effect upon the sukka, as it is stated: “The festival of Sukkot is seven days unto the Lord”; just as the Festival offering is consecrated to the Lord, so too, the sukka is consecrated to the Lord.

‫יה ְל ָה ִכי! ִאין‬ ּ ָ ‫ ו ֵּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי נַ ִמי ִמ‬The Gemara asks: But don’t Beit Shammai require the verse to ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ .‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬derive this halakha as well? The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so that Beit Shammai derives the sanctity of the wood of the sukka from this verse. Therefore, the rationale for their opinion with regard to an old sukka must be based on a different verse. ‫ֶא ָּלא ַמאי ַט ֲע ַמיְ יה ּו דְּ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי – ְּכ ִתיב‬ ָ‫״חג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְלך‬ ַ :‫ְק ָרא ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ‫ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים״ – סו ָּּכה ָה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ְל ׁ ֵשם‬ .‫ַחג ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬

Rather, what is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Shammai with regard to an old sukka? Another verse is written: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days” (Deuteronomy 16:13), from which it is derived that we require a sukka established for the sake of the Festival.

‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫יה ְל‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַההוּא ִמ‬:‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Hillel interpret this verse? ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ .‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫ סו ָּּכה ְ ּבחוּלּ ֹו ׁ ֶשל‬The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach that one may establish a sukka even during the intermediate days of the Festival. If one failed to construct a sukka prior to the onset of the Festival, or if it collapsed during the Festival, he may establish it during the intermediate days, as the mitzva to establish a sukka is in effect for all seven days of the Festival. ,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ְס ִב ָירא ְלה ּו ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ ו ֵּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬The Gemara asks: And from where do Beit Shammai derive this ‫עֹושין סו ָּּכה ְ ּבח ו ּּלֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ִׂ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬halakha? They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: One may not establish a sukka during the .‫מֹועד‬ ֵ intermediate days of the Festival. Therefore, the requirement to build the sukka for the sake of the mitzva may be derived from this verse.

?‫ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ֵלית ְלה ּו דְּ ַרב יְהו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ִמן‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ,‫ִימין ו ִּמן ַה ְ ּג ָר ִדין – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ִ ‫ַה ּקֹוצִ ין ו ִּמן ַה ּנ‬ .‫יסין – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ִ ‫ִמן ַה ִּס‬

The Gemara proceeds to clarify Beit Hillel’s opinion: And do Beit Hillel not agree with the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one fashioned ritual fringes from hanging threads that remain protruding from the fabric like thorns after most of the superfluous threads were torn, and tied them into ritual fringes; or if he tied the fringes from threadsh that hang down after sewing; or if he tied them from the fringes [geradin]nl that hang from the bottom of a garment, the ritual fringes are unfit for fulfilling the mitzva. However, if the ritual fringes were tied from balls of thread that were not spun for the sake of the mitzva, they are fit.

‫ ַאף‬:‫יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר ִלי‬ ּ ‫ִּכי ָא ְמ ִר ָית ּה ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫(א ְל ָמא) דְּ ָב ֵעינַן‬ ַ ,‫יסין נַ ִמי ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ִ ‫ִמן ַה ִּס‬ ‫ נִ ַ ּב ֲעיָ א סו ָּּכה‬,‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬.‫ְטוִ ּיָ ה ִל ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬ !‫ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ִל ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬

And Rav Yehuda related: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Even ritual fringes tied from balls of thread are unfit, as we require the spinning of the thread to be for the sake of the mitzva.h Just as the threads for the ritual fringes must be spun for the sake of the mitzva, here too, let us require a sukka established for the sake of the mitzva.

‫ ״ ְ ּג ִד ִילים ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬:‫ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬. ָ‫חֹובך‬ ְ ‫״ל ְך״ – ְל ׁ ֵשם‬ ָ ,‫ָּל ְך״‬ ‫״לךָ ״ – ְל ׁ ֵשם‬ ְ ,‫״חג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְלךָ ״‬ ַ ! ָ‫חֹובך‬ ְ

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: “You shall prepare for you fringes” (Deuteronomy 22:12), from which it is derived: “For you,” for the sake of your obligation. The fringes, from the beginning of their production, must be produced for the sake of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: Here, too, with regard to sukka, the verse says: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13). Shouldn’t it be derived: “For you,” for the sake of your obligation?

‫ ָה ָתם‬.‫יה ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ְ ּגזו ָּלה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַההוּא ִמ‬The Gemara answers that this term “for you” is required to exּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ !‫יה ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ְ ּגזו ָּלה‬ ּ ָ ‫ נַ ִמי ִמ‬clude use of a stolen sukka; establish the sukka for you, and do ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ not use a sukka belonging to another. The Gemara asks: There, too, with regard to ritual fringes, isn’t the term “for you” required to exclude use of stolen ritual fringes? ‫ ״וְ ָע ׂש ּו‬:‫ ָה ָתם ְּכ ִתיב ְק ָרא ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬The Gemara answers: There, with regard to ritual fringes, an.‫ ָל ֶהם״ – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶהם‬other verse is written: “And they shall make for them ritual fringes” (Numbers 15:38), from which it is derived: “For them,” of their own, to exclude the use of stolen ritual fringes. Therefore from the term “for you,” it may be derived that ritual fringes must be produced for the sake of the mitzva.

halakha

Ritual fringes made from thorns or from threads – ‫צִ יצִ ית‬ ‫ִימין‬ ִ ‫מן ַה ּקֹוצִ ין וְ ַה ּנ‬:ִ It is prohibited to fashion ritual fringes from strands of wool caught in thorns used to smooth the fabric, or from strands of wool detached from an animal or from the edges of a cloth, since using these strands is a display of contempt for the mitzva. This ruling is in accordance with the interpretation of the Gemara according to the ge’onim and the Rambam (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 11:5). Ritual fringes specifically for the sake of the mitzva – ‫חו ֵּטי‬ ‫צִ יצִ ית ִל ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬: Ritual fringes must be spun specifically for the sake of the mitzva, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as the Gemara rules in accordance with his opinion (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 11:1). notes

Thorns [kotzin], threads [nimin], and fringes [geradin] – ‫ִימין וְ ַה ְ ּג ָר ִדין‬ ִ ‫ה ּקֹוצִ ין ַה ּנ‬:ַ Several explanations were suggested for these terms. According to Rashi and the Rid, kotzin are warp threads that remain hanging on the loom after a patch of cloth is torn away and are retied and woven into the next patch of cloth. Some explain that they are parts of a weave that are torn when it is combed with special thorns used to smooth the cloth (Ritva). According to the ge’onim, nimin are strands of thick hair, such as goat hair, which can be found mixed in the wool. The ge’onim interpret geradin as referring to threads scraped from the end of the weave in order to straighten it. According to the explanation of the ge’onim, it is prohibited to use these scraps for a mitzva due to the prohibition against treating mitzvot with contempt. This opinion is also cited in the Shulĥan Arukh. Others prohibit using these types of thread due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, which requires one to perform a positive action in preparing the ritual fringes. Yet others prohibit their use due to the requirement that the threads must be prepared specifically for the sake of the mitzva (see Arukh LaNer and others). language

Fringes [geradin] – ‫ג ָר ִדין‬:ּ ְ Apparently from the Greek γέρδιος, gerdios, meaning weaver. Several terms dealing with weaving and the loom are derived from this root.

Perek I Daf 9 Amud b – ‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ַּת ַחת ָה ִא ָילן‬ ׂ ֶ ‫מתני׳ ָה‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ִא‬ ‫ סו ָּּכה ַעל‬.‫תֹוך ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ְ ‫יל ּו ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְ ּב‬ ‫ַ ּג ֵ ּבי סו ָּּכה – ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה‬ ‫יֹורין‬ ִ ָּ‫ ִאם ֵאין ד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ .‫ָ ּב ֶע ְליֹונָ ה – ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

mishna 

With regard to one who establishes his sukka beneath a tree,hn it is as though he established it inside the housen and it is unfit. If one established a sukka atop another sukka,n the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no residents in the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit.

halakha

Sukka beneath a tree – ‫סו ָּּכה ַּת ַחת ָה ִא ָילן‬: A sukka built beneath a tree whose shade exceeds its sunlight is unfit, in accordance with the mishna and the opinion of Rava (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 626:1).

notes

Sukka beneath a tree – ‫סו ָּּכה ַּת ַחת ָה ִא ָילן‬: This case is interpreted differently by various commentaries and halakhic authorities (see Me’iri and others). According to Rabbeinu Tam, who cites the ge’onim and others, there is a distinction between a case where the sukka was built before the tree was planted, where the sukka is fit, and a case where the tree was there before the sukka was established, where the sukka is unfit. As though he established it inside the house – ‫ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬ ‫בתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬:ּ ְ The lack of fitness of a sukka inside a house is obvious to the tanna because the fundamental meaning of the verse is that one leaves his home to reside in a sukka. No additional



source is necessary to deem a sukka in a house unfit (Sefat Emet). Apparently, that is also the basis for deeming a sukka beneath a tree unfit, as that is not a sukka (Arukh LaNer; see Penei Yehoshua). Alternatively, that could have been derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a sukka atop another sukka. A sukka atop another sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי סו ָּּכה‬: The difference between the case of a sukka beneath another sukka and that of a sukka beneath a tree is that in the former, the lower sukka is unfit only when there is a gap separating the two layers of roofing, while a sukka beneath a tree is unfit even when there is no gap between the roofing and the tree. ‫ט ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 9b 

43

halakha

A sukka beneath a tree whose shade is minimal – ‫סו ָּּכה ַּת ַחת‬ ‫א ָילן ׁ ֶש ִ ּצ ּלֹו מו ָּעט‬:ִ If a sukka is established beneath a tree whose sunlight exceeds its shade, and the shade of the sukka is greater than its sunlight, some are of the opinion that it is fit and nothing further is required. However, if the sunlight of the sukka is greater than its shade, and it is only the shade provided by the tree that causes the shade in the sukka to exceed the sunlight, one must lower the branches of the tree and interweave them with the fit roofing of the sukka so that they will not be discernible (Rashi; Tosafot; Tur). Others say that even if the sukka is fit and its shade exceeds its sunlight, if the branches of the tree are directly above the fit roofing, they render the sukka unfit; however, if one interwove the branches of the tree into the roofing of the sukka, the sukka is fit. In addition, if the branches are not directly above the fit roofing, the sukka is fit (Rema). The halakha is in accordance with the latter, stricter ruling (Peri Megadim; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav: others), although in exigent circumstances one may rely on the lenient opinion (Biur Halakha; others; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 626:1). background

Gourd – ‫דְּ ַל ַעת‬: Also called the bottle gourd or Lagenaria siceraria, this is a leafy summer vegetable of the gourd family. Usually it grows extended on the ground, but at times it is trellised on trees. The gourd is trellised on branches and its fruits hang down. The greenish-white gourd produced by the plant is large, 40–50 cm long and 25–30 cm wide, and shaped like a jug or bottle. The young fruit is typically eaten cooked and its seeds are eaten as a dessert.

Bottle gourd

gemara 

Rava said: They taught this halakha that ‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ִא ָילן‬ a sukka beneath a tree is unfit only with ‫ ֲא ָבל ֲח ָמתֹו‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִ ּצ ָּלתֹו ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ֲח ָמתֹו‬ regard to a tree whose shade is greater than its sunlight, as the .‫ ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּלתֹו – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬source of the shade in the sukka is the tree and not the roofing. However, if its sunlight is greater than its shade,h the sukka is fit, as in that case the roofing provides the shade. ּ ‫״כ ִא‬ ‫יל ּו ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬ ְּ ‫ִמ ַּמאי – ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫יתנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ָל ָּמ ה ִל י ְל ִמ‬.‫תֹוך ַה ַ ּביִ ת״‬ ְ ‫ְ ּב‬ ּ‫יל‬ ‫יתנֵי‬ ְ ‫״כ ִא ּו ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת״? ִל‬ ְּ :‫״פסו ָּלה״! ֶא ָּלא ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ ְּ ‫ ַמה ַ ּביִ ת – צִ ָּלתֹו‬,‫דְּ ִא ָילן דּ ו ְּמיָ א דְּ ַביִ ת‬ ‫ ַאף ִא ָילן – צִ ָּלתֹו‬,‫ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ֲח ָמתֹו‬ .‫ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ֲח ָמתֹו‬

The Gemara asks: From where does Rava reach this conclusion? The Gemara answers: He learns this from the fact that the mishna teaches: It is as though he established it inside the house. Why do I need the mishna to teach: It is as though he established it inside the house? Let the mishna teach simply: It is unfit. Rather, this is teaching us that in the context of this halakha, a tree is similar to a house; just as with regard to a house, its shade is greater than its sunlight, so too, with regard to a tree, it invalidates the sukka only if its shade is greater than its sunlight.

?‫ וְ ִכי ֲח ָמתֹו ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּלתֹו ַמאי ָהוֵ י‬The Gemara asks: And even if the sunlight is greater than the ‫ ָהא ָקא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל – ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי‬shade of the tree, what of it? Why does Rava deem the sukka .‫ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֲח ָב ָטן‬:‫ ְס ָכךְ ָּכ ׁ ֵשר! ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬beneath the tree fit in that case? Isn’t there unfit roofing, the uncut branches of the tree, joining together with the fit roofing on the sukka, rendering even the fit roofing on the sukka unfit? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where one lowered the uncut branchesn and combined them with the fit roofing so that the branches still attached to the tree are inconspicuous. Given that the majority of the roofing is fit, the roofing in its entirety is fit. ‫ימ ָרא? ַמה ּו‬ ְ ‫ ַמאי ְל ֵמ‬,‫ִאי ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֲח ָב ָטן‬ ‫יכא דַּ ֲח ָב ָטן ַא ּט ּו‬ ָ ‫ נִיגְ זֹור ֵה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ֵת‬ ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫יכא דְּ ל ֹא ֲח ָב ָטן‬ ָ ‫ֵה‬ .‫דְּ ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן‬

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where he lowered them, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isn’t it self-evident? The Gemara answers that it is necessary lest you say: Let us issue a decree and deem the roofing unfit in a case where one lowered them due to a case where one did not lower them. Therefore, it teaches us that we do not issue such a decree.

‫יה ֶאת ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן‬ ָ ‫ ִה ְד ָלה ָע ֶל‬:‫ָהא נַ ִמי ָּתנֵינָ א‬ ‫ וְ ִס ֵּיכךְ ַעל‬,‫וְ ֶאת ַהדְּ ַל ַעת וְ ֶאת ַה ִּק ּיסֹוס‬ ‫יכוּךְ ַה ְר ֵ ּבה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִאם ָהיָ ה ִס‬.‫ַ ּג ָ ּבן – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ .‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ְּקצָ צָ ן – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬,‫ֵמ ֶהן‬

The Gemara asks: That halakha, too, we already learned in a mishna: If one trellised the grapevine, the gourd,b or the ivy, climbing plants, over a sukka while they are still attached to the ground, and he then added roofing atop them, the sukka is unfit, as roofing attached to the ground is unfit. If the amount of fit roofing was greater than the plants attached to the ground, or if he cut the climbing plants so that they were no longer attached to the ground, it is fit.

– ‫ימא ְ ּב ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ֲח ָב ָטן‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ִמי? ִא ֵיל‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ ְ‫ָהא ָקא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְס ָכךְ ּ ָפסוּל ִעם ְס ָכך‬ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֲח ָב ָטן‬,‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫ ָהנֵי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ִמ ָּינ ּה דְּ ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַ ן! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ,‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּילה ל ֹא‬,‫יע ַבד‬ ֲ ‫ִמ ֵּילי – ְ ּב ִד‬ .‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

The Gemara clarifies the details of the mishna: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to a case where he did not lower the climbing plants and combine them with the fit roofing, doesn’t the unfit roofing join together with the fit roofingn on the sukka, rendering even the fit roofing on the sukka unfit? Rather, isn’t the mishna referring to a case where he lowered them, and conclude from this mishna that we do not issue a decree in a case where he lowered the branches due to a case where he did not lower the branches. Rava’s statement is therefore unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this applies only after the fact, i.e., that if one already lowered the uncut branches or plants it is not unfit, but one may not do so ab initio; therefore, Rava teaches us that one may place roofing in this manner even ab initio. notes

Where one lowered the branches [besheĥavatan] – ‫ב ׁ ֶש ֲח ָב ָטן‬:ּ ְ There are several explanations of the verb ĥavat in this context. Some say it means that one lowered the branches of the tree and interwove them with the roofing atop the sukka (Rashi; most halakhic authorities). Others explain that it means that he removed leaves from the tree until there were so few left that they did not provide shade (ge’onim; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Or Zarua; others). Another opinion is that it means that he cut the branches but did not move the roofing after he cut it (Rambam). Some explain that this last method is effective

44 

Perek I . 9b . ‫ט ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

only if one placed the branches separate from the fit roofing (Maggid Mishne; others). And some say it means that he cut the branches almost completely off the tree, and they were attached by a thread (Piskei Rid; others). Doesn’t the unfit roofing join together with the fit roofing – ‫הא ָקא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל‬:ָ The Ra’avad explains that the concern is that the unfit roofing may cover an area of four by four handbreadths, thereby rendering the entire sukka unfit.

:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫ § ״סו ָּּכה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי סו ָּּכה״ וכו׳‬The mishna continues: If one established a sukka atop another sukka, the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. ‫(״ב ּסו ּּכֹות) ֵּת ׁ ְשבוּ״ – וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ַּת ַחת‬ ַּ The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: “In sukkot ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ַּת ַחת ָה ִא ָילן‬,‫ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42),n and not in a sukka that .‫ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ is beneath another sukka,b and not in sukka that is beneath a tree, and not in a sukka that is inside a house.

background

A sukka beneath another sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ַּת ַחת סו ָּּכה‬:

‫״ב ּסו ּּכֹות״ ַּת ְר ֵּתי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע! ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ּ ַ ,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬The Gemara questions that derivation. On the contrary, the .‫״ב ֻּס ּכֹת״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ּ ַ :‫ נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬term “in sukkot,” which is written in the plural, indicates two. The conclusion should be that one sitting inside a sukka beneath a sukka fulfills the mitzva. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Although the term is vocalized in the plural, basukkot is written without the vav, indicating a single sukka. ,‫יהן ְּכ ׁ ֵשירֹות‬ ֶ ‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ֵּת‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ ‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה‬,‫יהן ּ ְפסוּלֹות‬ ֶ ‫ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ֵּת‬ ‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה‬,‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ .‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה וְ ָה ֶעיֹונָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

Rabbi Yirmeya said: There are times when both of the sukkot one atop the other are fit;h there are times when both of the sukkot are unfit;h there are times when the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit; and there are times when the lower sukka is unfit and the upper sukka is fit.

‫יכי דָּ ֵמי – ְּכגֹון‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬,‫יהן ְּכ ׁ ֵשירֹות‬ ֶ ‫ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ֵּת‬ ‫ וְ ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה‬,‫ׁ ֶש ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ַח ָּמ ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּל ָת ּה‬ ְ‫ימא ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְ ּבתֹוך‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ַקי‬,‫צִ ָּל ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה‬ .‫ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬

The Gemara elaborates: There are times when both of the sukkot one atop the other are fit. What are the circum­ stances? It is in a case where in the lower sukka its sunlight is greater than its shade, rendering the sukka unfit, and in the upper sukka its shade is greater than its sunlight, rendering the sukka fit. And the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the ground. In that case, the roofing of the upper sukka is effective for both the upper sukka and the lower one.

Two sukkot stacked one atop the other

‫יכי דָּ ֵמי – ְּכגֹון‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬,‫יהן ּ ְפסוּלֹות‬ ֶ ‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ֵּת‬There are times when both of the sukkot are unfit. What are ‫ימא‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ַקי‬,‫ דְּ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו צִ ָּל ָתן ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָתן‬the circumstances? It is in a case where in both sukkot, their .‫ ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬shade is greater than their sunlight, but the upper one is more than twenty cubits above the roofing of the lower sukka, rendering it unfit. Since the roofing of the upper sukka is unfit, and it casts shade over the lower sukka, the lower sukka is also unfit. ,‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬There are times when the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit.

notes

In sukkot shall you reside – ‫ב ֻּס ּכֹת ֵּת ׁ ְשב ּו‬:ּ ַ Some ask: How can the baraita derive the halakha of a sukka under a sukka from this verse when various halakhot concerning the walls of a sukka were already derived from that same verse (Rishon LeTziyyon)? Some explain that although both halakhot are derived from

the same verse, there is more written in these verses than just the source for the number of walls. Alternatively, both matters can be derived from the same verse as both matters are part of the fundamental definition of a sukka (Rishon LeTziyyon, Arukh LaNer, and others).

halakha

A sukka beneath another sukka and both are fit – ‫סו ָּּכה ַּת ַחת‬ ‫יהן ְּכ ׁ ֵשירֹות‬ ֶ ‫סו ָּּכה ו ׁ ְּש ֵּת‬: If one built a sukka beneath another sukka, and the shade in the upper sukka exceeds its sunlight, while the shade of the lower sukka is less than its sunlight, and the height of the roofing of the upper sukka is no more than twenty cubits from the ground, and there are at least ten handbreadths between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower sukka, they are both fit, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi



Yirmeya (see Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 628:1 and Biur Halakha there). A sukka beneath another sukka and both are unfit – ‫סו ָּּכה‬ ‫יהן ּ ְפסוּלֹות‬ ֶ ‫ת ַחת סו ָּּכה ו ׁ ְּש ֵּת‬:ַּ If the shade in both sukkot exceeds the sunlight, and the roofing of the upper sukka is more than twenty cubits high, and there are at least ten handbreadths between the roofing of the two sukkot, they are both unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 628:1 and Biur Halakha there). ‫ט ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 9b 

45

Perek I Daf 10 Amud a notes

And the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the roofing of the lower one – ‫ימא ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ָ ְ‫וְ ַקי‬: See Tosafot (9b), who discuss at length the correct version of the Gemara here. There are many opinions among the early commentaries with regard to this matter, and a corresponding number of variant readings. Essentially the dispute is over the manner in which unfit roofing can be rendered fit. According to Rashi and others, even an initially fit sukka can be rendered unfit by unfit roofing. According to Rabbeinu Tam and others, fit roofing is rendered unfit by unfit roofing only when several criteria are met (see Ritva and Me’iri). As we likewise find in tents of ritual impurity the measure of a handbreadth – ‫ש ֵּכן ָמצִ ינ ּו ְ ּב ָא ֳה ֵלי טו ְּמ ָאה ֶט ַפח‬: ֶ ׁ Some note that the halakha here is derived from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai; this is a deviation from the standard approach, which eschews that type of derivation. Apparently, since it is dealing with measurements, none of which has an explicit source in the Torah, this type of derivation is legitimate (see Sefat Emet and Arukh LaNer).

‫יכי דָּ ִמי – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה צִ ָּל ָת ּה‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in the lower ‫ וְ ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ַח ָּמ ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה‬,‫ ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה‬sukka, its shade is greater than its sunlight, rendering the .‫ימי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ִ ְ‫ וְ ַקי‬,‫ ִמ ִ ּצ ָּל ָת ּה‬sukka fit, and in the upper sukka, its sunlight is greater than its shade and it is therefore insignificant, and the roofing of both is within twenty cubits of the ground. ‫ו ְּפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ַת ְח ּתֹונָ ה‬ ‫יכי דָּ ִמי? ְּכגֹון דְּ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו צִ ָּל ָתן‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫תֹוך‬ ְ ‫ימא ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְ ּב‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ַקי‬,‫ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָתן‬ .‫ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬

And there are times when the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in both sukkot their shade is greater than their sunlight, and the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the roofing of the lower one.n In this case the upper sukka is fit, while the lower sukka is a sukka beneath a sukka and is unfit.

‫יטא! ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ‫ימא נִיגְ זַ ר‬ ָ ‫יה; ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬ ּ ‫יכא ֵל‬ ‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ְס ָכ ְך‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. There is nothing novel in any of these scenarios. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the case where the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit, as it contains a novel element. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree and deem the lower sukka unfit, as perhaps the unfit roofing of the upper sukka joins together with the fit roofing of the lower sukka and renders it unfit as well; therefore, the tanna teaches us that the two roofings do not join together and the upper roofing does not render the lower sukka unfit.

halakha

How much space shall there be between the roofing of the upper sukka and the roofing of the lower sukka – ‫יְהא‬ ֵ ‫ַּכ ָּמה‬ ‫בין סו ָּּכה ְלסו ָּּכה‬:ּ ֵ In order for the halakha of a sukka beneath a sukka to take effect, the space between the two sukkot, measured from roofing to roofing, must be at least ten handbreadths, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. That is the ruling based on the fact that Rav Dimi holds in accordance with his opinion, and based on the halakha that the upper sukka must be fit for residence and in accordance with the halakha cited later with regard to one who sleeps inside netting (Rabbi Yitzĥak ibn Giat; Rambam; Rosh; Tur; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 628:1). Measure of a tent with regard to ritual impurity – ‫ׁ ִשיעוּר א ֶֹהל‬ ‫ב ֻט ְמ ָאה‬: ּ ְ The legal status of a space measuring at least one handbreadth by one handbreadth and one handbreadth high is that of a tent with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. It serves as a barrier that prevents the spread of impurity beyond the space of the tent, and it transmits the impurity to all objects susceptible to impurity within that space (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 12:1).

‫ ַּכ ָּמה יְ ֵהא ֵ ּבין סו ָּּכה ְלסו ָּּכה ו ְּת ֵהא‬The Gemara elucidates this halakha. How much space shall ?‫ ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬there be between the roofing of the upper sukka and the roofing of the lower sukkah for the lower sukka to be considered a discrete entity and therefore disqualified as a sukka beneath a sukka? ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָמצִ ינ ּו ְ ּב ָא ֳה ֵלי‬,‫ ֶט ַפח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫) ֶט ַפח ַעל ֶט ַפח‬:‫ (דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫טו ְּמ ָאה ֶט ַפח‬ ‫ וְ חֹוצֵ ץ‬,‫ְ ּברוּם ֶט ַפח ֵמ ִביא ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ּ ָפחֹות ֵמרוּם ֶט ַפח‬.‫ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ .‫ל ֹא ֵמ ִביא וְ ל ֹא חֹוצֵ ץ‬

Rav Huna said: There must be a handbreadth of space, as we likewise find in tents of ritual impurity the measure of a handbreadth.n With regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, the legal status of the space of one handbreadth beneath a roof is that of a tent, as we learned in a mishna: A space measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth with a height of one handbreadth transmits ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse is in that space, the impurity is transmitted to all people, vessels, and food in that space. And a space that size serves as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity beyond that space.h However, if the space measures less than the height of one handbreadth, it does not transmit impurity to the objects in that space, and it does not serve as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity. The impurity breaches the confining walls and rises upward as if there were no covering over it.

:‫ וְ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ְמ ִרי‬Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: For this to be consid]‫[ח ׁשוּב‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָמצִ ינ ּו ָמקֹום‬,‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ered a sukka beneath a sukka, the space between the roofing of ,‫ ּ ָפחֹות ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least four handbreadths, as we do not find a significant area that measures less than four handbreadths, e.g., with regard to the domains of Shabbat. ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬:‫ ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬And Shmuel said: The space between the roofing of the upper ‫ דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל – ְּכ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵש ָר ּה ָּכ ְך ּ ְפסו ָּל ּה; ָמה‬sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least ten hand.‫ ַאף ּ ְפסו ָּל ּה ַ ּב ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬,‫ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵש ָר ּה ַ ּב ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬breadths. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara explains: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness; just as its fitness is only in a sukka ten handbreadths high, so too, its unfitness as a sukka is engendered only by a sukka ten handbreadths high. ‫יֹורין‬ ִ ָּ‫ ִאם ֵאין ד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ְּתנַ ן‬The Gemara questions Shmuel’s statement: We learned in the .‫ ָ ּב ֶע ְליֹונָ ה – ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no residents in the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit.

46 

Perek I . 10a . ‫י ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫יֹורין‬ ִ ָּ‫ימא ד‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ֵ ‫יֹורין״? ִא‬ ִ ָּ‫״אין ד‬ ֵ ‫ַמאי‬ ‫יֹורין ָקא ָ ּג ְר ִמי?! ֶא ָּלא‬ ִ ָּ‫ַמ ָּמ ׁש – ַא ּט ּו ד‬ ‫יֹורין״ – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ִ ָּ‫״אין ד‬ ֵ ‫ָלאו – ַמאי‬ ‫בֹוה‬ ַּ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי – דְּ ל ֹא ָ ּג‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵה‬,‫ְראוּיָ ה ְל ִד ָירה‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל‬:‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ָס ַבר‬,‫ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ !‫ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ְל ִד ָירה – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: There are no residents? If we say that it means that there are no actual residents, the question arises: Is that to say that residents cause it to be unfit? If the upper sukka is a fit sukka, is there any difference whether or not people reside there? Rather, what is the meaning of: There are no residents? Is it not referring to any sukka that is not suitable to serve as a residence? And what are the circumstances of that case? It is a case where the sukka is not ten handbreadths high, as anything less than ten handbreadths high is not considered a residence. From the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda who distinguishes between whether or not the upper sukka is at least ten handbreadths high, conclude by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that the lower sukka is unfit even if the upper sukka is less than ten hand­breadths high and therefore not suitable to serve as a residence. This is contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.

‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ימי ָא ַמ ר‬ ִ ִּ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬ ‫כֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫ ִאם ֵאין ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה י‬:‫ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא‬ – ‫ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ָּכ ִרים ו ְּכ ָסתֹות ׁ ֶשל ֶע ְליֹונָ ה‬ .‫ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he saidn that the Sages say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in explanation of the mishna: If the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, then the lower sukka is fit, as the upper sukka is not suitable to serve as an independent residence. According to this explanation, the mishna does not discuss the height of the upper sukka; it discusses the quality of the roofing.

‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי‬:‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ָס ַבר‬The Gemara notes: Is that to say by inference that the first tanna !?‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ְל ַק ֵ ּבל – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬holds that even though the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, the lower sukka is unfit? In that case, the upper sukka is not a suitable residence. Why should the lower sukka be unfit? ‫יכֹולה ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ַעל יְ ֵדי‬ ָ ִּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו ד‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara answers: The first tanna agrees that if the roofing of the .‫ ַהדְּ ָחק‬lower sukka is unable to support the cushions and the blankets at all, the upper sukka is not considered a sukka and the lower sukka is fit. However, there is a practical difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda in a case where the roofing of the lower sukka is able to support the cushions and the blankets of the upper sukka with difficulty and there is a concern that the roofing might collapse. In that case, the first tanna holds that since the roofing is capable of supporting the cushions and blankets, the upper sukka is considered a separate sukka and renders the lower sukka unfit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, since the roofing is able to support the weight of the cushions and blankets only with difficulty, the upper sukka is not fit. Therefore, the lower sukkah is fit.

notes

When Rav Dimi came he said – ‫ימי ָא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫כי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬:ִּ See the Ritva, who discusses at length whether Rav Dimi’s explanation is cited by the Gemara specifically in support of Shmuel’s statement or whether it is cited as an explanation of the mishna unrelated to Shmuel’s statement (see Me’iri and Arukh LaNer). If one spread a sheet over the roofing – ‫יה ָס ִדין‬ ָ ‫פ ַירס ָע ֶל‬:ֵ ּ The commentaries disagree whether the reason that this would render the sukka unfit is because he adds additional roofing, or because he is sitting beneath unfit roofing (see Rabbeinu Yonatan and Sefer Hashlama). They also disagree whether the reason that placing the sheet beneath the roofing renders the sukka unfit is that it constitutes a barrier of unfit roofing between the individual and the fit roofing, and therefore it does not render the sukka unfit in cases where it is ancillary to the roofing, e.g., as a decoration. Alternatively, there may be a distinction between a case where the sheet was placed for the comfort of the person in the sukka, even if it is to protect him from the sun, in which case it does not render the sukka unfit, and a case where it was placed to preserve the roofing, in which case it renders the sukka unfit (see Mordekhai and Penei Yehoshua). Over the frame of a two-post bed – ‫יטי ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ ֵ ‫על ַ ּג ֵ ּבי נַ ְק ִל‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud this case is analogous to that of one sleeping in his bed covered by a sheet. Although he occasionally lifts his hands and raises the sheet, obviously the sheet does not become a tent serving as a barrier so that he is not considered to be beneath the roof of the sukka. language

Four-post [kinof ] bed – ‫קינֹוף‬:ִ From the Greek κωνωπεών, konopeon, meaning a bed with a canopy over it. Two-post [naklitin] bed – ‫יטין‬ ִ ‫נַ ְק ִל‬: From the Greek

ἀνάκλιτον, anakliton, which refers to a chair that reclines, bed supports, and the like. The word was adopted to connote a specific type of bed support.

mishna 

If one spread a sheet over the roofingnh as ,‫יה ָס ִדין ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַח ָּמה‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ּ ֵפ ַירס ָע ֶל‬ protection for those sitting in the sukka due to ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ּ ֵפ ַירס ַעל‬,‫יה ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ּנ ׁ ְָשר‬ ָ ‫אֹו ַּת ְח ֶּת‬ the sun, or if one spread a sheet beneath the roofing as protection ‫ ֲא ָבל ּפ ֵֹורס הוּא ַעל‬,‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּקינֹוף ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬due to the falling leaves, or if one spread a sheet as a canopy over .‫יטי ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּבי נַ ְק ִל‬the frame of a four-post [kinof] bed,l the area in the sukka beneath the sheets is unfit. In the first two cases, because the sheet is susceptible to ritual impurity, it renders the otherwise fit roofing unfit. In the case of the canopy, one is not sitting under the roofing of the sukka; rather, he is sitting inside a tent. However, one may spread the sheet over the frame of a two-post [naklitei] bed,nl which has one post in the middle of each end of the bed. When spreading the sheet over the posts it forms an inclined rather than a flat roof, and a tent with an inclined roof is not considered a significant structure. halakha

Upper sukka, lower sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה סו ָּּכה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה‬: In a case where one sukka is built atop another, and there are ten handbreadths between the roofing of one and the roofing of the other, and the roofing of the lower sukka is capable, even if only with difficulty, of supporting the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, the lower sukka is unfit and the upper sukka is fit. If there are less than ten handbreadths between the two or if the roofing of the lower sukka is incapable of supporting the cushions of the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 628:1).



A sukka in which one spread a sheet over its roofing – ‫סו ָּּכה‬ ‫ש ּ ֵפ ַירס ָע ֶל ָיה ָס ִדין‬: ֶ ׁ If a sheet was spread over the roofing of a sukka to shield from the sun, or beneath the roofing in order to prevent leaves from falling on the people inside, the sukka is unfit. However, one is permitted to spread a sheet for decoration, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda supported by the baraita (Maggid Mishne). That is the halakha provided that the sheet is within four handbreadths of the roofing, in accordance with the opinions of Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna (Rashi; Rambam; Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Ran; others). Others hold that the

sheet renders the sukka unfit only if its purpose is to prevent the roofing from losing its leaves or drying out, both of which affect the ratio of shade to sunlight. However, if the sheet was placed for the benefit of the individual, e.g., to shield one from the sun or falling leaves, it is permitted as long as it is within four handbreadths of the roof (Rabbeinu Tam; Rosh; Or Zarua; Tur; others). The later authorities ruled that one should follow the stringent opinion unless faced with exigent circumstances, in which case one may follow the more lenient opinion (Peri Megadim and others; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:19). ‫י ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 10a 

47

language

Grape branches [parkilei] – ‫פ ְר ִּכ ֵילי‬:ַ ּ Possibly related to the Greek φραγέλλιον, fragellion, an adopted term meaning branch or twig.

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ .‫אֹותה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ָ ָ‫ ֲא ָבל ְלנ‬,‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ּנ ׁ ְָשר‬ ‫״מ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ּנ ׁ ְָשר״ ְּתנַ ן! ַמה ּו‬ ִ ,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ,‫אֹותה‬ ָ ָ‫ימא הוּא ַהדִּ ין דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְלנ‬ ָ ‫דְּ ֵת‬ ‫אֹור ָחא‬ ְ – ‫״מ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ּנ ׁ ְָשר״‬ ִ ‫וְ ַהאי דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫דְּ ִמ ְּיל ָתא ָק ָתנֵי‬

‫יכ ָכ ּה ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָת ּה‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ְּ ‫ ִס‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ,‫יט ָר ּה ִ ּב ְק ָר ִמין ו ִּב ְס ִדינִין ַה ְמצוּּיָ ִרין‬ ְּ ‫וְ ִע‬ ‫ ֲא ַפ ְר ֵס ִקין‬,‫ ׁ ְש ֵק ִדים‬,‫וְ ָת ָלה ָ ּב ּה ֱאגֹוזִ ין‬ ‫ ּ ַפ ְר ִּכ ֵילי ֲענָ ִבים וַ ֲע ָטרֹות ׁ ֶשל‬,‫וְ ִר ּמֹונִים‬ – ‫ יֵ ינֹות ׁ ְש ָמנִים ו ְּס ָלתֹות‬,‫ׁ ִש ּב ִֹולין‬ ‫ָאסוּר ְל ִה ְס ַּת ּ ֵפק ֵמ ֶהן‬

gemara 

Rav Ĥisda said: The Sages taught the ruling that the sheet renders the sukka unfit only when it is placed underneath the roofing due to the falling leaves; however, if his intent was to spread the sheet for decorative purposes to beautify the sukka, it is not in the category of roofing and the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as: Due to the falling leaves, is what we learned in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the same is true, i.e., the sukka is unfit, even when the sheet was spread to beautify the sukka, and the reason that the mishna teaches specifically the case where one spread the sheet due to the falling leaves is that the mishna teaches the matter, spreading a sheet in the sukka, in the manner in which it typically occurs. Rav Ĥisda teaches us that the formulation of the mishna is precise and the halakha applies specifically to the case cited. If one spread the sheet for decorative purposes, it does not render the sukka unfit.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following Tosefta supports the opinion of Rav Ĥisda. If one roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, grape branches [parkilei],l and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to derive benefit and use them

Perek I Daf 10 Amud b notes

Sukka decorations – ‫נֹויֵ י סו ָּּכה‬: Some view the decorations as objects that are not roofing and are not fit to be roofing, and address their halakhic status accordingly (see Rashi and others). Others hold that the halakhic status of the decorations is unique because they are neither an integral part of the sukka nor are they incorporated into and negated by the sukka. This issue is related to the question whether the sunlight that passes through these decorations exceeds the shade that they provide or vice versa (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; ge’onim).

.‫ ַעד מֹוצָ ֵאי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And if before .‫ וְ ִאם ִה ְתנָ ה ֲע ֵל ֶיהם – ַה ּכֹל ְל ִפי ְּתנָ אֹו‬he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he .‫ דִּ ְל ָמא ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everythingh is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. Apparently, sheets may indeed be spread in the sukka for decorative purposes. The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from the Tosefta, as perhaps the reference is to sheets spread on the side of the sukka. However, if they are spread beneath the roofing, it renders the sukka unfit. ‫ נֹויֵ י סו ָּּכה ֵאין ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטין‬,‫ § ִא ְּת ַמר‬Apropos decorations, it was stated: Sukka decorationsn do not h ‫ ו ִּמן ַה ַ ּצד‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬.‫ ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬diminish the height of the sukka. Decorations hanging from the roofing are not considered part of the structure and therefore do .‫ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטין‬ not diminish the height of the sukka. If the roofing is more than twenty cubits above the ground, the decorations hanging within twenty cubits of the ground do not render the sukka fit. Rav Ashi said: However, if the decorations are spread on the side of the roof, they are considered part of the structure and diminishh the area. If the decorations render the interior of the sukka less than seven by seven handbreadths, the sukka is unfit.

halakha

Prohibition against deriving benefit from the sukka decorations – ‫א ּיסוּר ֲהנָ ָאה ִמנּ ֹויֵ י ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬: ִ One may not derive benefit from food and drinks hanging in the sukka, as decorations during the Festival may not be used unless one expressly stipulated prior to the onset of the Festival that he is not refraining from their use throughout the twilight period, during which their status as set-aside objects is determined. In that case, one may benefit from them throughout the Festival, in accordance with the Gemara here and in tractate Beitza (30b) (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 638:2). Sukka decorations do not diminish – ‫נֹויֵ י סו ָּּכה ֵאינָ ם ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטים‬: Objects hanging in the sukka as decorations do not diminish the height of the internal space of the sukka, neither to render it

48 

Perek I . 10b . ‫י ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

fit, e.g., when the decorations hang within twenty cubits of the ground from roofing higher than twenty cubits, nor to render it unfit, e.g., when the decorations hang within ten handbreadths of the ground. Some say that decorations that are fit roofing diminish the interior space of the sukka (Peri Megadim) and others disagree (Baĥ; Levush; Biur Halakha; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 633:3). Diminishing from the side – ‫מעוּט ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬:ִ If decorations are attached to the walls of the sukka that diminish the area of the sukka to less than the requisite minimum of a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the sukka is unfit, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 634:3).

‫יה‬ ָ ׁ ‫יט ִמ‬ ַ ‫יה דְּ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ִא‬ ּ ‫ישא ֵל‬ ּ ֵּ‫ִמנְיָ ִמין ַע ְבד‬ .‫ וְ ִא ׁ ְש ַּת ְּט ָחא ַא ְּמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬,‫ְּכתֹונְ ָתא ְ ּב ַמּיָ א‬ ‫ימר ּו ָקא‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ָלא ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ דַּ ְלי‬:‫יה ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ָקא‬.‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכי ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫יה דִּ ְר ִט ָיבא! ְל ִכי ְיָב ׁ ָשה ָק ָא ִמינָ א‬ ּ ‫ָחז ּו ֵל‬ . ְ‫ָלך‬

The Gemara relates with regard to Minyamin, the servant of Rav Ashi, that his shirt became wet [itamisha],l and he spread it over the sukkan to dry it. Rav Ashi said to him: Take it down so that people will not say that they are roofing the sukka with an item susceptible to ritual impurity. The servant said to him: But don’t they see that it is wet and understand that I placed it there to dry? Rav Ashi replied: Take it down once it is dry is what I am saying to you, as then people are apt to think that it is part of the roofing.

‫ נֹויֵ י סו ָּּכה ַה ּמ ּו ְפ ָלגִ ין ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה‬,‫ ִא ְּת ַמר‬It was stated with regard to sukka decorations, e.g., sheets spread ‫ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬:‫ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר‬.‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬beneath the roofing to decorate the sukka, that are removed from h .‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ְמ ִרי‬the roofing four handbreadths, the amora’im disagreed whether they interpose between the roofing and the sukka. Rav Naĥman said: The sukka remains fit. Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is unfit. ‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ִא ְיק ְלע ּו ְל ֵבי‬ ‫ ַאגְ נִינְ ה ּו ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ְ ּבסו ָּּכה‬,‫ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬ ,‫יה מו ְּפ ָלגִ ין ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ָ ֶ‫ׁ ֶשנּ ֹוי‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה וְ ָלא ִמידֵּ י‬ ּ ‫ִא ׁ ְש ִּתיק ּו וְ ָלא ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬ ‫ ַהדּ וּר ְ ּבה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ִמ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ַתיְ יהוּ? ֲא ַמר ּו‬:ּ‫ְלהו‬ ‫ ֲאנַ ן ׁ ְשלו ֵּחי ִמצְ וָ ה ֲאנַ ן ו ְּפטו ִּרין ִמן‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬

The Gemara relates that Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the Exilarch.b Rav Naĥman, who was the official in charge of the Exilarch’s household, lodged them in a sukka whose decorations were removedn from the roofing four handbreadths. They were silent and did not say anything to him, even though in their opinion the sukka was unfit. Rav Naĥman said to them: Did the Sages retract their halakhic ruling? Does your silence indicate that you concede to my ruling? They said to him: We are on the path to perform a mitzva and, therefore, we are exempt from the mitzva of sukka.n Therefore, it is permitted for us to sleep in this sukka. In terms of the halakha, our ruling is unchanged.

‫ מו ָּּתר ִל ׁישֹן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to sleep in a bed h ָּ ‫ ַ ּב ִּכ‬with netting inside the sukka, even though the bed has a roof, ,‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬,‫ילה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ provided that the netting is not more than ten handbreadths high.‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְ ּג‬ er than the bed. In that case, the netting is not considered a tent in and of itself. ָּ ‫ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַ ּב ִּכ‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬Come and hear: One who sleeps in a bed with netting inside the ‫ילה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה – ל ֹא‬ – ‫חֹובתֹו! ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬ ָ ‫ יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬sukka did not fulfill his obligation, contrary to the statement that .‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ְ ּג‬Rav Yehuda cited in the name of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the netting is more than ten handbreadths higher than the bed and is considered a tent in and of itself. ‫ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ל ֹא‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna: One who sleeps ‫חֹובתֹו! ָהא ַּת ְר ְ ּג ָמ ּה ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ָ ‫ יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬beneath the bed in the sukka did not fulfill his obligation. As the .‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ִמ ָּטה ְ ּג‬height of a typical bed is less than ten handbreadths, apparently, even if the covering beneath which one is sleeping in less than ten handbreadths high, it is a tent in and of itself and he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: Didn’t Shmuel interpret the mishna as referring to the case of a bed ten handbreadths high? Therefore, one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation. – ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ּ ֵפ ַירס ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִקינֹופֹות‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: Or if one spread .‫יהי ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ִ ‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה! ָה ָתם נַ ִמי דִּ גְ ִב‬a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post bed, the area in the sukka beneath the sheet is unfit. Apparently, a bed with certain types of netting is unfit. The Gemara answers: There, too, it is a case where the posts are ten handbreadths high.

language

Became wet [itamisha] – ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫יט ִמ‬ ַ ‫א‬: ִ From the Syriac root tmsh, meaning to dip an item into a liquid. notes

He spread it over the sukka – ‫א ׁ ְש ַּת ְּט ָחא ַא ְּמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬: ִ Many authorities address the matter of placing a wet shirt atop a sukka in order to dry it, with regard to the general question of whether this is considered deriving benefit from the sukka (see Rabbi Neĥemya Borakh and Emek Sukkot), as well as with regard to the details of the incident related in the Gemara. According to those who say one may not sit beneath the shirt since the shade in that spot is not provided by the roofing, it is clear that no one would sit beneath it due to the dripping water, and that is why Rav Ashi required the servant to remove it only after it was dry (Ritva). The Me’iri states that it can be explained that the entire incident transpired prior to the Festival and they needed to remove the shirt due to the appearance of transgression. He lodged them in a sukka whose decorations were removed – ‫יה מו ְּפ ָלגִ ים‬ ָ ֶ‫אגְ נִינְ ה ּו ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ׁ ֶשנּ ֹוי‬: ַ The early commentaries wonder how Rav Naĥman acted in this manner and why he would cause them to act contrary to their opinions. Some say that in a case where the halakhic ruling was not yet determined, one may make provisions for another contrary to the professed opinion of that individual. This is especially true in this case, where Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were aware of the situation and could have opted not to sleep there (Ritva; Me’iri; Rishon LeTziyyon; Arukh LaNer). We are on the path to perform a mitzva and we are exempt from the mitzva of sukka – ‫ֲאנַן ׁ ְשלו ֵּחי ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ‫אנַן ו ְּפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬: ֲ A mishna that appears later in the tractate (25a) teaches that those engaged in the performance of a mitzva are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Rashi explains that visiting one’s teacher on the Festival is a mitzva, so in visiting the house of the Exilarch they were engaged in the performance of a mitzva. halakha

Sukka decorations that are removed from the roofing – ‫נֹויֵ י סו ָּּכה ַה ּמו ְּפ ָלגִ ין ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה‬: Decorations that are four or more handbreadths removed from the roofing of the sukka render the sukka unfit. Therefore, they must be placed closer to the roofing, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna, who constitute a majority against Rav Naĥman. Others rule stringently and prohibit these decorations even if the sunlight that passes through the decorations exceeds the shade that they provide (Ran; Maggid Mishne; Ritva), while others rule that they are permitted under those circumstances (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 627:4). A bed with netting inside the sukka – ‫כ ָּילה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬:ִּ If one sleeps in the sukka in a bed with netting, and the netting is not ten handbreadths high or it does not have a roof one handbreadth wide, he fulfills his obligation, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 627:2).

background

Exilarch – ‫ר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬:ֵ The person who filled the position of Exilarch, who was descended from the House of David, was recognized by the Jews as the heir to the scepter of Judah (see Genesis 49:10) and entrusted with broad official powers. He was the leader of the Jews of the Persian Empire and their representative to the authorities, who regarded him as a member of a royal dynasty. Consequently, he enjoyed a lofty position within



the Persian court. During various periods, he was considered third in the royal hierarchy. He was responsible for the collection of a major portion of the government taxes and could appoint leaders and judges whose powers included the imposition of corporal, and sometimes capital, punishment. Adjacent to the Exilarch’s home was a special rabbinical court appointed by him to deal with cases

involving money and, in particular, property. He also seems to have had the authority to make certain appointments throughout the country, though most of them were made in consultation with the heads of the great academies. The Exilarchs themselves were referred to in the Talmud by the honorific title Mar before or after their name, and were devoted to the Torah. Some of them were significant scholars in their own right. ‫י ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 10b 

49

notes

Bed posts, canopy frame posts, bed with netting – ,‫יטין‬ ִ ‫נַ ְק ִל‬ ‫ ִּכ ָּילה‬,‫קינֹופֹות‬:ִ In summary, there are apparently three categories: The netting over a bed is not a fixed structure at all, as it is apparent that the netting is only temporary and not an integral part of the bed; two posts are more fixed than the netting but do not constitute a full-fledged tent; and four posts are fixed and constitute a full-fledged tent (Ran).

‫יטין‬ ִ ‫ נַ ְק ִל‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫וְ ָהא ָלא ָק ָתנֵי ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ּ ֵפ ַירס ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬.‫ וְ ִקינֹופֹות ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ – ‫יטין‬ ִ ‫ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי נַ ְק ִל‬,‫ִקינֹופֹות – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫בֹוהין‬ ִ ‫יטין ְ ּג‬ ִ ‫נַק ִל‬ ְ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְיִהי ּו‬,‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ ַאף‬,‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ִקינֹופֹות‬.‫ִמן ַה ִּמ ָּטה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ !‫בֹוהין ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ִ ‫ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּג‬

One who sleeps naked in a bed with netting – ‫ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַ ּב ִּכ ָּילה‬ ‫ערוּם‬:ָ The prohibition against reciting Shema while naked is derived from the verse: “Therefore shall your camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). Therefore, when engaged in the performance of a mitzva, e.g., reciting Shema, one must ensure that there is no unseemly thing, i.e., nakedness, in his domain. The question with regard to one in a bed with netting is: What are the parameters of his domain? Is it the entire dwelling, in which case his nakedness is covered by the netting and he may recite Shema, or is the bed his domain, in which case there is nakedness in his camp and he may not recite Shema?

The Gemara asks: But that is not the way it is taught, as it is taught in the baraita: Naklitin are two postsb and kinofot are four posts.b If one spread a sheet over four posts, the area in the sukka beneath the sheet is unfit; if one did so over two posts the entire sukka is fit, provided the two posts are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed. This proves by inference that a sheet spread over four posts renders the area in the sukka beneath the sheet unfit even if it is not ten handbreadths high.

‫ וַ ֲה ֵרי סו ָּּכה‬.‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ דִּ ְק ִב‬,‫ׁ ָשאנֵי ִקינֹופֹות‬ :‫ וְ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫יעא‬ ָ ‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי סו ָּּכה דִּ ְק ִב‬ ‫ ָה ָתם‬:‫ְּכ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵש ָר ּה ָּכ ְך ּ ְפסו ָּל ּה! ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫דִּ ְל ִמ ְפ ַסל סו ָּּכה – ַ ּב ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ‫אֹוה ָלא – ְ ּבצִ יר ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫דִּ ְל ׁ ַש ְּויֵ י‬ .‫אֹוה ָלא‬ ָ ‫ָהוֵ י‬

The Gemara answers: Four posts are different because they are fixed in the bed and constitute a significant space even without the requisite height. The Gemara asks: But a sukka atop another sukka is fixed, and yet Shmuel said: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness. The upper sukka renders the lower sukka unfit only if it is ten handbreadths high. The Sages say in distinguishing between the cases: There, in the case of a sukka atop another sukka, where the measurement is in order to disqualify the lower sukka, ten handbreadths are required to render the upper sukka a separate entity. However, here, in the case of the four-post bed, in order to consider the covering a tent, less than ten handbreadths is also considered to be a tent, as it is fixed.

‫ימי ָא ַמר‬ ִ ‫יפא ַ ּבר ֲא ִב‬ ָ ‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב ַּת ֲח ִל‬Rav Taĥalifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: One who n ָּ ‫ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַ ּב ִּכ‬:‫ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬sleeps naked in a bed with netting and is required to recite ‫ילה ָערוּם – מֹוצִ יא‬ Shema moves his head out from beneath the netting and re.‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ַ ‫קֹורא ְק ִר‬ ֵ ְ‫ֹאשֹו חוּץ ַל ִּכ ָּילה ו‬ ׁ ‫ר‬ cites Shema.n Although he is naked, the netting is considered like a garment; therefore, it is permitted to recite Shema. ָּ ‫ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַ ּב ִּכ‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ‫ילה ָערֹום ל ֹא יֹוצִ יא‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who !‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ַ ‫ֹאשֹו חוּץ ַל ִּכ ָּילה וְ יִ ְק ָרא ְק ִר‬ ׁ ‫ ר‬sleeps naked in a bed with netting may not move his head out .‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן ְּכ ׁ ֶש ְ ּג‬from beneath the netting and recite Shema. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the netting is ten handbreadths high. In that case, it is considered a tent and not a garment. ‫ ָהא‬:‫ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬,‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬ ,‫עֹומד ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת ָערֹום‬ ֵ ‫ֹומה – ְל‬ ֶ ּ‫ְל ַמה ּזֶ ה ד‬ ‫ֹאשֹו חוּץ ַל ַח ּלֹון וְ יִ ְק ָרא‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יֹוצִ יא ר‬ .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ַ ‫ְק ִר‬

The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in that manner from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of that baraita: To what is this comparable? It is comparable to one standing naked in his house, that he may not move his head out the window and recite Shema. That is certainly ineffective. The fact that the baraita likens the bed with netting to a house indicates that it is netting at least ten handbreadths high. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct understanding.

background

Naklitin are two posts – ‫יטין ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ִ ‫נַ ְק ִל‬:

Kinofot are four posts – ‫קינֹופֹות ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬:ִ

Bed with posts in the center of the bed frame, upon which a cover is spread, Bed with four posts at the corners of the bed, upon which a cover is spread, forming an inclined roof forming a ceiling-like covering

50 

Perek I . 10b . ‫י ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Perek I Daf 11 Amud a ,‫בֹוה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ַּ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּג‬,‫ ו ַּביִ ת נַ ִמי‬And this halakha that it is not sufficient to place his head out ‫ דְּ ָלא ָ ּג ַרע‬,‫אֹוה ָלא הוּא‬ ָ – ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ְק ִב ַיע‬the window applies also to a house even if it is not ten hand.‫ ִמ ִּקינֹופֹות‬breadths high. Since it is a fixed structure it is considered a tent in and of itself, as it is no less permanent than a bed with four posts, which is considered a tent even though the netting is less than ten handbreadths higher than the bed. ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ָ ׁ ‫ִל‬ ‫ מו ָּּתר ִל ׁישֹן ְ ּב ִכ ַּילת‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל‬,‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬,‫ֲח ָתנִים ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ .‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ְ ּג‬

background

Bridal canopy – ‫כ ַּילת ֲח ָתנִים‬:ִּ

Some say another version of the previous discussion: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to sleep inside a netted bridal canopyb in the sukka since it is inclined and does not have a roof, even though it is ten handbreadths high.

‫ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַ ּב ִּכ ָּילה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה – ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who ‫חֹובתֹו! ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְ ּב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬ ָ ‫ יְ ֵדי‬sleeps in a bed with netting inside the sukka did not fulfill .‫ ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬his obligation. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? It is with a bed with netting in a case where, unlike a bridal canopy, it has a roof. ‫יטין ׁ ְשנַיִ ם וְ ִקינֹופֹות‬ ִ ‫ נַ ְק ִל‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ,‫ ּ ֵפ ַירס ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִקינֹופֹות – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬.‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יְה ּו‬,‫יטין – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ִ ‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי נַ ְק ִל‬ .‫בֹוהין ִמן ַה ִּמ ָּטה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ִ ‫יטין ְ ּג‬ ִ ‫נַ ְק ִל‬ ּ ‫ ַאף‬,‫בֹוהין ִמן ַה ִּמ ָטה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ִ ‫ָהא ְ ּג‬ !‫ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬

Come and hear another question from what we learned: Naklitin are two posts and kinofot are four posts. If one spread a sheet over four posts, the sukka is unfit; if he spread a sheet over two posts the sukka is fit, provided the two posts are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed. It can be inferred from here: But if they are higher than ten hand­ breadths the sukka is unfit even though it has no roof, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.

‫יהוֵ י‬ ֱ ‫יעי – ֶל‬ ִ ‫ ִאי ְק ִב‬.‫יעי‬ ִ ‫יטין דִּ ְק ִב‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי נַ ְק ִל‬The Gemara answers: Two posts are different from the bridal ‫ ְלגַ ֵ ּבי‬,‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ַּכ ִּקינֹופֹות! ְלגַ ֵ ּבי ִקינֹופֹות ָלא ְק ִב‬canopy because they are fixed in the bed, and therefore the .‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ִּכ ָּילה – ְק ִב‬sheet over them is considered a tent even with an inclined roof. The Gemara asks: If they are fixed then let them be considered like four posts and let them render the sukka unfit even when they are less than ten handbreadths high. The Gemara answers: Vis-à-vis four posts, two posts are not considered fixed and therefore, they render the sukka unfit only when they are ten handbreadths higher than the bed. However, visà-vis a bed with netting, two posts are considered fixed and consequently, they render the sukka unfit even though they lack a roof.h ‫ מו ָּּתר ִל ׁישֹן‬:‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי‬,‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬,‫ְ ּב ִכ ָּילה‬ ,‫ ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּג‬ ‫ ָלא ָא ֵתי א ֶֹהל ֲע ַראי ו ְּמ ַב ֵּטל א ֶֹהל‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫נֹוהגִ ין ָהיִ ינ ּו‬ ֲ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫ֶק ַבע‬ .‫ִל ׁישֹן ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַהּזְ ֵקנִים‬

Rabba bar Rav Huna taught: It is permitted to sleep in a bed with netting even though it has a roof and even though it is higher than ten handbreadths. In accordance with whose opinion did Rabba bar Rav Huna teach this halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudan who said that in principle, a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: We were accustomed to sleep beneath the bed before the Elders. Since a bed is a temporary tent relative to the more permanent sukka, even one sleeping beneath a bed is considered to be sleeping in the sukka and he fulfills his obligation in that manner.

Bridal canopy in accordance with Rashi’s explanation

Bridal canopy in accordance with the explanation of Tosafot halakha

Two posts and four posts – ‫יטין וְ ִקינֹופֹות‬ ִ ‫נַ ְק ִל‬: If a bed placed in a sukka has two posts at opposite ends of the bed, and netting is spread over it, one may sleep inside the netting, provided its roof is less than one handbreadth wide and the posts are less than ten handbreadths high (Ran; Tur). Some rule that it is permitted even if the posts are ten handbreadths high (Rif; Rambam), but one should follow the stringent first opinion (Bikkurei Ya’akov; Biur Halakha). However, one may not sleep in a four-post bed in the sukka, where the covering forms a roof at least one handbreadth wide, even if the posts are not ten handbreadths high (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 627:3).

!‫ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵל‬The Gemara asks: And if the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let him say simply that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

notes

In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda – ‫כ ַמאן ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬:ְּ The Ritva explains that the Gemara emphasizes that this statement is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda only to establish that everyone agrees. The Rabbis certainly maintain that netting



of this kind that fills most of the area of the sukka does not render the sukka unfit, as neither is it a permanent structure nor does it possess the necessary measurements to render it unfit. ‫אי ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 11a 

51

language

Ivy [kissos] – ‫ק ּיסֹוס‬:ִ From the Greek κισσός, kissos, meaning the plant known today as ivy. background

Ivy – ‫ק ּיסֹוס‬:ִ The ivy is a perennial climbing plant from the family Araliaceae. The most common type in Israel is Hedera helix, also known as common ivy or English Ivy, and has dark green leaves that resemble those on a grapevine. The plant climbs on fences and other trees with the help of aerial rootlets that protrude from its branches and which attach to other surfaces.

‫ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫ִאי ָא ַמר ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה‬ ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ‬:‫ָא ִמינָ א‬ ‫ דִּ ְלגַ ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ילי – ִמ ָּטה‬ – ‫תֹוכ ּה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִּכ ָּילה דִּ ְל‬,‫ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה‬ ‫ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ ‫יְ הו ָּדה דְּ ָלא ָא ֵתי א ֶֹהל ֲע ַראי ו ְּמ ַב ֵּטל‬ ‫ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ִמ ָּטה וְ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א‬,‫א ֶֹהל ֶק ַבע‬ .‫ִּכ ָּילה‬

The Gemara answers: If he said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said that this applies only to a bed, which is made for use atop it and not beneath it. Perhaps the reason a bed is not considered a tent in and of itself is that its primary purpose is to lie on top of it, not in the space beneath it. However, with regard to a bed with netting, which is made for use of the space within it, say that no, it is indeed considered a tent in and of itself and one who sleeps in it does not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rabba bar Rav Huna teaches us that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is that a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent, and there is no difference whether the temporary tent is a bed or whether it is the netting over a bed.

mishna 

If one trellised climbing plants such as ‫יה ֶאת ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן וְ ֶאת‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ִה ְד ָלה ָע ֶל‬ a grapevine, or gourd plant,n or ivy – ‫ וְ ִס ֵּיכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ַהדְּ ַל ַעת וְ ֶאת ַה ִּק ּיסֹוס‬ [kissos],lb over a sukkanh while they were still attached to the ‫ אֹו‬,‫ וְ ִאם ָהיָה ִס ּיכוּךְ ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ֵמ ֶהן‬.‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ground, and then added roofing atop them, the sukka is unfit. If .‫ ׁ ֶש ְּקצָ צָ ן – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬the amount of fit roofing was greaterh than the plants attached to the ground, or if he cut the climbing plants so that they were no longer attached to the ground, it is fit. ,‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה‬:‫זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל‬ .‫וְ ֵאין ִ ּגידוּלֹו ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ – ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ּבֹו‬ ‫ וְ גִ ידּ וּלֹו‬,‫וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה‬ .‫ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ּבֹו‬

Ivy

This is the principle with regard to the roofing of a sukka: Anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity, e.g., vessels, or its growth is not from the ground,n e.g., animal hides, one may not roof his sukka with it. And anything that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground, one may roof his sukka with it.nh

notes

Grapevine or gourd plant – ‫את ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן וְ ֶאת ַהדְּ ַל ַעת‬:ֶ These plants in particular were mentioned, because as climbing plants they provide extensive shade and consequently are ideal for use in roofing (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). If one trellised a grapevine…over a sukka – ‫יה ֶאת‬ ָ ‫ִה ְד ָלה ָע ֶל‬ ‫ה ֶ ּג ֶפן‬:ַ Rabbeinu Tam understands that this is specifically a case where one trellised a grapevine over fit roofing. There are two separate cases in the mishna; in one case one trellises vines over fit roofing, and in the other case one places valid roofing on top of trellised vines. In his opinion, there is a difference between the two cases (see Rabbi Aharon HaLevi).

Its growth is not from the ground – ‫אין ִ ּגידוּלֹו ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ‬:ֵ There are some objects, e.g., untreated animal hides, which in other areas of halakha are considered items whose growth is from the ground, since animals are sustained by vegetation. See Rashi, who concludes, based on the formulation in the Gemara, that nevertheless in this case they are not included in that category (see Rabbi Aharon HaLevi and Me’iri). And anything that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground, one may roof his sukka with it – ‫וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה וְ גִ ידּ וּלֹו ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ּבֹו‬: This principle is not designed to permit or prohibit the use of ritually impure items as roofing of a sukka. Rather, it comes to require that the sukka will be roofed with items that grow from the ground in their natural state. Only items that have been processed or crafted are susceptible to ritual impurity. While a flat wooden board is not susceptible to ritual impurity, if it was fashioned into a ladder or shaped into a spoon it is a vessel and consequently is capable of becoming ritually impure. A vessel may not be used in roofing a sukka, even if it is ritually pure.

Grapevine trellised over a sukka halakha

If one trellised a grapevine…over a sukka, etc. – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ִה ְד ָלה ָע ֶל‬branches are intertwined with the fit roofing (see Sukka 9b; ‫את ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן וכו׳‬: ֶ No item that is attached to the ground is fit for Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 626:1). roofing a sukka, in accordance with the mishna (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:13). What is fit roofing – ‫מה ּו ְס ָכ ְך ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬:ַ Valid material for roofing ּ ‫ב‬: Nullification of unfit roofing – ‫יטוּל ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל‬ ּ ִ If there are must be a form of vegetation, detached from the ground, and branches on top of the sukka that are still attached to a tree, not capable of contracting ritual impurity, in accordance with but the majority of the roofing is fit, the sukka is fit if those the mishna (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:1).

52 

Perek I . 11a . ‫אי ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

gemara 

Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he ,‫יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ֵ ‫גמ׳ יְ ֵתיב ַרב‬ ּ ‫יֹוסף ַק ֵּמ‬ sat and said, citing the mishna: Or if he .‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ְּקצָ צָ ן ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬:‫יתיב וְ ָק ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ִ‫ו‬ cut them, it is fit. He added: And Rav said that it is not enough .‫נַע ַנֵע‬ ֲ ‫ צָ ִריךְ ְל‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב‬merely to cut the climbing plants; one is obligated to move the branches,h thereby performing an action with the branches in order to render the roofing fit. When he placed the climbing plants atop the sukka, they were attached and therefore unfit roofing. When he ultimately cut them, it was as if the sukka were roofed by itself. In that case, the sukka is unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, derived from the verse: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13). ‫ ָהא ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬:‫יה ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ַה ְד ִרינְ ה ּו ַרב‬.‫ֲא ָמ ָר ּה‬ ּ ‫יֹוסף ְל ַא ּ ֵפ‬ ‫ ַא ּט ּו ִמי ָק ָא ִמינָ א ָלךְ דְּ ָלא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ֲא ָמ ָר ּה ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל?! ֲא ָמ ָר ּה ַרב וַ ֲא ָמ ָר ּה‬ ‫ ָה ִכי‬:‫יה ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ֲא ָמ ָר ּה וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ָק ָא ִמינָ א ָל ְך‬ ‫ ִּכי ָהא‬.‫ דְּ ַרב ַא ְכ ׁש ּו ֵרי ַמ ְכ ׁ ַשר‬,‫ַרב‬ ‫דְּ ַרב ַע ְמ ָרם ֲח ִס ָידא ְר ָמא ְּת ֶכ ְל ָּתא‬ ‫ ְּת ָל ָאן וְ ל ֹא‬,‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ינָשי ֵב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ְל ּ ִפ ְרזו ָּמא דֶּ ֱא‬ ּ ‫ית‬ .‫אשי חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ּ ָפ ַסק ָר‬

Rav Huna said to Rav Yosef: Shmuel stated this halakha. Rav Yosef turned his face awayn in anger and said to him: Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it, and Shmuel said it as well. What is your point? Rav Huna said to him: This is what I am saying to you, that Shmuel said it and not Rav, as Rav deems the roofing fit merely by cutting them, without moving them, as in that incident where Rav Amram the Pious cast the sky-blue dye, i.e., ritual fringes, upon the garment [pirzuma]l of the people of his household.n However, he attached them, but did not cut the ends of their strandsnb prior to tying them, i.e., he took a single string, folded it a number of times, and inserted it into the hole in the garment. Since the fringes were uncut when he tied them, he was uncertain whether they were fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva, due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.

,‫יה דְּ ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫ ָה ִכי ָא ַמר ַרב ְמ ַפ ְּס ָקן‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ּ ְפ ִס ָיק ָתן זֹו ִהיא‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫וְ ֵהן ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרין‬ ‫ ְקצִ יצָ ָתן זֹו ִהיא‬:‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬,‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬ .‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬

Rav Amram came before Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi and asked him about the halakhic status of the ritual fringes. He said to him that this is what Rav said: One cuts them into separate strands and they are fit. There is no need to remove them, cut them, and reattach them to the garment as separate strands. Apparently, according to Rav, their cutting is their preparation. Cutting them qualifies as active preparation of the fringes. Here too, in the case of the roofing of a sukka, Rav holds: Their cutting is their preparation, and no further action is required.

‫וְ ָס ַבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן ּ ְפ ִס ָיק ָתן זֹו‬ ‫ִהיא ֲע ִ ׂשּיָ ָיתן? וְ ָהא ָּתנֵי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ‫ ִה ִּטיל ִל ׁ ְשנֵי ְק ָרנֹות ְ ּב ַבת‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ ‫אשי חו ִּטין‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ּ ָפ ַסק ָר‬,‫ַא ַחת‬ ‫ֹושר‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ַמאי ָלאו – ׁ ֶש ּק‬.‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרין‬ ‫ֹוסק וְ ַא ַחר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּפ‬,‫ֹוסק? ל ֹא‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ּפ‬ .‫קֹושר‬ ֵ ׁ ְ‫ָּכך‬

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel hold that we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation? But didn’t Shmuel teach in the name of Rabbi Ĥiyya: If one cast fringes upon two corners of a garment simultaneouslyb by repeatedly inserting one strand into holes in both corners and afterward cut the ends of their strands resulting in two full-fledged fringes, the fringes are fit. What, is it not referring to a case where one ties the fringes as required and afterward cuts them? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a case where he cuts the strands and afterward ties them.

halakha

Moving tree branches to render them fit roofing – ‫נִענו ַּע‬ ְ ‫ל ַה ְכ ׁ ִשיר ַענְ ֵפי ֵעצִ ים‬:ְ In a case where a sukka is covered with branches attached to a tree, and one severs those branches from the tree, the roofing is fit, provided that one moves each individual branch, in accordance with the mishna and the opinion of Shmuel (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 626:2). language

Garment [pirzuma] – ‫פ ְרזו ָּמא‬:ִ ּ From the Greek περίζωμα, perizoma, meaning loincloth or apron. background

Attached them but did not cut the ends of their strands – ‫אשי חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ת ָל ָאן וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ַסק ָר‬:ְּ

Uncut fringes Cast upon two corners simultaneously – ‫ִל ׁ ְשנֵי ְק ָרנֹות ְ ּב ַבת‬ ‫א ַחת‬:ַ

Uncut fringes cast upon two corners

!‫ימ ָרא‬ ְ ‫קֹושר ַמאי ְל ֵמ‬ ֵ ׁ ְ‫ֹוסק וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬ ֵ ‫ ּפ‬The Gemara asks: If the reference is to a case where he cuts the :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬strands and afterward ties them, what need was there to state that the ritual fringes are fit? That is the prescribed manner of preparing ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that in addition to tying the fringes separately

notes

Rav Yosef turned his face away – ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫א ַה ְד ִרינְ ה ּו ַרב‬:ַ The ּ ‫יֹוסף ְל ַא ּ ֵפ‬ seating arrangement in the academies of those days was that the head of the yeshiva, in this case Rav Huna, would sit facing the students who congregated to attend his lecture, with the front row reserved for the greatest scholars. The discussions in the yeshiva would be conducted primarily between the head of the yeshiva and those scholars. Rav Yosef, in turning his face away, expressed dissatisfaction with what Rav Huna said. It is clear that Rav Yosef was held in high esteem by Rav Huna, if his harsh statement was tolerated. The garment of the people of his household – ‫ינָשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ּ ִפ ְרזו ָּמא דֶּ ֱא‬



‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ב‬:ֵ This refers to a four-cornered garment belonging to ּ ‫ית‬ his wife, who is referred to here as his household. In tractate Menaĥot it is explained that Rav Amram held that there is an obligation to wear ritual fringes at night as well. This would mean it is not a time-bound positive mitzva and consequently women would be obligated to perform it. Cutting the ends of the strands – ‫אשי חו ִּטים‬ ֵ ׁ ‫מ ְפ ִסיק ָר‬:ַ The ends of the ritual fringes [tzitzit] must be severed from each other like the hair at the corners of one’s head, also called tzitzit (see Ezekiel 8:3). ‫אי ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 11a 

53

Perek I Daf 11 Amud b notes

Is it not saying that the ritual fringes are unfit forever – ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫מאי ָלאו ּ ְפסו ִּלין ְל‬:ַ Why does the Gemara assume that the baraita is saying that the ritual fringes are unfit forever and consequently raise a difficulty against the opinion of Rav? The baraita can also be interpreted as saying that the fringes are unfit until one remedies the situation. Some explain that had a remedy been possible, the baraita would have mentioned the remedy, e.g., cutting them, rather than using the term unfit. The use of the term unfit in the baraita leads to the conclusion that no remedy is available (Arukh LaNer). Where he pulled the branches – ‫דְּ ׁ ָש ְל ִפינְ ה ּו ׁ ְשלו ֵּפי‬: Some explain that one uprooted them from the ground but left them in place, so that they appear as though they are still attached (Rashash). A difficulty to the opinion of Rav – ‫ק ׁ ְשיָ א ְל ַרב‬:ַ Despite the Gemara’s failure to answer this difficulty, this term indicates that a response exists. Some commentaries explain that Rav holds that there is a tannaitic dispute with regard to this matter, a possibility raised by the Gemara below, and he holds that performing the mitzva with what has already been prepared does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva (Kashot Meyushav; Arukh LaNer). Others maintain that the reason the fringes in the baraita are unfit is that they were not cut for the sake of the mitzva (LaMenatze’aĥ LeDavid). Alternatively, Rav is a tanna in the sense that, unlike other amora’im, his opinion is not rejected when the opinions of the tanna’im disagree with it (Kashot Meyushav). halakha

Unfit forever – ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫פסו ִּלין ְל‬:ְ ּ One is required to sever the ends of the ritual fringes to create eight separate ends before tying them to the corner of the garment. If he ties the strands to the corner and only then severs them, the ritual fringes are unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel and contrary to the opinion of Rav, whose opinion was rejected (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 11:13). background

Myrtle branch – ‫ה ַדס‬:ֲ

Perek I . 11b . ‫אי ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫אשי חו ִּטין‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ְּת ָל ָאן וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ַסק ָר‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ ַמאי ָלאו – ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬.‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן – ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬ :‫ ו ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב? ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ְל‬ .ּ‫ַמאי ּ ְפסו ִּלין – ּ ְפסו ִּלין ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ּ ָפ ְסקו‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן‬.‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפסו ִּלין ְל‬:‫ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפסו ִּלין ְל‬:‫ָא ַמר ֵלוִ י‬ .‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפסו ִּלין ְל‬:‫ַמ ָּתנָ ה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one attached the ritual fringes and did not first cut the ends of their strands, they are unfit. What, is it not saying that the ritual fringes are unfit forevernh with no way to remedy the situation, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: What is the meaning of unfit? It means they are unfit until they will be cut; not that they are unfit forever. And Shmuel said that it means they are unfit forever. And Levi also said: They are unfit forever. And likewise, Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: They are unfit forever.

‫ ְ ּב ִד ִידי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬Some say that Rav Mattana said: There was an incident that ‫יה דְּ ָמר‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ַתאי ְל ַק ֵּמ‬,‫ ֲהוָ ה עו ְּבדָּ א‬happened to me involving this uncertainty with regard to ritual .‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפסו ִּלין ְל‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ִלי‬,‫ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬fringes, and I came before Master Shmuel and he said to me: They are unfit forever. ‫אשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ְּת ָל ָאן וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ּ ָפ ַסק ָר‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ וְ עֹוד ַּתנְיָא ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬.‫חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן – ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬ .‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ – וְ ל ֹא ִמן ֶה ָע ׂש ּוי‬ ַּ :‫סו ָּּכה‬ ‫יה ֶאת ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן‬ ָ ‫ ִה ְד ָלה ָע ֶל‬:ּ‫ִמ ָּכאן ָא ְמרו‬ ‫יכךְ ַעל‬ ֵּ ‫וְ ֶאת ַהדְּ ַל ַעת וְ ֶאת ַה ִּק ּיסֹוס וְ ִס‬ .‫ַ ּג ָ ּבן – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a different baraita: If one attached the ritual fringes and only afterward cut the ends of their strands, they are unfit. And furthermore, it is taught in another baraita with regard to a sukka: The verse states: “Prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and from the language of this verse the Sages derived the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. From here the Sages said: If one trellised a grapevine, a gourd plant, or ivy over a sukka while still attached to the ground, and then he added roofing atop the vines, the sukka is unfit.

– ‫ימא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְקצָ צָ ן‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ ‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא ִמן‬ ַּ ‫ַמאי ִא ְיריָ א ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ .ּ‫יה דִּ ְמחו ָ ּּב ִרין נִינְ הו‬ ּ ‫ֶה ָע ׂשוּי? ֵּת ּיפֹוק ֵל‬ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע‬,‫״פסו ָּלה״‬ ְ ּ ‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ְּקצָ צָ ן‬ ‫ִמ ָּינ ּה דְּ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ְקצִ יצָ ָתן זֹו ִהיא‬ !‫ ו ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב‬,‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬

What are the circumstances? If we say that the baraita is referring to a case where he did not subsequently cut the vines, why does the tanna particularly teach that it is unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared? Let him derive that the climbing plants are unfit for roofing due to the fact that they are attached to the ground, unrelated to the manner in which they were placed. Rather, it must be referring to a case where he cut them and nevertheless, the baraita is teaching that the vines are unfit, and learn from it that we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation; and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav.

– ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬:‫ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב‬ ‫ דְּ ָלא ִמינְ ְּכ ָרא ֲע ִ ׂשּיָה‬,‫דְּ ׁ ָש ְל ִפינְ ה ּו ׁ ְשלו ֵּפי‬ ‫ ְּת ָל ָאן וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך‬,‫ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬.ּ‫דִּ ְידהו‬ .‫ּ ָפ ַסק ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְל ַרב! ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬

Rav could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he pulled the branchesn until they broke off the tree. Since, in that case, their active preparation is not conspicuous, it does not render the climbing plants fit roofing. The Gemara asks: In any case, does that which was taught with regard to ritual fringes: If one attached the ritual fringes and only afterward cut their strands, etc., pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav?n The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it remains difficult according to Rav.

ְּ ‫ ָע ַבר וְ ִל‬:‫ימא ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬ ,‫יק ָטן – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַ ּבר יְ הֹוצָ ָדק‬dispute between tanna’im. If black berries grew on a myrtle b .‫ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬branch, one of the four species taken on Sukkot, and its berries were more numerous than its leaves, the myrtle branch is unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of taking the four species on Sukkot. However, if one picked enough berries so that the leaves were more numerous, it is fit, although one may not pick the berries on the Festival itself. If he transgressed and picked them on the Festival, it is unfit; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak. And the Rabbis deem it fit in that case.

Myrtle branch with berries

54 

‫ ָקא‬,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן ָּכנָ ף ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ּ ְפ ִתיל וְ ֵל‬we require that it must be a single corner at the time of thread.‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ing the strand through the hole. And there is not a single corner in this case, as although he ties the fringes separately, he threads the two corners simultaneously. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that with regard to threading it is not a concern.

‫׳א‬

‫יך‬ ְ ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא לו ָּלב צָ ִר‬:‫ ְס ָברו ָּה‬The Gemara proceeds to explain the basis for the comparison between ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ וְ יָ ְל ִפינַ ן לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬,‫ ֶאגֶ ד‬the dispute with regard to the roofing of the sukka and the dispute with .‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא ִמן ֶה ָע ׂשוּי‬ ַּ ‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּבי סו ָּּכה‬regard to the myrtle branch. The Sages initially thought that everyone, Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak and the Rabbis, agrees that in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species, the three species, i.e., the lulav, the myrtle branch, and the willow branch, require a binding by Torah law. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss preparation with regard to this binding. And the Sages also initially thought that everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka, as it is written with regard to sukka: Prepare, from which is derived the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, and the same applies to the halakhot of lulav as well. ‫ דְּ ַמאן‬,‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫ַמאי ָלאו ְ ּב ָהא ָקא ִמ‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ַ ּג ֵ ּבי סו ָּּכה‬:‫דְּ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר ָס ַבר‬ ‫ וְ גַ ֵ ּבי לו ָּלב‬,‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫ְקצִ יצָ ָתן זֹו ִהיא ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬ .‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫יט ָתן זֹו ִהיא ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬ ָ ‫נַ ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַן ְל ִק‬ ‫ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬:‫ ָס ַבר‬,‫ו ַּמאן דְּ ָפ ֵסיל‬ ‫ וְ גַ ֵ ּבי‬,‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫סו ָּּכה ְקצִ יצָ ָתן זֹו ִהיא ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬ ‫יט ָתן זֹו ִהיא‬ ָ ‫לו ָּלב נַ ִמי ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן ְל ִק‬ ?‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬

What, is it not that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the following? That the one who deems the myrtle branch whose berries were picked on the Festival fit, holds that with regard to the branches on a sukka we say: Their cutting is their preparation, and therefore, with regard to berries on the myrtle branch as one of the species bound with the lulav as well, we say: Their picking is their preparation, and no further action is required. And the one who deems it unfit holds that with regard to the branches on a sukka we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation, and therefore, with regard to lulav as well, we do not say: Their picking is their preparation. Therefore, since the myrtle branch was not prepared for use prior to the Festival, and it was bound together with the other species, it is considered already prepared and picking the fruit off the branch is not active preparation sufficient to render it fit.

‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬,‫ָלא‬ ‫ וְ ָה ָכא‬,‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫סו ָּּכה ְקצִ יצָ ָתן זֹו ִהיא ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬ ‫ ַמאן‬.‫ְ ּב ֵמ ַילף לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ ‫ ָלא יָ ְל ִפינַ ן לו ָּלב‬:‫דְּ ַמ ְכ ׁ ַשר – ָס ַבר‬ ‫ יָ ְל ִפינַ ן‬:‫ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ּו ַמאן דְּ ָפ ֵסיל ָס ַבר‬ .‫לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬

The Gemara rejects that explanation of the dispute. No, the fact is that everyone agrees that we do not say with regard to sukka: Their cutting is their preparation, and here in the case of the myrtle branch, it is with regard to deriving the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka that they disagree. The one who deems the myrtle branch fit holds that we do not derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka, and therefore the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, does not apply to lulav. And the one who deems the myrtle branch unfit holds that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka.

‫ ִאי ְס ִב ָירא ָלן‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬ ‫יך ֶאגֶ ד ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא‬ ְ ‫דְּ לו ָּלב צָ ִר‬ ‫ וְ ָה ָכא‬.‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ יָ ְל ִפינַ ן לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬ ,‫ צָ ִריךְ ֶאגֶ ד‬:‫ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; ָמר ָס ַבר‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְפלוּגְ ָּתא‬.‫ ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ֶאגֶ ד‬:‫ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬ ‫ לו ָּלב ֵ ּבין ָאגוּד‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫דְּ ָהנֵי ַּת ָּנ ֵאי‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָאגוּד ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ – ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָאגוּד‬,‫ ָאגוּד ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ּ ָפסוּל‬

And if you wish, say instead: If we hold that lulav requires a binding, everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka and the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, applies to the halakhot of the four species as well. And here it is with regard to the following that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak, holds that the lulav requires a binding, and therefore the myrtle branch is unfit; and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the lulav does not require a binding, and therefore, preparation is not relevant with regard to lulav and it makes no difference whether the berries were picked before or after the myrtle branch was bound together with the lulav and the willow branch. And they disagree with regard to the same topic as in the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow and whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound it is fit; if it is not bound it is unfit.

‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה? יָ ֵליף‬ ּ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫יחה ֵמ ֲאגוּדַּ ת ֵאזֹוב‬ ָ ‫יחה ְל ִק‬ ָ ‫ְל ִק‬ ‫ ״ו ְּל ַק ְח ֶּתם ֲאגוּדַּ ת ֵאזֹוב״ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬:‫ָה ָתם‬ ‫אשֹון״‬ ׁ ‫ ״ו ְּל ַק ְח ֶּתם ָל ֶכם ַ ּבּיֹום ָה ִר‬:‫ָה ָכא‬ ‫ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן ַ ּב ֲאגו ָּדה – ַאף ָּכאן נַ ִמי‬ ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫יחה ִמ ְּל ִק‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִק‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫ַ ּב ֲאגו ָּדה‬ .‫ָלא יָ ְל ִפינַן‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: “Take a bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, in the context of the four species: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. And the Rabbis hold: We do not derive the term taking from the term takingn by means of the verbal analogy.



notes

We do not derive taking from taking – ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫יחה ִמ ְּל ִק‬ ָ ‫ְל ִק‬ ‫לא יָ ְל ִפינַן‬:ָ Proof that this is not a full-fledged derivation is that, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, only three of the four species must be bound, with the etrog remaining outside the binding (Sefat Emet). ‫אי ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 11b 

55

notes

Beautify yourself before Him in mitzvot – ‫נָאה ְל ָפנָיו ְ ּב ִמצְ וֹת‬ ֵ ‫ה ְת‬:ִ In discussing this mitzva, some say that it is a mitzva by Torah law and everyone agrees that it is obligatory (Sha’agat Arye). Likens sukka to the Festival peace-offering – ‫ַמ ִּק ׁיש סו ָּּכה‬ ‫ל ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬:ַ The early commentaries asked: The Festival peaceoffering is an animal; how can one use it to roof a sukka? Some explained that the reference here is to the meal-offering that accompanies the Festival peace-offering, which certainly consists of items whose growth is from the earth. The Festival peace-offering contains both elements mentioned by the Gemara: As an animal, it cannot become ritually impure and the accompanying meal-offering grows from the ground. One of the later authorities explained that the Gemara is based on the principle: One derives the possible from the impossible, which means that even when the analogy is not absolute, one may derive halakhot based on the principle (Mitzpe Eitan).

‫ לו ָּלב ִמצְ וָ ה‬:‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ ִאי ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ וְ ִאם ל ֹא ֲאגָ דֹו – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬,‫ְלאֹוגְ דֹו‬ ‫יְ הו ָּדה – ִּכי ל ֹא ֲאגָ דֹו ַא ַּמאי ָּכ ׁ ֵשר? ִאי‬ ,‫עֹולם ַר ָ ּבנַן ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ַר ָ ּבנַן – ַא ַּמאי ִמצְ וָ ה? ְל‬ – ‫ ״זֶ ה ֵא ִלי וְ ַאנְ וֵ הוּ״‬:‫ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ .‫ִה ְתנָ ֵאה ְל ָפנָיו ְ ּב ִמצְ וֹת‬

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in this baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow with the lulav. And if he did not bind it, it is fit. If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when one did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why is there a mitzva to bind it at all? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the reason that there is a mitzva to bind it is due to the fact that it is stated: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [ve’anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2), which they interpreted to mean: Beautify yourself [hitna’e] before Him in the performance of the mitzvot.n The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render them unfit for the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

‫״זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל ָּכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה״‬ ֵּ ‫ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ‬.‫כו׳‬ ,‫ילי? ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫ ״וְ ֵאד יַ ֲע ֶלה ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ״ ָמה‬:‫ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ‫ֵאד דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה וְ גִ ידּ וּלֹו‬ ‫ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ – ַאף סו ָּּכה דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל‬ .‫טו ְּמ ָאה וְ גִ ידּ וּלֹו ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ‬

§ We learned in the mishna: This is the principle with regard

to the roofing of a sukka: One may not roof the sukka with anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity or whose growth is not from the ground. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters with regard to the roofing of a sukka derived? Reish Lakish said that the verse states: “And there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the entire face of the ground” (Gene­sis 2:6); just as mist, i.e., a cloud, is a substance not capable of contracting ritual impurity, and its growth is from the ground, i.e., arises from the ground, so too, the roofing of the sukka must consist of a substance that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground. Since the mitzva of sukka evokes the clouds of glory with which God enveloped the Israelites in the desert, the legal status of roofing should be like that of a cloud.

,ּ‫נִיחא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַענְ נֵי ָכבֹוד ָהיו‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר סו ּּכֹות ַמ ָּמ ׁש ָע ׂש ּו‬ ‫״כי‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ִּ :‫ימר? דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫ָל ֶהם‬ – ‫הֹוש ְב ִּתי ֶאת ְ ּבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ַ ׁ ‫ַב ּסו ּּכֹות‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,ּ‫ַענְ נֵי ָכבֹוד ָהיו‬ .‫אֹומר סו ּּכֹות ַמ ָּמ ׁש ָע ׂש ּו ָל ֶהם‬ ֵ ‫ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫נִיחא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ַמאי ִא‬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that the sukkot mentioned in the verse: “I made the children of Israel to reside in sukkot” (Leviticus 23:43), were clouds of glory, as it is reasonable that the roofing of the sukka is modeled after clouds. However, according to the one who said that the children of Israel established for themselves actual sukkot in the desert, and the sukkot of today commemorate those, what can be said? According to that opinion, there is no connection between a sukka and a cloud. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “I made the children of Israel to reside in sukkot”; these booths were clouds of glory, this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: They established for themselves actual sukkot. This works out well according to Rabbi Eliezer; however, according to Rabbi Akiva what can be said?

‫ ָא ַמר‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ימי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ִּ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬ ּ ‫״חג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְלךָ ״ – ַמ ִק ׁיש‬ ַ ‫ְק ָרא‬ ‫ ַמה ֲחגִ יגָ ה – דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬,‫סו ָּּכה ַל ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬ ‫ ַאף‬,‫ וְ גִ ידּ וּלֹו ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ‬,‫ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫סו ָּּכה – דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל ט ּו ְמ ָאה‬ .‫וְ גִ ידּ וּלֹו ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ‬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said that the verse states: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13). The expression “festival of Sukkot” likens sukka to the Festival peace-offering [ĥagiga].nb Just as the Festival peace-offering is an item not susceptible to ritual impurity, and its growth is from the ground, as animals draw nourishment from vegetation, so too, the roofing of the sukka must be a substance that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground.

background

Festival peace-offering – ‫חגִ יגָ ה‬:ֲ This is a peace-offering sacrificed in honor of the three pilgrim Festivals. Everyone is required to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Festival and sacrifice this offering. The offering is to be sacrificed on the first day of the Festival. However, if one failed

56 

Perek I . 11b . ‫אי ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

to do so, it may be sacrificed during the intermediate days of Passover and Sukkot, the last day of Passover, the Eighth Day of Assembly, or during the six days following the festival of Shavuot (see Deuteronomy 16:15–16 and commentaries there).

Perek I Daf 12 Amud a ‫ ַאף סו ָּּכה‬,‫ ִאי ַמה ֲחגִ יגָ ה ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ַחּיִ ים‬The Gemara asks: If that juxtaposition is the source of the halakha, say: !‫ נַ ִמי ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ַחּיִ ים‬Just as the Festival peace-offering is brought from animals, so too the sukka roofing should consist of animals.n As that is clearly not the case, that verse cannot be the source for the roofing of the sukka. ‫ ָא ַמר‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara cites a different source: When Ravin came from Eretz – ‫״ב ָא ְס ְפךָ ִמ ָ ּג ְרנְ ךָ ו ִּמּיִ ְק ְבךָ ״‬ ּ ְ ‫ ְק ָרא‬Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said that the verse – ‫סֹולת גּ ֶֹורן וְ יֶ ֶקב ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר‬ ֶ ‫ ִ ּב ְפ‬states: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days as you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and the Sages interpreted that it is with regard to the waste of the threshing floor and of the winepress that the verse is speaking. One uses grain stalks and vines for roofing the sukka, materials that are not susceptible to ritual impurity and grow from the ground. ‫ימא גּ ֶֹורן ַעצְ מֹו וְ יֶ ֶקב ַעצְ מֹו! ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: And say that the verse teaches that one uses the ‫ וְ ִאי‬,‫ ״יֶ ֶקב״ ְּכ ִתיב ָּכאן‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬items placed on the threshing floor itself, i.e., stalks with the grain .‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל ַס ֵּכךְ ּבֹו‬still attached to them, and the items placed in the winepress itself, i.e., vines with the grapes still attached, as roofing. Grain and grapes, like all foods, are susceptible to ritual impurity. If the verse is interpreted in this manner, the mishna’s criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: “Winepress” is written in the verse here, referring to the wine, and it is impossible to roof with wine. Apparently, the verse is referring to stalks and sheaves but not to produce. ‫ימא יַ יִ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ ‫ֹומה‬ ֶ ּ‫ ׁ ֶשהוּא ד‬,‫ָקר ּו ׁש ַה ָ ּבא ִמ ּ ְ ׂשנִיר‬ ‫ ָהא‬:‫ְל ִעיגּ ו ֵּלי דְּ ֵב ָילה! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ָתא ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬,‫ִמ ְּל ָתא ֲהוָ ה ְ ּביָ ָדן‬ .‫יה נַ ְר ָ ּגא‬ ּ ‫ו ׁ ְּש ָדא ֵ ּב‬

background

Senir – ‫שנִיר‬: ׂ ְ ּ Senir, or the Hermon, is a series of mountain peaks at the northern edge of the Golan Heights, on the border between Israel, Syria, and Lebanon. At its highest point, it rises 2,814 m above sea level. It is frequently mentioned in Jewish sources and ancient Near Eastern literature, and the runoff from its snowfalls contributes to productive vineyards below the snow line.

Mount Hermon, with Israeli town of Metula in the foreground

Rabbi Yirmeya strongly objects to this: Why can’t a sukka be roofed with wine? Say that it is referring to congealed wine that comes from Senir,b from Mount Hermon, which is similar to a cake of figs. Since it is possible to interpret the verse as referring to the use of food for roofing, the mishna’s criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: This matter was in our hands, as we assumed that we found the source in the Torah for the materials fit for roofing, and Rabbi Yirmeya came and took an axe to it.n He destroyed the proof by raising the matter of congealed wine.

‫״מ ָ ּג ְרנְ ךָ ״ – וְ ל ֹא גּ ֶֹורן‬ ִ :‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬Rav Ashi said: One may nevertheless derive the ruling of the mishna .‫״מּיִ ְק ֶבךָ ״ – וְ ל ֹא יֶ ֶקב ַעצְ מֹו‬ ִ ,‫ ַעצְ מֹו‬from this verse: “From your threshing floor,” indicating an item that comes from the threshing floor, but not the items placed on the threshing floor, i.e., grain, itself; “from your winepress,” but not the items placed in the winepress, i.e., grapes, itself. The verse is referring the waste products of the produce placed on threshing floor and in the winepress. ‫ ״צְ א ּו ָה ָהר‬:‫ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר ֵמ ָה ָכא‬Rav Ĥisda said that proof can be cited from here: “Go forth to the ‫ וְ ָה ִביא ּו ֲע ֵלי זַ יִ ת וַ ֲע ֵלי ֵעץ ׁ ֶש ֶמן וַ ֲע ֵלי‬mount and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and .‫ ֲה ַדס וַ ֲע ֵלי ְּת ָמ ִרים וַ ֲע ֵלי ֵעץ ָעבֹות״‬myrtle branches, and palm branches, and the boughs of a denseleaved tree in order to make sukkot as written” (Nehemiah 8:15). From this verse, the materials for sukka roofing can be derived. ‫ ַהיְ ינ ּו ֲה ַדס ַהיְ ינ ּו ֵעץ ָעבֹות! ָא ַמר‬Apropos this verse, the Gemara asks: These myrtle branches are ‫ וְ ֵעץ‬,‫ֹוטה ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ֶ ‫ ֲה ַדס ׁש‬:‫ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬the same as those boughs of a dense-leaved tree; why does the verse .‫ ָעבֹות ַללּ ו ָּלב‬mention both? Rav Ĥisda said that this is how it is to be understood. The term “myrtle branches” is referring to a wild myrtle, unfit for use as one of the four species, to be used for the roofing of the sukka. And the term “boughs of a dense-leaved tree” is referring to the myrtle, whose leaves overlie each other, to be used for the lulav, the mitzva of the four species. notes

So too the sukka roofing should consist of animals – ‫ַאף סו ָּּכה‬ ‫נַ ִמי ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ַחּיִ ים‬: The intent of this statement is to permit the use of animal hides for roofing (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi).

ing of a sukka can be derived from the clouds in the desert and from Deuteronomy 16:13. From the clouds, it can be derived that one may roof the sukka only with materials that cannot become ritually impure. From the verse’s mention of the threshing floor And took an axe to it – ‫יה נַ ְר ָ ּגא‬ ּ ‫ו ׁ ְּש ָדא ֵ ּב‬: See Tosafot. Some say and winepress, it can be derived that the roofing must be matethat, in principle, Rabbi Yirmeya agrees that criteria for the roof- rial that grows from the ground (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz).



‫בי ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 12a 

57

notes

Bundle – ‫ח ִב ָילה‬:ֲ Tosafot cites the Jerusalem Talmud, where it is explained that a bundle contains at least twenty-five units. The Ra’avad and others disagree, contending that the Gemara maintains that as few as three units constitute a bundle. The Me’iri distinguishes between different objects and says that a bundle of twigs and similar thin items contains at least twenty-five units, while bundles of larger items contain fewer units (Ittur). Alternatively, one might suggest that although a bundle [ĥavila] contains twenty-five units, the binding [egged] discussed in our Gemara contains only three units (Rishon LeTziyyon). And with regard to all of the bundles, if one untied them they are fit for use in roofing – ‫וְ כו ָּּלן ׁ ֶש ִה ִּת ָירן ְּכ ׁ ֵשרֹות‬: There is no room to issue a decree prohibiting the use of untied bundles in roofing a sukka due to the ruling that tied bundles are unfit for use, as one does not leave an untied bundle out to dry. Therefore, it is clear that the untied straw, twigs, and wood are there for roofing (Melekhet Shlomo). And even when tied, all of the bundles are fit for use in constructing the walls of the sukka – ‫וְ כו ָּּלן ְּכ ׁ ֵשרֹות ִל ְד ָפנֹות‬: Some cite the Jerusalem Talmud, in which it is explained that even walls are called roofing, as in Exodus 40:3, where the verb vesakkota, “and you shall screen,” is referring to the curtain of the Tabernacle. The verse proves that the walls of a sukka can be made of material susceptible to ritual impurity, like the curtain mentioned (Or Zarua). The decree of the storehouse – ‫גזֵ ַירת אֹוצָ ר‬:ּ ְ Some explain that one might use the bundles drying in the yard as a sukka and sit beneath them (Piskei Rid), or he will sit in a storage shed not established to provide shade and a sukka must be established to provide shade (Me’iri and others). Prepare it and…the decree of the storehouse – ‫ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה וּגְ זֵ ַירת‬ ‫אֹוצָ ר‬: The commentaries dealt with this matter at length, as the difference between the decree of the storehouse and the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, is not at all clear, as Rav Ashi said and as can be understood from the discussion in the Gemara. Many say that there is no essential difference between them other than a difference in frequency. Placing bundles atop a booth is common, and therefore there is room to issue a decree prohibiting the use of bundles for roofing. Hollowing the bottom of a stack of grain is not at all common, and the Sages do not issue decrees for infrequent cases. Therefore, the only reason it is prohibited to hollow the bottom of a stack of grain is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared (Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Sefer Hashlama; Me’iri; Ritva). From the fact that this is due to the decree of the storehouse – ‫מדְּ ָהא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת אֹוצָ ר‬:ִ Proof that it is prohibited by rabbinic decree is from the fact that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Sometimes a person comes, etc. This indicates that the sukka is not inherently unfit, but there is concern that it could lead to a prohibited action (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). halakha

Bundles of straw and twigs for roofing – ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ח ִב ֵילי ַק ׁש וּזְ ָר ִדים ְל ִס‬:ֲ One may not roof a sukka with bundles. This decree was issued because bundles are often placed for purposes other than roofing. Most halakhic authorities hold in accordance with the conclusion of the Jerusalem Talmud, that a bundle contains at least twentyfive units (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:15). How one renders a bundle fit for use as roofing – ‫ֵּכיצַ ד ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירים‬ ‫יכו ְּך‬ ּ ‫ח ִב ָילה ְל ִס‬:ֲ If one used a bundle to roof his sukka and untied it, the sukka is fit. However, if one placed the bundle atop the sukka not as roofing, but to dry the twigs or branches, and then reconsidered and decided to use it as roofing, it is no longer sufficient to merely untie the bundle. He is required to move the material with the intention to place the straw or the twigs for the sake of the mitzva (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:17). And all of the bundles are fit for use in constructing the walls of the sukka – ‫וְ כו ָּּלן ְּכ ׁ ֵשרֹות ִל ְד ָפנֹות‬: All materials unfit for roofing a sukka may be used for constructing its walls, even ab initio (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:1).

58 

Perek I . 12a . ‫בי ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

mishna 

One may not roof a sukka with bundlesn ‫מתני׳ ֲח ִב ֵילי ַק ׁש וַ ֲח ִב ֵילי ֵעצִ ים‬ of straw tied with rope, or bundles of ,‫וַ ֲח ִב ֵילי זְ ָר ִדין ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ֶהן‬ wood, or bundles of twigs.h And with regard to all of the bundles, ‫ וְ כו ָּּלן‬,‫ וְ כו ָּּלן ׁ ֶש ִה ִּת ָירן – ְּכ ׁ ֵשרֹות‬if one untied them, they are fit for use in roofingnh the sukka, as .‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשרֹות ִל ְד ָפנֹות‬their lack of fitness is due to the fact that the bundles are tied. And even when tied, all of the bundles are fit for use in constructing the walls of the sukka.nh

gemara 

Rabbi Ya’akov said: I heard explanations ‫ ׁ ְש ָמ ִעית‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ from Rabbi Yoĥanan for two similar ,‫ ֲח ָדא ָהא‬:‫יֹוחנָן ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬ ָ ‫ֵיה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ִמ ּינ‬ halakhot of sukka: One with regard to the halakha in this mishna ‫חֹוטט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש ַל ֲע ׂשֹות לֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬: ְ‫ וְ ִא ָידך‬that bundles may not be used in roofing the sukka, and the other .‫ סו ָּּכה – ֵאינָ ּה סו ָּּכה‬with regard to the mishna below, pertaining to one who hollows out space in a stack of grain by removing sheaves from the bottom of the stack to establish a sukka for him. In that case, the space is surrounded by grain on the sides and above, and therefore it is not a sukka. ‫ וַ ֲח ָדא‬,‫ֲח ָדא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת אֹוצָ ר‬ .‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא ִמן ֶה ָע ׂשוּי‬ ַּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ‫וְ ָלא יָ ַד ְענָ א ֵהי ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ִמ ׁ ּש ּום‬ ‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״‬ ַּ ‫ וְ ֵהי ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫אֹוצָ ר‬ .‫וְ ל ֹא ִמן ֶה ָע ׂשוּי‬

The rationale for one of the halakhot is due to the decree of the storehouse.n Although, fundamentally, the sukka is fit, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting its use, lest one come to use his storehouse as a sukka and fail to establish it properly. And the rationale for one of the halakhot is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, as no active preparation was performed. And I do not know at present which of the halakhot is due to the decree of the storehousen and which of them is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.

‫נֶיחזֵ י ֲאנַן; דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ֱ :‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ִב ֵילי ַק ׁש‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲח ִב ֵילי ֵעצִ ים וַ ֲח ִב ֵילי זְ ָר ִדין ֵאין‬ ‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ֶהן – ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ָא ָדם‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ִב ָילתֹו‬,‫ָ ּבא ִמן ַה ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה ָ ּב ֶע ֶרב‬ ‫ִיח ּה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ו ַּמ ֲע ָל ּה ו ַּמ ּנ‬,‫ַעל ְּכ ֵתפֹו‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ וְ נִ ְמ ַלךְ ָע ֶל‬,‫יַב ׁ ָש ּה‬ ּ ְ ‫סו ָּּכתֹו ְּכ ֵדי ְל‬ ‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״‬ ַּ :‫ וְ ַה ּת ָֹורה ָא ְמ ָרה‬, ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ְל ִס‬ ‫ ִמדְּ ָהא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת‬.‫וְ ל ֹא ִמן ֶה ָעשׂ וּי‬ ‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא‬ ַּ ‫ ָהא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫אֹוצָ ר‬ .‫ִמן ֶה ָע ׂשוּי‬

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see and determine which rationale Rabbi Yoĥanan applied to each halakha; as Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: For what reason did they say that one may not roof a sukka with bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of twigs? It is because sometimes a person comes from the field in the evening, and he has his bundle of wood or straw on his shoulder, and he lifts it and places it atop his storage shed to dry it. And, when the festival of Sukkot arrives, he reconsiders and decides to use the shed as a sukka and the bundle on top of it for roofing. And in that case the roofing would be unfit, as the Torah said: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. From Rabbi Yoĥanan’s formulation, apparently it is unfit due to the decree lest one come to use his storehouse as a sukka and fail to establish it properly, not due to some fundamental prohibition. From the fact that this case of the bundles is prohibited due to the decree of the storehouse,n that case of the stack of grain must be prohibited due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.

‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב – ַה ְך דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר‬The Gemara asks: And why was Rabbi Ya’akov unable to arrive at .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַא ָ ּבא ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל‬Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion based on the halakha cited in his name? The Gemara explains: It is because he did not hear this statement of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba, and there was no other proof. ‫ ַא ּט ּו ֲח ִב ֵילי ַק ׁש‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫וַ ֲח ִב ֵילי ֵעצִ ים ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת אֹוצָ ר‬ ‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא ִמן‬ ַּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ,‫חֹוטט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש‬ ֵ ‫יכא? וְ ַה‬ ָּ ‫ֶה ָע ׂשוּי ֵל‬ ‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא ִמן ֶה ָע ׂשוּי‬ ַּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ !?‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת אֹוצָ ר ֵל‬,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬

Rav Ashi said: The distinction of Rabbi Yoĥanan between these two cases is difficult. Is that to say that bundles of straw and bundles of wood are unfit roofing due to the decree of the storehouse and not due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared? Is that ultimately the principle underlying the decree of the storehouse? And on the other hand, in the case of one who hollows a stack of grain, is the sukka unfit due only to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, but not due to the decree of the storehouse? Rather, there is no distinction between the halakhot and both reasons apply to both.

‫ ָה ָכא דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬: ָ‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר ְלך‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoĥanan could have said to you, in response to Rav Ashi, that it is not so because the halakhot are ‫״אין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ֶהן״ – ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ ֵ formulated differently in the respective mishnayot. Here, in the ‫הוּא‬ mishna pertaining to bundles, where it teaches: One may not roof with them, it is ab initio

Perek I Daf 12 Amud b ‫ ָהא‬,‫דְּ ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת אֹוצָ ר‬ ‫ ָה ָתם דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬.‫אֹוריְ ָיתא – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי‬ ַ ְּ‫ד‬ ּ ,‫יע ַבד‬ ֲ ִּ‫״אינָ ּה סו ָּּכה״ – ֲא ִפיל ּו ד‬ ֵ .‫יתא נַ ִמי ֵאינָ ּה סו ָּּכה‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ִמד‬

that one may not roof, due to the decree of the storehouse issued by the Sages; but by Torah law, it seems well to do so. There, in the mishna pertaining to the stack of grain, where it teaches: It is not a sukka, it means that not only by rabbinic decree, but even after the fact, by Torah law as well, it is not a sukka.n

‫ ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה‬:‫  § ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one roofed a sukka n – ‫ ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות‬,‫יצין זְ ָכ ִרים – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ּ ִ ‫ ְ ּב ִח‬with convex arrow shafts, which are made of wood with a .‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬protrusion on the end that is fitted into the socket of the metal arrowhead, the sukka is fit. These shafts are flat wooden utensils, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, they are fit roofing for a sukka. If, however, one roofed his sukka with concave arrow shafts,hb which have a socket into which a protrusion from the metal arrowhead is inserted, the sukka is unfit. Since these shafts are wooden utensils with a receptacle, they are susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, they are unfit roofing for a sukka. :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬,‫ זְ ָכ ִרים ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬The Gemara asks: The fact that if one roofed a sukka with con‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ נִיגְ זֹור זְ ָכ ִרים ַא ּט ּו נְ ֵקבֹות‬vex arrow shafts, the sukka is fit is obvious. It is no different .‫ ָלן‬from roofing with straight, smooth reeds. The Gemara answers: Stating this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree and prohibit roofing with convex shafts due to the prohibition against roofing with concave shafts, therefore Rav teaches us that no decree is issued, and convex shafts are fit roofing. !‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬,‫(א ַמר ָמר) ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ָ ‫ ֵ ּבית ִק ּבוּל ֶה ָע ׂש ּוי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ‫ ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫יבוּל‬ ּ ‫יה ִק‬ ּ ‫ְל ַמ ְלאֹות ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ .‫ָלן‬

halakha

Convex and concave arrow shafts – ‫יצים נְ ֵקבֹות‬ ּ ִ ‫יצים זְ ָכ ִרים וְ ִח‬ ּ ִ ‫ח‬:ִ If one roofed his sukka with convex arrow shafts, the sukka is fit; if the shafts are concave, the sukka is unfit, in accordance with the opinion of Rav (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:3). background

Convex and concave arrow shafts – ‫יצים זְ ָכ ִרים וּנְ ֵקבֹות‬ ּ ִ ‫ח‬:ִ

Arrowhead designed for a convex arrow shaft, which is inserted into the cavity in the arrowhead

Arrowhead designed for a concave arrow shaft, into which arrowhead is inserted

The Master said: If one roofed a sukka with concave arrows, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. All wooden receptacles are susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Stating this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: A receptacle that is designated to be permanently filled,n its status is not that of a receptacle, as a receptacle is typically filled and emptied; in this case, once the arrowhead fills the receptacle, it remains there, therefore Rav teaches us that it is deemed a receptacle and is not fit roofing.

notes

Rabbi Yoĥanan’s answer – ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫תרוּצֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬:ֵּ According to one understanding of the Gemara, Rabbi Yoĥanan would agree that, based on strict logical reasoning alone, the reverse could also be argued. However, his opinion is not based solely on logic, but also on a precise reading of the mishnayot. Roofed it with convex arrow shafts – ‫יצין זְ ָכ ִרים‬ ּ ִ ‫ס ְּכ ָכ ּה ְ ּב ִח‬:ִ Tosafot raised the question: Even if the arrows are merely flat wooden vessels, aren’t flat wooden vessels also able to become ritually impure? Some answer that simple wooden vessels can become ritually impure only if the vessel itself directly serves a person’s needs or is used in conjunction with a vessel that directly serves a person’s needs. However,



wooden vessels that a person does not use directly are not capable of contracting ritual impurity (Ritva). Some say that if the metal arrowhead is attached to the wooden shaft, then the entire arrow, even the wooden part, is capable of contracting ritual impurity (Rid the Younger). A receptacle that is designated to be permanently filled – ‫בית ִק ּבוּל ֶה ָע ׂשוּי ְל ַמ ְלאֹות‬: ּ ֵ The early commentaries asked: Didn’t we learn explicitly that the legal status of a receptacle designated to be permanently filled is not that of a vessel? They answered: The arrow shafts are not designated to be permanently filled, as at times they are separated, such as when the arrows are not in use or during inspection and maintenance (see Me’iri). ‫בי ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 12b 

59

notes

Bundles of combed flax – ‫אנִיצֵ י ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן‬:ֲ Rashi and others explain that these bundles of combed flax are unfit because they are able to become ritually impure. Although everyone agrees that they cannot become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse, they are nevertheless susceptible to the ritual impurity of leprosy, which puts them in the category of items susceptible to impurity. However, most commentaries disagree and maintain that these bundles are not susceptible to any kind of ritual impurity and they explain the Gemara differently. Some say that these bundles are unfit by rabbinic decree because they are close to becoming susceptible to ritual impurity (Tosafot). Others explain that they are unfit because if they are used to fill cushions and blankets that will be susceptible to ritual impurity, they are already considered in that category (Me’iri). Yet others explain that the bundles are unfit because they have already been processed to the point where they are no longer similar to the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress. Alternatively, although they are similar to those waste products, that similarity is not apparent to the observer (Rambam; Ran; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva). Some say they are unfit due to the decree of the storehouse, as this flax is packaged in bundles (Piskei Rid). halakha

Roofing with flax – ‫יכוּךְ ְ ּב ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן‬ ּ ‫ס‬:ִ If one roofed a sukka with flax stalks, even flax stalks that were soaked, the sukka is fit, provided that the flax was not crushed and combed at all. However, one may not do so ab initio, as there are some who rule stringently in cased of soaked flax (Eliya Rabba according to Or Zarua; Rabbi Yitzĥak ibn Giat; Shibbolei HaLeket). If it was crushed and not combed, some prohibit using it (Rid the Younger; Rif, as explained by the Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav), while others permit its use in exigent circumstances (Ran; Rashba; Ritva; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:4).

:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫  § ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: If one nhb ‫ ְ ּבהֹוצְ נֵי‬,‫ ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה ַ ּב ֲאנִיצֵ י ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬roofed a sukka with bundles of combed flax, the sukka is unfit, ‫ וְ הו ׁ ְּשנֵי ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן – ֵאינִי‬,‫ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬as flax at that stage of processing is the raw material from which threads are spun, and it is susceptible to ritual impurity. If one .ּ‫יֹוד ַע ַמהו‬ ֵ roofed a sukka with stalks of flax, the sukka is fit. Since they remain in their natural state and have not been processed in any way, their legal status is that of any tree, and they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. And if one roofed with the hoshen of flax, stalks at an intermediate stage of processing, I do not know what their status is, i.e., whether or not they are fit for roofing. ,‫ ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָש ְך‬.‫יֹוד ַע‬ ֵ ‫וְ הו ׁ ְּשנֵי ַעצְ ָמן ֵאינִי‬ ,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִאי דַּ יֵ יק וְ ָלא נְ ִפיץ הו ׁ ְּשנֵי ָק ֵרי ֵל‬ ,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ָבל ָּת ֵרי וְ ָלא דַּ יֵ יק הֹוצְ נֵי ָק ֵרי ֵל‬ ‫ ָּת ֵרי וְ ָלא דַּ יֵ יק נַ ִמי הו ׁ ְּשנֵי‬:‫אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָק ֵרי ֵל‬

Rabba bar bar Ĥana added: And when Rabbi Yoĥanan used the term hoshen of flax itself, I do not know to what stage of processing the flax he was referring. Which way do you look at it? Is it that if one crushed the flax and did not comb it, Rabbi Yoĥanan calls it hoshen, but if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yoĥanan calls it hotzen, because he has not actually begun processing the flax itself? Or, perhaps if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yoĥanan calls it hoshen, while hotzen is reserved for flax that was not processed at all.

‫ ָהנֵי ׁשו ׁ ֵּשי ו ׁ ְּשוָ וצְ ֵרי‬:‫  § ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬Rav Yehuda said: With regard to these wide licoriceb and b – ‫ ְ ּב ׁשו ׁ ֵּשי‬:‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬.ּ‫ ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ְ ּבהו‬wormwood leaves, one may roof his sukka with them, since ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְשוָ וצְ ֵרי – ל ֹא ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין‬,‫ ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין‬these are not consumed by people. Their legal status is that of any other plant; they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Abaye ‫ַט ְע ָמא – ֵּכיוָ ן‬ said: With licorice leaves, one may roof his sukka; with wormwood leaves, one may not roof his sukka. What is the reason for this distinction? Since

background

Processing flax – ‫יבוּד ַה ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן‬ ּ ‫ע‬:ִ After the flax plants have bloomed, the stalks are harvested. Through a process called rippling, the seeds are removed from the stems. The stems are then soaked in water for some time in a procedure called water retting, during which a process of rotting takes place, which leaves the long fibers inside the decomposed stems. The stems are removed from the water and allowed to dry, after which they can be broken or crushed to separate the fibers from both the wooden core and from the outer husks, isolating the clean strick, or flax fiber. The fibers are then combed in order to clean them and straighten them, in a process called scutching and hackling. They are then ready for the spinning wheel.

Babylonia in moist environments, and it is used to produce sweets and medications.

a strong odor and is used in medicines and to flavor certain types of wine. It is understood that were one to use this plant in roofing for the sukka, it could cause discomfort for people, given its strong and at times offensive odor.

Flax stalks and comb Licorice [shushei] – ‫שו ׁ ֵּשי‬:ׁ This apparently refers to the type of plant known as Glycyrrhiza glabra, which is still known today in Hebrew as shush. Licorice is produced from the sweet roots of this plant. It is a short perennial plant with feathery leaves and bluish flowers. This plant is indigenous to Eretz Yisrael and

60 

Perek I . 12b . ‫בי ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Licorice plant Wormwood – ‫שוָ וצְ ֵרי‬: ְ ׁ Also known as Artemisia absinthium, wormwood is a plant from the Asteraceae family. It has small, hairy, gray-white leaves. The wormwood has a bitter taste and Wormwood

Perek I Daf 13 Amud a .‫יחיְ יה ּו ׁ ָש ֵביק ְלה ּו וְ נָ ֵפיק‬ ַ ‫ דְּ ָס ֵרי ֵר‬their odor grows offensiven over time, one abandons the sukka and exits. It is inappropriate to establish a sukka in which it is impossible to remain. ‫ ָהנֵי ִהיזְ ֵמי וְ ִהיגֵ י‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ָחנָ ן ַ ּבר ָר ָבא‬ ,‫ ְ ּב ִהיזְ ֵמי ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכינַן‬:‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬.ּ‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ְ ּבהו‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ֵּכיוָ ן‬.‫ְ ּב ִהיגֵ י ָלא ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכינַ ן‬ .‫דְּ נָ ְת ֵרי ַט ְר ּ ַפיְ יה ּו ׁ ָש ֵביק ָל ּה וְ נָ ֵפיק‬

Similarly, Rav Ĥanan bar Rava said: With regard to these thornsb and shrubs,b one may roof the sukka with them. Abaye said: With thorns, one may roof his sukka; with shrubs, one may not roof his sukka.h What is the reason for this distinction? Since their leaves fall over time and they are apt to fall into the food and disturb those in the sukka, one abandons the sukka and exits.

‫ ַהאי ַא ּ ְפקו ָּתא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִ ּגידֵּ ל ָא ַמר ַרב‬ – ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דַּ ֲאגִ ִידי‬:ּ‫דְּ ִד ְיק ָלא ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ְ ּבהו‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב‬.‫יה ֶאגֶ ד‬ ּ ‫ֶאגֶ ד ִ ּב ֵידי ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫דַּ ֲה ַדר ָאגֵ יד ְלה ּו – ִא ֵ ּיגד ְ ּב ַחד ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ .‫ֶאגֶ ד‬

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to this offshoot of the trunk of the palm tree, from which several branches emerge; one may roof the sukka with it. Although the branches are naturally bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding. Furthermore, although one then binds the branches together at the end removed from the trunk, where they grow apart into separate branches, and roofs with them, the sukka is fit, since if one binds a bundle that is already bound into one unit it is not considered a binding.

‫ ָהנֵי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א ַ ּבר ׁ ֵש ָילא‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דַּ ֲאגִ ִידי‬,ּ‫דּ ְֹוק ֵרי דְּ ָקנֵי ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ְ ּבהו‬ ,‫יה ֶאגֶ ד‬ ּ ‫נִינְ ה ּו – ֶאגֶ ד ִ ּב ֵידי ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם ל ֹא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דַּ ֲה ַדר ָאגֵ יד ְלה ּו – ִא ֵ ּיגד ְ ּב ַחד‬ .‫יה ֶאגֶ ד‬ ּ ‫ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬

Likewise, Rav Ĥisda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With regard to these offshoots of reeds,h one may roof the sukka with them. Although the branches are naturally bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding. Furthermore, although one then binds the reeds together at the other end, the sukka is fit, since if one binds a bundle that is already bound into one unit it is not considered a binding.

notes

Their odor grows offensive, etc. – ‫יחיְ יה ּו וכו׳‬ ַ ‫ס ֵרי ֵר‬:ָ The Ritva and the Ran write that while the cases of unfit roofing here may be similar, there is a distinction between wormwood and shrubs. Those items that are unfit due to their bad smell may not be used to build the walls of the sukka either, because odor is problematic regardless of where they are found in the sukka, while those unfit because they fall into one’s food may be used in constructing the walls. halakha

Items with which it is prohibited to roof ab initio – ‫ַהדְּ ָב ִרים‬ ‫יכו ְּך‬ ּ ‫ה ֲאסו ִּרים ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּילה ְל ִס‬:ַ There are certain materials that the Sages prohibited to use as roofing for the sukka, ab initio, e.g., plants with a foul odor or plants whose leaves tend to fall, lest they cause people to leave the sukka. If the odor is so pungent that one cannot tolerate it at all, then it is prohibited even by Torah law (Peri Megadim; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:14). Offshoots of reeds – ‫קנִים ַהדּ ְֹוק ָרנִים‬:ָ The legal status of reeds that emerge from a single stalk, even if they are tied at the opposite end, is not that of a bundle. They may be used for roofing the sukka (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:15).

.‫דֹוק ָרנִין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ְ ְ‫ ָקנִים ו‬:‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: ‫ֹוק ָרנִין‬ ְ ּ‫ ָקנִים ׁ ֶשל ד‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ֵא‬ ָ ‫ ָקנִים ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬With regard to reeds and spades, one may roof a sukka with .‫ ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ֶהן‬them. The Gemara asks: The fact that one may roof his sukka with reeds is obvious. After all, they meet all the criteria of fit roofing. Rather, say: With regard to these offshoots of reeds, one may roof the sukka with them.

background

Thorns [hizmei] – ‫היזְ ֵמי‬:ִ Hizmei may be what is known today as Ononis antiquorum L. from the Papilinaceae family. The ononis, or restharrow, is a thorny plant reaching about 75 cm high. Its leaves are primarily clover shaped, and its thorny branches branch out to the sides. It is common in fields and along streams.

Shrubs – ‫היגֵ י‬:ִ The common camelthorn, Alhagi maurorum, is a thorny plant with plain, rounded leaves. It usually reaches 30 cm high, but there are some that reach a height of 1 m. It can be found in fields and salt flats.

Above: Camelthorn Left: Restharrow



‫גי ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 13a 

61

notes

With these…a person fulfills his obligation on Passover – ‫חֹובתֹו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ֶהן יְ ֵדי‬: The Me’iri asked: Since the halakha does not mandate use of a specific species of vegetable for the fulfillment of the mitzva of the bitter herbs on Passover, why is there a discussion about the bitter herb of the marsh? He answered that while one seeking to fulfill his obligation may indeed use a wide variety of vegetables, here the Gemara is referring to one who seeks to use the species of bitter herbs specifically mentioned in the Torah. The question is if bitter herbs of the marsh fall into that category. Whose name was differentiated – ‫ש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה ׁ ְש ָמם‬: ֶ ׁ The difference between the opinions of Abaye and Rava is apparently whether or not bitter herbs of the marsh are truly a unique species. Abaye holds that although they are a unique species, the Torah did not distinguish between different species. Rava views them as a standard type of bitter herb, and the special name is due only to where they grow. Mitzva of hyssop – ‫מצְ וַ ת ֵאזֹוב‬:ִ Tosafot explain that with regard to the hyssop required for sprinkling the waters of purification, there is no requirement to use a bundle. That requirement is derived by verbal analogy from the hyssop used on Passover in Egypt, where the verse states: “A bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22). There are apparently two separate derivations drawn from the bundle of hyssop: One is that more than one stalk is required, and the second is that they must be bound. The Rabbis held that the derivation concerning the number of stalks is a fullfledged verbal analogy from which Torah law is derived. The derivation with regard to the fact that the stalks must be bound is a mere support, but not a full-fledged derivation, and it is required by rabbinic law (Kesef Mishne). Three stalks – ‫של ׁ ָֹשה ְק ָל ִחים‬: ְ ׁ The commentaries explained that it must have the roots as well as the central stem emerging from the roots. And as long as any part of this central stem remains, that is considered the stump of the hyssop, and it remains fit for sprinkling. halakha

Plants fit for use as hyssop – ‫צְ ָמ ִחים ַה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרים ְל ֵאזֹוב‬: One may use only the species called merely hyssop for sprinkling the waters of purification. Those known as hyssop from Greece, stibium hyssop, desert hyssop, etc., are unfit, as per the mishna cited in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 11:5).

:‫  § וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א ַ ּבר ׁ ֵש ָילא‬Apropos the above halakha, the Gemara cites another state‫יתא דְּ ַאגְ ָמא ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ֶהן יְ ֵדי‬ ָ ‫ ָהנֵי ְמ ָר ִר‬ment that Rav Ĥisda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With these bitter herbs of a marsh, a person fulfills his obligation on .‫חֹובתֹו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ Passover.n ‫ וְ ל ֹא ֵאזֹוב‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ֵאזֹוב יָ וָ ן‬,‫ ֵאזֹוב‬:‫יה‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection to his opinion. With regard ּ ‫ית ֵיב‬ ,‫רֹומי‬ ִ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ֵאזֹוב‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ֵאזֹוב ִמ ְד ָ ּב ִרי‬,‫ֹוח ִלי‬ ָ ‫ ּכ‬to every mitzva that requires use of hyssop, one takes standard b !‫ וְ ל ֹא ֵאזֹוב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ׁ ֵשם ְלוַ וי‬hyssop and neither a hyssop that grows in Greece, nor stibium hyssop, nor desert hyssop, nor Roman hyssop, nor any other kind of hyssop whose name is accompanied by a modifier.h The same should hold true for the mitzva of bitter herbs; bitter herbs of the marsh, whose name is accompanied by a modifier, are not the bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah. ‫קֹודם ַמ ַּתן‬ ֶ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה ׁ ְשמֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ו ָּב‬,‫ּת ָֹורה‬ ּ ‫אתה ּת ָֹורה וְ ִה ְק ּ ִפ ָידה ֲע ֵל‬ ‫נִש ַּת ָּנה‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ל ֹא‬.‫ְ ּביָ דו ַּע ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ׁ ֵשם ְלוַ וי‬ .‫קֹודם ַמ ַּתן ּת ָֹורה ְּכ ָלל‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ְש ַמיְ יה ּו‬

Abaye said in response: There is a distinction between the cases. Every species whose name was differentiatedn prior to the giving of the Torah, i.e., the distinction between its different subspecies predated the Revelation at Sinai, and the Torah then came and was particular about one specific subspecies, it is known that the species has other subspecies identified with a modifier that are unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. And these bitter herbs, their names were not differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah at all; all the subspecies were known simply as bitter herbs. Therefore, when the Torah requires bitter herbs, one may fulfill the mitzva with all subspecies of bitter herbs.

,ּ‫יתא ְס ָת ָמא ׁ ְש ַמיְ יהו‬ ָ ‫ ָהנֵי ְמ ָר ִר‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬Rava said a different explanation. Actually, the name of this plant ‫ וְ ַהאי דְּ ָק ֵרי ְלה ּו ְמ ָר ִר ָיתא דְּ ַאגְ ָמא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬is merely bitter herbs without a modifier. And the fact that h .‫ דְּ ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ַּכח ְ ּב ַאגְ ָמא‬one calls them bitter herbs of the marsh is because they are typically found in the marsh. Therefore, there is no reason that they may not be used to fulfill the mitzva on Passover. ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ִא ֵ ּיגד ְ ּב ַחד – ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ְשנַיִ ם – ַמ ֲח‬,‫יה ֶאגֶ ד‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש – ׁ ְש ֵמ‬,‫ֶאגֶ ד‬ ‫ ִמצְ וַ ת ֵאזֹוב – ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫יֹוסי וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫ְק ָל ִחים ו ָּב ֶהן ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה גִ ְב‬ ‫ ו ׁ ְּשיָ ָריו‬,‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫ ִמצְ וַ ת ֵאזֹוב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה גִ ְב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ וְ גַ ְרדּ ו ָּּמיו ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬

§ Rav Ĥisda said: If one bound one item, even if he did so with

a knot, it is not considered a binding. If one bound three items together, everyone agrees that it is considered a binding. If one bound twoh items, it is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to all matters that involve the mitzva of hyssop,n the requirement is to have three stalksn with their roots, and on them three stems, one on each stalk. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva of hyssop funda­ mentally requires three stems.h If the bundle of hyssop was rendered incomplete, its remnants are fit for use with two stems. If all the stems broke, the hyssop is fit for use, as long as the stumps of its central stem remain any size.

Bitter herbs of the marsh – ‫מ ָר ִר ָיתא דְּ ַאגְ ָמא‬:ְ One fulfills his obligation on Passover by using bitter herbs of the marsh, despite its unique name. The Torah did not specify the species of bitter herb but permitted the use of any vegetable with the requisite characteristics, as explained in tractate Pesaĥim (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:5). A binding of two – ‫אגֶ ד ִ ּב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬:ֶ If one tied reeds emerging from one stalk together and added another unconnected reed, even if there are fewer than twenty-five units, it is unfit because its legal status is that of a bundle. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, who ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:15). The mitzva of hyssop… stems – ‫עֹולי ַה ֵאזֹוב‬ ֵ ‫מצְ וַ ת גִ ְב‬:ִ The mitzva of hyssop requires three plants, each with a stem. If they wilted and only two are left, it is still fit. If one tied only two together, it is also fit, after the fact, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 11:4).

background

Hyssop – ‫אזֹוב‬:ֵ Although the Sages themselves did not come to a definitive conclusion about the identity of this plant mentioned in the Torah, it seems from the various descriptions they provided that it is most likely the common hyssop, Majorana syriaca L. The hyssop is an aromatic bush ranging from 50–100 cm high. It branches out from its base, and its branches are hard and woody. Erect stems, which dry and wither in the winter, grow from these branches annually. White flower buds cluster at the ends of the branches of the bush. The plant can be found growing in rocky terrain throughout the Middle East. The dry hyssop leaves are used as a spice, and they are a primary ingredient in the wellknown spice mixture za’atar.

Hyssop

62 

Perek I . 13a . ‫גי ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫ ִמדִּ ׁ ְשיָ ָריו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם – ְּת ִח ָּילתֹו‬:‫ָקא ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ִּתין‬ .‫ וְ ַהאי דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – ְל ִמצְ וָ ה‬,‫נַ ִמי ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ‫ ְל ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬,‫יֹוסי ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְל ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ו ִּמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ְל ַע ֵּכב‬

It enters our minds to say: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said that for the bundle of hyssop to be fit for the mitzva after the fact its remnants are two, apparently its origins were also two stalks. And the fact that the mishna teaches that the binding includes three plants, that is the requirement for the mitzva to be performed ab initio. And from the fact that Rabbi Yosei requires three plants only for the mitzva to be performed ab initio, conclude that the Rabbis, who disagree with him, hold that failure to include three stalks in the bundle renders it unfit for the mitzva. Apparently, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei dispute whether it is two or three items that are necessary to be considered a binding.

ָּ ‫ ֵאזֹוב ְּת ִח‬:‫אֹומר‬ ‫ילתֹו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא‬,‫ו ׁ ְּשיָ ָריו ֶא ָחד – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ָּ ‫ְּת ִח‬ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ילתֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ו ׁ ְּשיָ ָריו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם! ֵאיפו ְּך‬ .‫ ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְל ִמצְ וָ ה‬,‫יֹוסי ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְל ַע ֵּכב‬ ֵ

The Gemara questions that understanding of the dispute. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: With regard to the hyssop bundle, if its origins were two stalks and its remnants are one, it is unfit. And it is fit only when its origins were three and its remnants are two. Rather, reverse the opinions in the mishna: According to Rabbi Yosei, failure to include three stalks in the bundle renders it unfit for the mitzva; according to the Rabbis, three is the requirement for the mitzva to be performed ab initio.

ָּ ‫ ֵאזֹוב ְּת ִח‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara cites a baraita supporting this understanding. And this – ‫ילתֹו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ׁ ְּשיָ ָריו ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ּ ָפסוּל ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ְּת ִח ָּלתֹו ו ׁ ְּשיָ ָריו‬,‫ ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬was taught in a baraita: With regard to the hyssop bundle, if its .‫ ֶא ָחד‬origins were two stalks and its remnants are one, it is fit. And it is unfit only when its origins and its remnants are one. Clearly, this is the opinion of the Rabbis. ‫ ׁ ְשיָ ָריו ֶא ָחד ּ ָפסוּל? ָהא ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ׁ ְשיָ ָריו ֶא ָחד‬The Gemara questions the end of the baraita: If its remnants are !‫ ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬one, it is unfit? Didn’t you say in the first clause of the baraita that if its remnants are one it is fit?

Perek I Daf 13 Amud b .‫ ַעד ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ְּת ִח ָּלתֹו ִּכ ׁ ְשיָ ָריו ֶא ָחד‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬Rather, emend the baraita and say: It is unfit only when its origins, like its remnants, are one. ‫יתא דְּ סו ָּרא ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין‬ ָ ָ‫ ָהנֵי ִא ּיסו ְּרי‬:‫ימר‬ ָ ‫ דָּ ַר ׁש ָמ ֵר‬Mareimar taught: With regard to these bundles of reeds from b ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דַּ ֲאגָ ָדן – ְל ִמנְיָ נָ א ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬,ּ‫ ְ ּבהו‬Sura that are bound for sale, one may roof the sukka with them. Although the seller bound them,h he bound them merely to .‫דַּ ֲאגָ ָדן‬ ascertain the number more readily, and they will not remain bound. ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫יפי דְּ א ּו ְר ָ ּבנֵי‬ ֵ ‫ ָהנֵי צְ ִר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬Rabbi Abba said: With regard to these huts made of willow bn ‫ וְ ָהא‬.‫אשי ַמ ֲע ַד ּנִים ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרין‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ׁ ֶשהו ְּּת ָרה ָר‬branches, once their upper ties holding them together are un.ּ‫ דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי ְלהו‬:‫ ֲאגִ ִידי ִמ ַּת ַּתאי! ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬done, they are fit roofing. The Gemara asks: But aren’t they still tied from below? Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Abba is referring to a case where he unties them from below as well. background

Sura – ‫סו ָּרא‬: Sura was a town in southern Babylonia. Sura was not Huts made of willow branches – ‫צְ ִר ֵיפי דְּ או ְּר ָ ּבנֵי‬: an important Jewish community until the great amora, Rav, moved there and established the yeshiva of Sura (c. 220 CE). From that point until the end of geonic period (c. 1000 CE), Sura was a major Torah center. Under the leadership of Rav and his closest disciples, the yeshiva of Sura was influenced by the halakhic traditions of Eretz Yisrael and renowned for its unique approach to Torah study. Among the great scholars and leaders of Sura were Rav, Rav Huna, Rav Ĥisda, Ravina, and Rav Ashi. The editing of the Babylonian Talmud was primarily undertaken in Sura. There was another city of the same name, and in order to distinguish between them the other city was called Sura on the Euphrates.

halakha

Bundles tied for sale – ‫ֹוש ִרים ִל ְמ ִכ ָירה‬ ְ ׁ ‫ח ִבילֹות ׁ ֶש ּק‬:ֲ These are not considered bundles for halakhic purposes, and therefore they may be used for roofing the sukka. This is because they are tied only to facilitate their sale, and the customer typically unties them immediately after the purchase (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:16). notes

Huts made of willow branches – ‫צְ ִר ֵיפי דְּ או ְּר ָ ּבנֵי‬: Some explain that these huts are simple, inclined roofs made from a weave of willow branches, which roof the houses of the poor (Arukh). Rashi and others record that these are actually willows woven into a cage-like hut in which hunters hide. The common denominator between these two views is that the branches are held together. They are not merely tied together, but they are braided together, so that even after the knots are untied the branches remain connected.

Depiction of long, flexible willow branches woven into a tent-like hut, tied at the top and woven at the bottom



‫גי ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 13b 

63

halakha

A binding that is not destined to be moved – ‫ֶאגֶ ד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬ ‫ע ׂשוּי ְל ַט ְל ֵטל‬:ָ A bundle that cannot be carried does not have the legal status of a bundle, even if it is tied at both ends. Consequently, one may use it to roof a sukka (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:15). Roofing that dries quickly – ‫יַב ׁש‬ ּ ֵ ‫ס ָכ ְך ַה ְמ ַמ ֵהר ְל ִה ְת‬:ְ Roofing made from vegetables that dry quickly is unfit roofing. Food items are unfit for roofing because they are susceptible to impurity, but the measure of food that renders the sukka unfit is four handbreadths as is the case with all unfit roofing. Three handbreadths of these vegetables render the sukka unfit, like airspace, due to their tendency to wither and crumble (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:12). Harvesting grain for roofing a sukka with regard to ritual impurity – ‫ה ּקֹוצֵ ר ַל ְּס ָכךְ ְל ִענְיַין טו ְּמ ָאה‬:ַ If one harvests stalks of grain to roof the sukka and, all the more so, if one harvests grapes for the winepress, the handles of the grain are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Menashya, who, based on the discussion of the Gemara, appears to hold in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna (Kesef Mishne). Alternatively, it is possible to explain Rav Menashya’s opinion is in accordance with all opinions (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 5:6–7).

:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ (וְ ָא ַמר) ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if you say that ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬Rabbi Abba is referring to a case where one does not untie ‫ ָּכל ֶאגֶ ד‬,ּ‫ימא דְּ ָלא ׁ ָש ֵרי ְלהו‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ֵּת‬ .‫יה ֶאגֶ ד‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָעשׂ וּי ְל ַט ְל ְטלֹו – ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬them from below, they are fit for hsukka roofing, as any binding that is not destined to be moved is not considered a binding. Since these huts are untied from above, were one to attempt to move them, they would fall apart. ‫ יְ ָרקֹות‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ֶהן יְ ֵדי‬ ,‫יאין ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ִ ‫חֹובתֹו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח – ְמ ִב‬ ָ ‫ּפֹוס ִלין‬ ְ ‫ ו‬,‫וְ ֵאין חֹוצְ צִ ין ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ֵּכיוָ ן‬.‫ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲאוִ יר‬ ‫יתנְ ה ּו‬ ְ ‫ ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ֵל‬,‫דִּ ְל ִכי ְיָב ׁ ֵשי ּ ָפ ְר ִכי וְ נָ ְפ ִלי‬ .‫דָּ ֵמי‬

§ Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: With regard to vege­

tables about which the Sages said:n One fulfills his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover, if they are spread over a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, they transmit ritual impurity,n and the impurity spreads to objects beneath them. And, nevertheless, the Sages decreed that they do not serve as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity. The impurity breaches roofing made of these vegetables and rises upward, as if there were no covering over it. If one roofs a sukka with these vegetables, it is as if they were not there at all, and they render a sukka unfit due to the unfitness of airspace.n Just as three handbreadths of airspace in the roofing renders a sukka unfit, so too, three handbreadths of these vegetables in the roofing renders a sukka unfit. What is the reason for this halakha? Since when they dryh they crumble and fall, even while fresh, they are as one that is not there.

‫ ַה ּבֹוצֵ ר‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬Apropos the statements of Rabbi Abba, the Gemara cites an.‫ ַל ַ ּגת – ֵאין לֹו יָ דֹות‬other. Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who harvests bunches of grapes for the winepress, these bunches do not have handles.n The stems, which connect the grapes to the clusters, are not required for the production of wine. Therefore, their legal status is not that of a handle in terms of ritual impurity; they are merely waste. Consequently, if these stems come into contact with a source of ritual impurity, they do not become impure and they do not transmit impurity to the attached grapes. :‫נַשיָ א ַ ּבר ַ ּגדָּ א ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ַרב ְמ‬And Rav Menashya bar Gadda said that Rav Huna said: In the h .‫ ַה ּקֹוצֵ ר ַל ְּס ָכךְ ֵאין לֹו יָ דֹות‬case of one who harvests grain for roofing a sukka, the grain has no handles. The legal status of the straw is not that of a handle for the grain. Since his interest is roofing his sukka, he wants only the straw, which is fit roofing, and not the grain, which is unfit. Therefore, in this context, the straw does not facilitate moving the grain. ‫ דְּ ָלא‬,‫ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר קֹוצֵ ר – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ּבֹוצֵ ר‬ ‫ ַמאן‬.‫יה‬ ְ ‫יה דְּ ָלא‬ ָ ּ ‫יה ְל ַח ְמ ֵר‬ ּ ֵ‫נִימצְ י‬ ּ ‫נִיחא ֵל‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל קֹוצֵ ר‬,‫דְּ ָא ַמר ּבֹוצֵ ר ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו יָ דֹות‬ ‫ ִּכי‬,ּ‫יס ַּכךְ ְ ּבהו‬ ַ ‫יה דְּ ִל‬ ָ ְּ‫ ד‬,‫יֵ ׁש לֹו יָ דֹות‬ ּ ‫נִיחא ֵל‬ .‫יבדְּ ַרן‬ ּ ַ ‫יכי דְּ ָלא ִל‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬

The Gemara notes: The one who said that in the case of one who harvests grain, the straw is not a handle, all the more so would he say so in the case of one who harvests grapes, since the stems are not suitable for his needs. Stems are not wanted in the winepress, so that they will not absorb wine. By contrast, the one who said in the case of one who harvests grapes that it has no handles, he said so only in that case; however, in the case of one who harvests grain, he would say that it has handles, since the grain attached to the straw is suitable for his needs. He can roof the sukka with them and weigh down the straw, so that it does not scatter in the wind.

notes

Vegetables about which the Sages said – ‫יְ ָרקֹות ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים‬: There are several common aspects to the vegetables the Sages enumerated as fit for the mitzva of bitter herbs. First, they are not typically eaten; they are eaten only in unusual circumstances. Furthermore, they each have quick-drying moisture, causing the vegetable to dry and crumble faster than other vegetables. Transmit ritual impurity – ‫יאין ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ִ ‫מ ִב‬:ְ Some of the early authorities have a variant reading of the text: They do not transmit ritual impurity (Rid; Me’iri; and others). According to this reading, the Gemara is more easily understood: Since these branches do not last long, their legal status from the outset is of something not there at all, even with regard to the halakhot of

64 

Perek I . 13b . ‫גי ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

ritual impurity. However, according to the version: They transmit ritual impurity (Rashi; Tosafot; Ritva), the Sages issued a decree that as long as they are moist they transmit impurity, despite the fact that by Torah law a dried vegetable does not transmit ritual impurity.

a vessel or utensil is susceptible to ritual impurity provided it meets two criteria: It must be fit for consumption by people and water must have been poured on it intentionally. Typically, food comes with shells, peels, small branches, and the like attached to it. At times, these attachments are considered part of the food both in terms of the minimum requisite And they render a sukka unfit due to the unfitness of airmeasure to become ritually impure and in terms of transmitting space – ‫ּפֹוס ִלין ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲאוִ יר‬ ְ ‫ו‬: The Ran holds that they are ritual impurity to the food. There are two primary attachments unfit by Torah law since clearly they are not fit to last for the that fall into this category: Protection and handles. Protection is seven days of the Festival. attached to the food and preserves it. Handles are attachments Handles – ‫יָ דֹות‬: The halakhot of handles are discussed at length that facilitate carrying and handling the food. Halakhic discusin tractate Okatzin, the final tractate in the order of Teharot. sions address the precise specifications of the handles along Essentially, any item that grows from the ground and is not with the circumstances in which they become ritually impure.

,‫נַשיָא ַ ּבר ַ ּגדָּ א ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬ ְ ׁ ‫נֵימא דְּ ַרב ְמ‬ ָ ,‫סֹוכי ְת ֵאנִים ו ָּב ֶהן ְּת ֵאנִים‬ ֵ :‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ ַק ׁ ּ ִשין ו ָּב ֶהן‬,‫ילין ו ָּב ֶהן ֲענָ ִבים‬ ִ ‫ּ ַפ ְר ִּכ‬ ‫ ּכו ָּלן‬,‫ ַמ ְכ ְ ּבדֹות ו ָּב ֶהן ְּת ָמ ִרים‬,‫ׁ ִש ֳ ּב ִלים‬ – ‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ָ ‫סֹולת ְמרו ָ ּּבה ַעל ָה‬ ֶ ‫ִאם ּ ְפ‬ ‫ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬.‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬,‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו ַק ׁ ּ ִשין ְמרו ִ ּּבין ַעל‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ .‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ָ ‫ַהּיָ דֹות וְ ַעל ָה‬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Menashya bar Gadda is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Fig branches,n and there are figs on them; vines, and there are grapes on them; straw, and there are stalks of grain on them; palm branches,n and there are dates on them,h with regard to them all, if the amount of waste is greater than the amount of the food, a sukka roofed with them is fit. And if not, the sukka is unfit. Aĥerim say: The sukka is unfit until the amount of straw is greater than the combined amount of the handbreadth of the handles attached to the food that is susceptible to ritual impurity and the food.

‫יפ ְלגִ י; דְּ ָמר‬ ַ ּ ‫ ַמאי ָלאו ְ ּב ָהא ָקא ִמ‬The Gemara continues: What, is it not that they disagree with ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ יֵ ׁש ָל ֶהן יָ דֹות‬:‫ ָס ַבר‬regard to this: That one Sage, Aĥerim, who said that the straw .‫ ָל ֶהן יָ דֹות‬must be greater than the handles as well, holds that the produce designated for roofing have handles; and one Sage, the first tanna, who disagrees, holds that they do not have handles? ‫ ְל ַרב‬,‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא – וַ דַּ אי ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬ ?‫ימא ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬ ָ ‫נַשיָ א ַ ּבר ַ ּגדָּ א ִמי ֵל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ְמ‬ ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא‬:‫נַשיָ א‬ ְ ׁ ‫ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב ְמ‬ ,‫ ַה ּקֹוצֵ ר ְּס ָכ ְך ֵאין לֹו יָ דֹות‬:‫ָס ְב ִרי‬ ‫וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ּקֹוצְ צָ ן‬ . ְ‫יכוּך‬ ֶ ‫ וְ נִ ְמ ַלךְ ֲע ֵל‬,‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ּ ‫יהן ְל ִס‬

‫ִאי קֹוצְ צָ ן ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה ַמאי ַט ֲע ַמיְ יה ּו‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬:‫ימא ָק ָס ְב ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן? וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ‫יה‬ ֶ ‫דְּ נִ ְמ ַל ְך ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ‫יהן ְל ִס‬ ּ ‫יכו ְּך ָ ּב ְט ָלה ֵל‬ ‫יה ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬ ּ ‫ ו ִּמי ָ ּב ְט ָלה ֵל‬,‫ַמ ֲח ׁ ַש ְב ּתֹו‬ ‫ ָּכל ַה ֵּכ ִלים‬:‫ְ ּב ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ְתנַן‬

The Gemara notes: According to the opinion of Rabbi Abba, who says that grape clusters harvested for the winepress do not have handles, but grain harvested for roofing does, it is certainly a dispute between tanna’im. Clearly, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Aĥerim, who hold that grain harvested for roofing has handles. However, according to the opinion of Rav Menashya bar Gadda, who says that grain harvested for roofing does not have handles, shall we say that it is a dispute between tanna’im, and that he holds in accordance with the first tanna of the baraita? Rav Menashya could have said to you that everyone agrees: With regard to one who harvests grain for roofing, the grain does not have handles. And here in the baraita, with what are we dealing? It is a case where one initially cut the stalks for food, and reconsidered his plan for them, and decided to use them for roofing. Since initially, as food, the grain had handles, its status does not change despite his change of intent.

notes

Roofing with branches of fig trees – ‫סֹוכי ְת ֵאנִים‬ ֵ ‫ס ּיכוּךְ ְ ּב‬:ִ These figs and other fruits are not yet susceptible to ritual impurity because water did not fall upon them. Still, since they are food and not in the category of the waste of the threshing floor or the winepress, they are unfit for roofing. Palm branches – ‫מ ְכ ְ ּבדֹות‬:ַ The ge’onim explained this term, which also means brooms, in different ways. One explanation is that the dates hang off the branch, creating the appearance of a broom. Another is that after removing the dates from the branch, these branches were actually used as a broom. halakha

Branches with fruit upon them – ‫יהם ּ ֵפירֹות‬ ֶ ‫ענָ ִפים ׁ ֶש ֲע ֵל‬:ֲ One may roof a sukka with fruit-laden branches, provided the inedible portion is greater than the fruit on the branches. If not, one may not roof a sukka with them. If one severs the branches for food, the handles of the fruit, i.e., the stems and the small branches attached to the fruit, are considered fruit for the purposes of this calculation. However, if one severs the branches for roofing, the stems and branches are considered branches for the purposes of this calculation. If one severs the branches for fruit and then reconsiders and decides to use the branches for roofing, thought alone is insufficient to alter their status. He must perform an action, e.g., trampling them, in order to negate their status as food (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:10). How vessels contract ritual impurity – ‫ֵּכיצַ ד ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלים ֵּכ ִלים‬ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה‬: If a vessel that one deemed complete is capable of serving a purpose in its current state, thought alone renders it a vessel, and it is susceptible to ritual impurity. However, once the object is rendered a vessel, thought alone cannot reverse the process and negate its status as a vessel. The thought must be accompanied by an action that negates the earlier thought, as one thought alone cannot negate a previous thought, and all the more so one thought cannot negate a previous action (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 8:10).

The Gemara asks: If he cut them for food, what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis that the grain has no handles? As a rule, grain has handles. And if you say that the Rabbis hold that once he reconsidered his plan for them and decided to use them for roofing, his initial intent was negated and their legal status is like any other inedible roofing, and they consequently have no handles, the Gemara asks: And was his initial intent negated in that manner? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: All vesselsh

Perek I Daf 14 Amud a ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫יֹור ִדין ִל ֵידי טו ְּמ ָאה ְ ּב ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬ ְ .‫עֹולין ִמ ּטו ְּמ ָא ָתן ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ִשינּ וּי ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ִ ‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה מֹוצִ יא ִמּיַ ד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ּו ִמּיַ ד‬ ‫יאה‬ ָ ִ‫ ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה ֵאינָ ּה מֹוצ‬,‫ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬ .‫ל ֹא ִמּיַ ד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה וְ ל ֹא ִמּיַ ד ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬



descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought? Although an unfinished vessel ordinarily cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided to leave it in its unfinished state, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. However, they ascend from their state of ritual impurity only by means of a change resulting from an action. Merely deciding to complete the unfinished vessel does not alter its status. It loses its status as a vessel only when he takes action to complete it. Action negates status created by action and status created by thought; however, thought negates neither status created by action nor status created by thought.n Therefore, once the straw of the grain harvested for food is considered a handle and is susceptible to ritual impurity, its status cannot be negated by thought alone.

notes

Thought and action with regard to ritual impurity – ‫ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬ ‫ו ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬: There is a principle that only finished products can become ritually impure; raw materials cannot. In tractate Kelim, numerous details are provided with regard to how to determine the finished stage of any given vessel. However, they apply only when a worker crafts a vessel with no stated intent. If one decides that he finished work on a vessel at an earlier stage, it assumes the legal status of a vessel and is susceptible to ritual impurity at that point. Once a vessel assumes that status, the mere thought that one wishes to continue working on a vessel does not revoke its status. The unfinished vessel loses its status as a vessel only when one actually continues to work on it.

‫די ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 14a 

65

notes

Besasan, one untied their binding – ‫ב ָס ָסן ִה ִּתיר ִאגּ ו ָּדן‬:ּ ְ According to this opinion, a significant action is not required to alter the status of the item. The mere thought that one wishes to change its status combined with a symbolic action, e.g., untying the bundle, is sufficient (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). Trampled them [besasan] – ‫ב ָס ָסן‬:ּ ְ There is a variant reading, pesasan, which in this context means the same, trampling and crushing. See Rashi, who demonstrates that this word has different meanings in the Bible. background

Pitchfork – ‫ע ֶתר‬:ֶ

,‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ֵּכ ִלים דַּ ֲח ׁ ִש ִיבי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ,ּ‫צֹור ְך ֲא ִכ ָילה נִינְ הו‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ָבל יָ דֹות דִּ ְל‬ .‫ ו ְּב ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה ָס ְל ָקא‬,‫נַע ֶ ׂשה‬ ֲ ‫ְ ּב ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָס ָסן‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל יְ דֹות ָה‬:‫וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬ .)‫יֹוסי ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ ֵ ‫ (וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַ ּב ּג ֶֹורן – ְטהֹורֹות‬

And if you say: There is a distinction between the cases, as this principle applies only to vessels, which are significant, but with regard to handles that are not independently significant but are merely for the purpose of handling food, perhaps by means of thought they become handles and by means of thought they emerge from that status; but didn’t we learn in the mishna to the contrary? All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, as through one’s actions he indicated that has no use for them and does not consider them significant. And Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure.

‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ָס ָסן ִה ִּתיר‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ִאגּ ו ָּדן – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬ ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ַמאי ְ ּב ָס ָסן ְ ּב ָס ָסן ַמ ָּמ ׁש – ַמאי ִא‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬

The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to the one who said that besasan means that one untied their binding,n it works out well. Although no action was performed on the sheaves, nevertheless, since their only purpose is to facilitate binding the sheaves, he indicated by unbinding them that the handles no longer suit his needs. However, according to the one who said: What is the meaning of besasan? It means he actually trampled them,n what can be said? According to that opinion, only an action can negate the status of the handles. What, then, is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that thought alone can negate their status?

‫ ַמאי‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָס ָסן ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬The Gemara answers: Here too, the dispute between the Rabbis and ‫ ַט ֲע ַמיְ יה ּו דַּ ֲא ֵח ִרים? דְּ ַאמ ּור ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬Aĥerim with regard to using grain for roofing the sukka is in a case where one actually trampled them, and that is the reason that they .‫יֹוסי ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: If so, and a change was made to the grain itself, what is the rationale for the opinion of Aĥerim, who nevertheless prohibit their use as roofing? The Gemara answers: It is because Aĥerim state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in the previously cited mishna: Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure even after trampling. ‫ַהאי ַמאי?! ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָה ָתם ַט ְע ָמא‬ ‫יֹוסי – ַחזְ יָ א ְל ִכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬,‫ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ,‫הֹופ ָכן ְ ּב ֶע ֶתר‬ ְ ‫הֹואיל ו ְּראוּיֹות ְל‬ ִ

Roman pitchfork with two prongs halakha

Trampled food handles – ‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָס ָסן‬ ָ ‫יְ דֹות ָה‬: Food handles that were trampled on the threshing floor are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna and the explanation of Rabbi Yoĥanan, and it is contrary to the opinion of his student Rabbi Elazar (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 5:8).

66 

Perek I . 14a . ‫די ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

The Gemara asks: What is the basis of this comparison between the cases? Granted, there, in the dispute concerning the ritual impurity of the grain on the threshing floor, the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that the handles remain susceptible to ritual impurity, is that they are suitable for use. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork,b as the straw prevents the grain from falling between the prongs of the pitchfork.

‫ ְל ִכי‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ָה ָכא – ְל ַמאי ַחזְ יָ א? ַחזְ יָ א‬However, here, where one needs the straw only for roofing the .ּ‫ ָס ַתר ְל ִמנְ ַקט ְלה ּו ְ ּבגִ ַיליְ יהו‬sukka, for what are the handles suited after they have been trampled? They serve no purpose in terms of handling the grain. The Gemara answers: They are suited when one dismantles the roofing, in order to hold the grain by the straw, so that it will scatter. Therefore, Aĥerim hold that the straw remains capable of contracting ritual impurity. ‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָס ָסן‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל יְ דֹות ָה‬:‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ .‫יֹוסי ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַ ּבגּ ֶֹורן – ְטהֹורֹות‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָס ָסן‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ַמאי ְ ּב ָס ָסן? ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ִה ִּתיר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ )‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫(א ִל‬ ֱ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬ .‫ַא ְ ּגדָּ ן‬

Apropos the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, and Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of besasan? Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It means that one actually trampled them under foot. Rabbi Elazar says: It means he untied their binding.

‫יעזֶ ר) דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ָס ָסן‬ ֶ ‫(א ִל‬ ֱ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ִה ִּתיר ַא ְ ּגדָּ ן – ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְמ ַט ֵּמא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹוחנָן דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ָס ָסן ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹוסי? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ַא ַּמאי ְמ ַט ֵּמא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫הֹואיל ו ְּראוּיֹות‬ ִ :‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ .‫הֹופ ָכן ְ ּב ֶע ֶתר‬ ְ ‫ְל‬

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who said that besasan means that he untied their binding, this is the reason that Rabbi Yosei deems the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yoĥanan, who said that besasan means that one actually trampled them,h why does Rabbi Yosei deem the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity? Didn’t one thereby render them insignificant? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled, the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork.

‫ ָל ָּמה נִ ְמ ׁ ְש ָלה‬:)‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫(א ִל‬ ֱ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ?‫יקים ְּכ ֶע ֶתר‬ ִ ִּ‫ְּת ִפ ָּל ָתן ׁ ֶשל צַ ד‬ ‫ ָמה ֶע ֶתר זֶ ה ְמ ַה ּ ֵפךְ ֶאת ַה ְּתבו ָּאה‬, ָ‫ְלך‬ ‫ ַאף ְּת ִפ ָּל ָתן ׁ ֶשל‬,‫ַ ּב ּג ֶֹורן ִמ ָּמקֹום ְל ָמקֹום‬ ‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫צַ דִּ ִיקים ְמ ַה ּ ֶפ ֶכת דַּ ְע ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ִמ ִּמדַּ ת ַא ְכזָ ִרּיוּת ְל ִמדַּ ת‬ .‫ַר ֲח ָמנוּת‬

Apropos a pitchfork, the Gemara cites a related aggadic teaching: Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork [eter]? It is written: “And Isaac entreated [vayetar] the Lord for his wife, because she was barren” (Genesis 25:21), to say to you: Just as this pitchfork overturns the grain on the threshing floor from place to place, so too, the prayers of the righteous overturn the mind of the Holy One, Blessed be He, from the attribute of crueltyn to the attribute of mercy, and He accepts their prayers.

mishna 

One may roof the sukka with boardsh like ‫נְס ִרים דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ִ ּב‬ those used in the ceiling of a house; this is ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ נָ ַתן ָע ֶל‬.‫אֹוסר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir prohibits their use. – ‫ נֶ ֶסר ׁ ֶשהוּא ָר ָחב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ְט ָפ ִחים‬If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the .‫ישן ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא י‬,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board. ‫נְס ִרין ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬ ָ ‫לֹוקת ִ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִאית ֵל‬,‫ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֵלית ֵל‬,‫ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ‫נְס ִרין ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִ ּב‬.‫ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַמ ֲח‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫ֲא ָבל יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ .‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

gemara 

Rav said: The dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, the standard size for boards used in house ceilings, as Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. In that case, the roofing of the sukka with boards that wide could be confused with a ceiling. If it were permitted to roof the sukka with a board that size, one might come to sleep beneath the ceiling of his own home during the Festival. And Rabbi Yehuda is not of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. However, with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. And Shmuel said: The dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width; however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit.

ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬The Gemara asks: According to Shmuel, the dispute is with regard ‫יל ּו ּ ָפחֹות‬ !ּ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – ָהא ָקנִים ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא נִינְ הו‬to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, and apparently the same would hold true even if their width were less than three handbreadths. In that case, aren’t they merely reeds; why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use? ‫ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן‬:‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ ּ ָפחֹות‬,‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ ִּכי‬.‫ַט ְע ָמא – ָקנִים ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא נִינְ ה ּו‬ ‫ ָמר‬.‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעד ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ – ‫יתנְ ה ּו ׁ ִשיעוּר ָמקֹום‬ ְ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ֵל‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ נָ ְפ ִקי ְלה ּו‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן‬ .‫ִמ ּת ַֹורת ָלבוּד – ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן‬

Rav Pappa said that this is what Shmuel is saying: If they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If their width is less than three handbreadths, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason? It is because they are merely reeds. When they disagree in the mishna, their disagreement pertains to a case where the boards are from three to four handbreadths wide. In that case, one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that since they are not the measure of a significant place, we do not issue a decree prohibiting their use. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that since they have departed from the halakhic status of being joined [lavud], which applies only to gaps of less than three handbreadths, we issue a decreen prohibiting their use as roofing.

‫יה נֶ ֶסר ׁ ֶשהוּא ָר ָחב‬ ָ ‫ נָ ַתן ָע ֶל‬:‫ְּתנַ ן‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד‬,‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ְט ָפ ִחים – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ישן ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא י‬ ,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַמ ֲח‬ ‫ֲא ָבל יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ .‫ישן ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי ל ֹא י‬,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַרב‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ֲח‬ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַא ַּמאי ל ֹא‬,‫ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ?‫ישן ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫י‬

The Gemara cites proof with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that one should not sleep beneath the board. However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit, according to Rabbi Yehuda, why may one not sleep beneath it?



notes

Attribute of cruelty – ‫מדַּ ת ַא ְכזָ ִרּיוּת‬:ִ The commentaries were surprised by the use of this unusually harsh expression. The typical phrase is the attribute of justice. They noted, however, that in this case the attribute of justice was not at work, as Isaac and Rebecca did nothing to warrant being childless. Rather, the attribute here is understood in the sense of afflictions imposed out of love. The use of the harsh expression serves to underscore that it is within the power of the righteous to overcome even that attribute through prayer (see Rishon LeTziyyon, Nezer HaKodesh, and others). Decree with regard to boards – ‫נְס ִרים‬ ָ ‫גזֵ ָירה ִ ּב‬:ּ ְ According to Rashi and others, a ceiling usually consists of boards four handbreadths wide, and that is the reason for the decree prohibiting their use but not the use of narrower boards. Many early authorities (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva; Ran) questioned this approach based on two issues: First, during talmudic times roofs were made of narrower boards. Second, the language of the Gemara itself indicates that the significance of a board is determined by its size, not by its potential use in a ceiling. Consequently, they explained that the Sages distinguished between roofing that looks like a regular ceiling because it is made with wide boards and roofing that is fit for roofing a sukka. It is written in the Jerusalem Talmud that this decree is part of the general decree against using vessels, and although these boards are flat wood pieces and cannot become ritually impure, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting their use because they resemble vessels, in the sense that they are finished products. halakha

Roofing with boards – ‫נְס ִרים‬ ָ ‫יכו ְּך ִ ּב‬ ּ ‫ס‬:ִ One may not roof his sukka with boards measuring four handbreadths wide. However, if they are less than four handbreadths wide, one may roof with them. Some say that the halakha is in accordance with the principle that in disputes between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Others say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, against the principle that in ritual maters the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav in disputes with Shmuel, since the discourse in the Gemara is according to Shmuel’s opinion (Rosh). Others say the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, based on the principle that the halakha is in accordance with his decrees and on the statement of Rav (Ra’avad). In any event, the prevailing custom is not to roof a sukka with boards at all, lest one roof the sukka in the manner that he roofs a house (Tur, citing Sefer Mitzvot Katan; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:18).

‫די ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 14a 

67

‫ ִמי ָס ְב ַר ְּת דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ִהיא? ֵס ָיפא ָא ָתאן‬The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this last halakha in the .‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬mishna, about not sleeping beneath the board, is a ruling with which everyone, including Rabbi Yehuda agrees? Rather, in the latter clause of the mishna we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. He alone, not Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one may not sleep beneath the board. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the mishna. ,‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ְס ִדינִין – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together to constitute four handbreadths, the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit.

Perek I Daf 14 Amud b notes

Combine to measure four handbreadths – ‫מצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬:ִ While Rabbi Meir deems even a board three handbreadths wide unfit, the board does not render the entire sukka unfit unless the unfit boards extend at least four handbreadths, like other unfit roofing (Maharam).

‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬.‫ ׁ ְשנֵי נְ ָס ִרין – ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬However, two boards placed on the sukka do not combine. Rabbi Meir says: Even boards are like sheets, in that they join .‫נְס ִרין ִּכ ְס ִדינִין‬ ָ ‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ together to constitute the measure of unfitness. ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁיֵש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַמ ֲח‬ – ‫״מצְ ָט ְר ִפין״‬ ִ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ּ ְפסו ָּלה; ַמאי‬ .‫ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬

The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, but if they have four handbreadths in their width everyone agrees that it is unfit; what is the meaning of that which Rabbi Meir said: Boards join together? It means that boards less than four handbreadths wide combine to measure four handbreadths,n which renders the sukka unfit.

‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַרב‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ֲח‬ ‫יכי דָּ ִמי? ִאי דְּ ִאית ְ ּבה ּו‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ָל ָּמה ְלה ּו ְל ִאיצְ ְטרו ֵּפי? ִאי‬ ‫דְּ ֵלית ְ ּבה ּו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ַא ַּמאי? וְ ָהא ָקנִים‬ !ּ‫ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא נִינְ הו‬

However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, but if they do not have four handbreadths in their width everyone agrees that it is fit, what are the circumstances? If each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, why must they join together to render the sukka unfit? If each board is four handbreadths wide, each is capable of rendering the sukka unfit on its own. And if each of the boards does not have four handbreadths in its width, why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use? But aren’t they merely reeds according to Rav? Just as one may roof the sukka with reeds, one should be permitted to roof the sukka with these narrow boards.

‫ ּו ַמאי‬,‫עֹולם דְּ ִאית ְ ּבה ּו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Actually, explain that there are four hand‫״מצְ ָט ְר ִפין״ – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ִ breadths in the width of each board and each renders the sukka .‫ ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬unfit on its own. However, what is the meaning of: Boards join together? It is with regard to a completely different matter. They join together to constitute four cubits from the side. If one placed these unfit boards adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka, they do not render the sukka unfit, due to the halakhic principle of curved wall, which views that roofing as an extension of that wall. However, that principle applies only up to four cubits of unfit roofing. If these boards join together to measure four cubits, the sukka is unfit according to Rabbi Meir. According to this explanation, the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav as well. ,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬:‫ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ִל‬ ,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַמ ֲח‬ ,‫ֲא ָבל ׁיֵש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫״מצְ ָט ְר ִפין״ – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ִ ‫ַמאי‬ .‫ַא ּמֹות ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬

68 

Perek I . 14b . ‫די ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

There is another version of the above exchange. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, but if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit, what is the meaning of that which Rabbi Meir said: Boards join together? It means that they join together to constitute four cubits from the side, which renders the sukka unfit.

‫ ַמאי‬,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַרב‬ ‫״מצְ ָט ְר ִפין״ – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ִ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬ ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫יל ּו יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ !ּ‫״אין ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין״? ָקנִים ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא נִינְ הו‬ ֵ ‫״מצְ ָט ְר ִפין״‬ ִ ‫ַאּיְ ֵידי דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ .‫״אין ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין״‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬

However, according to Rav, granted, according to Rabbi Meir, what is the meaning of: Boards join together? It means that they join together to constitute four cubits from the side. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that even if they have four handbreadths in their width, the sukka is fit, what is the meaning of: Boards do not join together? They are merely reeds, which is fit roofing and fit roofing that joins together remains fit roofing. The Gemara answers: Since Rabbi Meir used the phrase: Join together, Rabbi Yehuda, although it is irrelevant according to his opinion, also said: Do not join together.

‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַּתנְ יָ א ְּכו‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַּתנְ יָ א ְּכו‬The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with ּ ‫ות‬ ּ ‫ות‬ .‫ דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

notes

During a time of danger – ‫ב ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה‬: ּ ִ Some explained that since the boards are unfit due to a decree and are not unfit by Torah law, during times of persecution, the Sages permitted roofing a sukka with these boards. According to the Ritva, the dispute between the tanna’im is whether it is permitted to do so in times of danger. Some explained the dispute as follows: According to the Rabbis, in dangerous times, they would bring boards four handbreadths wide, so that the persecuting authorities would not suspect the Jews of building a sukka. According to Rabbi Yehuda, however, even if doing so was prohibited, they would have brought narrower boards, because the authorities would not have noticed the difference (Rishon LeTziyyon). One turned them on their sides – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵּ‫ה ָפ ָכן ַעל צִ יד‬:ֲ According to the Yefe Einayim, a dispute is cited in the Jerusalem Talmud between Rav and Shmuel themselves on this very subject.

‫נְס ִרים ׁ ֶשל‬ ָ ‫ ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה ִ ּב‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ‫ֶא ֶרז ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ ‫ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ .‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one roofed the sukka with cedar boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit. If there are four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

Their legal status became like skewers of metal – ‫נַע ׂש ּו‬ ֲ ‫כ ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת‬:ְּ Even metal skewers, which are clearly unfit roofing for a sukka, render the entire sukka unfit only when there are four handbreadths of unfit roofing.

‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵה ֵביאנ ּו נְ ָס ִרים ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫ וְ יָ ׁ ַש ְבנ ּו‬,‫יכ ְכנ ּו ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִמ ְר ּ ֶפ ֶסת‬ ַּ ‫וְ ִס‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם ְר ָאיָ ה?! ֵאין‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ַּת ְח ֵּת‬ .‫ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה ְר ָאיָ ה‬

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger,n when the gentiles decreed that it is prohibited for Jews to construct a sukka, at which point we brought boards that had four handbreadths in their width, and we roofed the porch with them so that it would not appear to be a sukka, and we sat beneath them. Evidently, boards four handbreadths wide are fit roofing for a sukka. They said to him: Is there proof be cited from there? There is no proof from actions performed during a time of danger. It is possible that the sukka that they built on the porch was unfit, and they built it merely to commemorate the mitzva that they were unable to fulfill. From this baraita, it is apparent that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is in a case of boards that are four handbreadths wide, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

Boards turned on their sides – ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵּ‫נְס ִרים ׁ ֶש ֲה ָפ ָכם ַעל צִ יד‬: ָ One may not roof a sukka with boards four handbreadths wide, even if one does so by turning them on their sides, which measure less than four handbreadths. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Naĥman agrees with it (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:18).

‫נְס ִרים‬ ָ ‫ ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה ִ ּב‬:‫יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ּ ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכוָ ֵות‬ ‫ׁ ֶשל ֶא ֶרז ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ ‫ ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫ּמֹודה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫ ו‬,‫ֹוסל וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ ‫נֶסר ִּכ ְמל ֹא‬ ֶ ‫נֶסר ְל‬ ֶ ‫ֵמ ִאיר ׁ ֶש ִאם יֵ ׁש ֵ ּבין‬ .‫ינֵיהם ו ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ֶ ‫נֶ ֶסר – ׁ ֶש ַּמ ּנ ִַיח ּ ֶפ ֶסל ֵ ּב‬ ‫נֶסר‬ ֶ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ּמֹודה ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ׁ ֶש ִאם נָ ַתן ָע ֶל‬ ֶ ‫ו‬ ,‫ׁ ֶשהוּא ָר ָחב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ְט ָפ ִחים – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ וְ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַּת ְח ָּתיו ל ֹא‬,‫וְ ֵאין יְ ׁ ֵשנִים ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ .‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬

halakha

language

Skewers [shapudin] – ‫ש ּפו ִּדין‬: ַ ׁ From the Greek σπόδος, spodos; meaning a metal rod, primarily used as a skewer to roast meat and the like.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If one roofed the sukka with cedar boards that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If there are not four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. And Rabbi Meir concedes that, if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if one roofed the sukka with a board that is four handbreadths wide adjacent to one of the walls, the sukka is fit based on the principle of curved wall; and, nevertheless, one may not sleep beneath that board, and one who sleeps beneath it does not fulfill his obligation. In any event, there are two baraitot, each in accordance with one of the two views presented.

:‫ ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר‬.‫ ֲה ָפ ָכן ַעל צִ ידֵּ ֶיהן‬,‫ § ִא ְּת ַמר‬It is stated that there is an amoraic dispute: If one turned the n ‫ וְ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬unfit boards on their sides, and the width of the side is less than the measure that renders them unfit, do the boards remain unfit, .‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי‬ or are they fit because in their current placement their width is narrower? Rav Huna said: The sukka is unfit, and Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is fit. ‫יה‬ ְ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫ עוּל ְלגַ ֵ ּב‬,‫יק ַלע ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ְלסו ָּרא‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ :ּ‫יהן ַמהוּ? ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ ֶ ֵּ‫ ֲה ָפ ָכן ַעל צִ יד‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫נַע ׂש ּו ְּכ ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת‬ ֲ ,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬



The Gemara relates: Rav Naĥman happened to come to Sura. Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna entered before him. They said to him: If one turned these boards on their sidesh and roofed the sukka, what is the halakha? They sought to ascertain whether his ruling is in accordance with their opinion or in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. He said to them: The sukka is unfit; since the boards are unfit roofing when placed flat, their legal status became like that of skewers [shapudin]l of metal,n which are unfit under all circumstances. ‫די ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 14b 

69

background

A board at the entrance of a sukka – ‫נֶסר ְ ּב ֶפ ַתח סו ָּּכה‬: ֶ The image depicts a sukka with a board four handbreadths wide placed atop the entrance. Three handbreadths roof the sukka, while a single handbreadth extends beyond its walls.

Sukka with a board at the entrance

‫ ָלא ֲא ַמ ִרי ְלכ ּו ֲא ַמ ִרי‬:‫ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ ו ִּמי ֲא ַמר ָלן ָמר ַט ְע ָמא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְּכוָ ִותי? ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬ ‫ ו ִּמי ְ ּב ֵעית ּו‬:ּ‫ֵיה? ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬ ּ ‫וְ ָלא ַק ְ ּב ִלינַן ִמ ּינ‬ ?ּ‫ִמ ַּינאי ַט ְע ָמא וְ ָלא ֲא ַמ ִרי ְלכו‬

When they related this encounter to Rav Huna, Rav Huna said to them: Didn’t I tell you that you should say the halakha in accordance with my opinion? Even Rav Naĥman agrees with me. They said to him: And did the Master actually say a reason for this ruling to us, and we did not accept it from him? Rav Naĥman not only issued a ruling, he also explained his ruling to us. He said to them: And did you ask me for the reason and I did not say it to you?

‫ ֵאינָ ּה ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת ְּכ ֵדי‬:‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ְרצָ ה ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו‬ ׁ ‫ר‬ ,‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ּ ִפ ְרצָ ה ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ זְ דַּ ֵקר ָ ּב ּה ְ ּג ִדי ְ ּב ַבת ר‬ ‫נֶסר ׁ ֶשהוּא ָר ָחב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֶ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫אֹו ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן ָע ֶל‬ ‫תֹוכ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִה ְכנִיס ְל‬,‫ְט ָפ ִחים‬ .‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

The Gemara notes: Let us say that this baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna: With regard to a sukka that does not hold one’s head, most of his body, and his table; a sukka whose wall was breached with a breach large enough for a goat to jump through headlong, i.e., three handbreadths; a sukka that one placed atop it a board that is four handbreadths wide, even if he only introduced three handbreadths of the board into the sukka, in all these cases, the sukka is unfit.

‫(מאי) ָלאו ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ֲה ָפ ָכן ַעל‬ ַ ?‫יכי דָּ ֵמי‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְּכגֹון‬,‫יהם? ָלא‬ ֶ ֵּ‫צִ יד‬ ‫ דְּ ָעיֵ יל‬,‫דַּ ֲאנַ ָח ּה ַא ּפ ּו ָּמא דִּ ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ְּת ָל ָתא ְלגֵ יו וְ ַא ּ ֵפיק ַחד ְל ַבר‬ ‫ּ ֶפ ֶסל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה וְ ָכל ּ ֶפ ֶסל ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬ .‫ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה נִידּ ֹון ַּכ ּסו ָּּכה‬

What are the circumstances of the case where one introduces only three handbreadths of a board that is four handbreadths wide? What, is it not that he turned the board on its side, thereby diminishing its width from four to three handbreadths, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? The Gemara rejects this: No, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where one placed the board over the entrance of the sukka,b where there is no wall. He introduced three handbreadths into the sukka and took one handbreadth out of the sukka, so that the legal status of that part of the board would be like that of roofing that protrudes from the sukka, and the halakha is that the legal status of any roofing that protrudes from the sukka is considered like that of the sukka. However, since this board is not adjacent to the wall of a sukka, the principle of curved wall does not apply. Therefore, it is four handbreadths of unfit roofing; it is prohibited to sleep beneath that board, and the entire sukka is rendered unfit. Conse­ quently, there is no support for or against the opinion of Rav Huna from this baraita.

Perek I Daf 15 Amud a notes

Moves – ‫מ ַפ ְק ּ ֵפק‬:ְ The primary definition of this term is to divert an object from its position and move it. The term was adapted to describe one who is skeptical about conventional wisdom. Practically speaking, according to the Rambam, it means removing the nails holding the boards in place. Others explain that it means pushing the boards aside creating room for fit roofing of the sukka (Rav Natan, Head of the Yeshiva; Peirush Kadmon). ּ ‫ִּת‬ Rendering the sukka fit by means of moving – ‫יקוּן ַעל‬ ‫יְ ֵדי ּ ִפ ְק ּפוּק‬: The decree against using boards was issued lest someone come to sit beneath the boards of a ceiling to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. As moving the boards demonstrates one’s awareness that it is prohibited to use the ceiling as roofing for the sukka, the decree is thereby no longer in effect (see Ramban; Rif; Ritva; Me’iri)

,‫יה ַמ ֲעזֵ ָיבה‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ִּת ְק ָרה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ֶל‬ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ו ֵּבית‬,‫נֹוטל ַא ַחת ִמ ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ְמ ַפ ְק ּ ֵפק‬ ‫נֹוטל ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ‫ ְמ ַפ ְק ּ ֵפק אֹו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ִה ֵּלל‬ ‫נֹוטל ַא ַחת‬ ֵ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬.‫ִמ ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם‬ .‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ְמ ַפ ְק ּ ֵפק‬,‫ִמ ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם‬

mishna 

In the case of a roof made of boards that are four handbreadths wide upon which there is no coat of plaster, Rabbi Yehuda says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the manner in which to render it fit. Beit Shammai say: One movesn each board, and then it is considered as though he placed the board there for the sake of the mitzva of sukka, and one then removes one board from among the boards and replaces it with fit roofing. Beit Hillel say: One need not perform both actions; rather, one must either moven the boards or remove one from among them. Rabbi Meir says: One only removes one from among them and does not move the others.h halakha

Rendering roofing fit for a sukka – ‫ה ְכ ׁ ָש ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה ְלסו ָּּכה‬:ַ In the case of a house whose ceiling is not plastered, if one wishes to render it a fit sukka, he may do so by moving the boards. This is accomplished by removing the nails that affix the board in place, with the intention that this action be for the sake of the mitzva of sukka. Alternatively, one may remove every other board and replace it with fit roofing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in his dispute with Rabbi Meir, and in accordance

70 

Perek I . 15a . ‫וט ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

with the opinion of Beit Hillel in their dispute Beit Shammai (Rashi; Tosafot; Rif as cited in the Rosh; Ramban; Rosh; Tur). Some say that this is permitted only in a case where the boards are less than four handbreadths wide (Rambam; Ran; and others). Practically speaking, since many later Sages ruled that one may not use any board ab initio, one should be stringent and adopt the second opinion (Peri Megadim; Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:9).

‫גמ׳ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל – ַט ֲע ַמיְ יה ּו‬ ‫ ִאי‬,‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא ִמן ֶה ָע ׂשוּי‬ ַּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ‫נֹוטל‬ ֵ ‫ ִאי‬,‫יה ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ּ ‫ְמ ַפ ְק ּ ֵפק – ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ַא ַחת ִמ ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם – ָע ַבד ָ ּב ּה ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ַמאי ַט ֲע ַמיְ יהוּ? ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ,‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא ִמן ֶה ָע ׂשוּי – ַ ּב ֲח ָדא ַס ִ ּגי‬ ַּ ‫נֹוטל ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ‫ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה – ְ ּב‬ !‫ִמ ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם – ַס ִ ּגי‬

gemara 

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Beit Hillel, their reason for initially prohibiting this roof is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. If one moves the boards, he performs an action. Likewise, if he removes one of the boards from among them, he also performs an action. Therefore, in both cases, he prepared the roofing and the sukka is fit. However, with regard to the opinion of Beit Shammai, what is the rationale for their prohibition against using the original ceiling for a sukka? If the rationale is also due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, one action should suffice. Or if the rationale is due to the decree of the roof, lest one come to reside beneath a regular plastered ceiling inside a house, removing one board from among them should suffice.

:‫ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫עֹולם ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Actually, the rationale is due to the decree ‫נֹוטל ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ‫ ִאי‬,‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַפ ְק ּ ֵפק‬of the roof, and this is what they are saying: Although one moves .‫ ִאי ָלא – ָלא‬,‫ ִמ ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם – ִאין‬the boards, if he removes one board from among them, yes, it is fit; if not, no, it is unfit. Moving the boards is inconsequential. Removing one board from among them is all that is necessary. ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬:‫ימא ֵס ָיפא‬ ָ ‫ ִאי ָה ִכי ֵא‬The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Meir says: One removes one from among them but does not move .‫נֹוטל ַא ַחת ִמ ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם ֲא ָבל ל ֹא יְ ַפ ְק ּ ֵפק‬ ֵ !‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַהיְ ינ ּו ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬the others. This indicates that the opinion of Rabbi Meir is identical to the opinion of Beit Shammai, as according to the above explanation, Beit Shammai also hold that removing one of the boards and replacing it with fit roofing can render the sukka fit. It is unreasonable to say that Rabbi Meir would hold in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, which is rejected. ‫ ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית‬:‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Meir is saying: Beit Sham.‫ ִה ֵּלל ְ ּב ָד ָבר זֶ ה‬mai and Beit Hillel do not disagree on this matter. They agree that the boards are prohibited due to the decree of the roof and that only by removing one of the boards is the sukka rendered fit. Rabbi Meir disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. ‫ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן – דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִאית‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֵלית ֵל‬,‫יה ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה? וְ ָהא ִא ְפ ִליג ּו ָ ּב ּה ֲח ָדא‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ִ ּבנְ ָס ִרים‬:‫ימנָ א! דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ ְ ִ‫ז‬ .‫אֹוסר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the mishna teaching us? Is it that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof and Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that the Sages did not issue the decree of the roof? But didn’t they disagree about this once,n as we learned in the mishna above: One may roof the sukka with boards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir prohibits their use. The Gemara explained that the dispute is whether or not the Sages issued the decree of the roof.

:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: That is not ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫נְס ִרים ְמ ׁשו ּ ִּפין ָע ְס ִקינַן‬ ָ ‫ישא ִ ּב‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬the dispute, as in the first clause, i.e., in the earlier mishna, we are .‫ ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ֵּכ ִלים נָ גְ ע ּו ָ ּב ּה‬dealing with the case of planed boards. The rationale for their disagreement is not due to the decree of the roof; but it is due to the decree of the vessels that they touched upon it. The dispute is whether or not the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of planed beams in roofing the sukka, although as flat wooden vessels they are not susceptible to ritual impurity, lest one come to roof the sukka with vessels that are susceptible to ritual impurity. ‫ ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ו ְּל ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ – ‫ ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות‬,‫יצין זְ ָכ ִרים – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ּ ִ ‫ְ ּב ִח‬ .‫ וְ ל ֹא ָ ּגזַ ר זְ ָכ ִרים ַא ּט ּו נְ ֵקבֹות‬,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫נְס ִרים ְמ ׁשו ּ ִּפין ַא ּט ּו‬ ָ ‫ ל ֹא נִ גְ זַ ר‬,‫ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬ !‫ֵּכ ִלים‬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav said:n If one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, the sukka is fit, but if he roofed his sukka with concave arrow shafts, the sukka is unfit; and he did not issue a decree and prohibit roofing with convex shafts due to the prohibition against roofing with concave shafts, here too, let us not issue a decree and prohibit roofing with planed boards, due to the prohibition against roofing with actual vessels.

‫ישא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ִ ּבגְ זֵ ַרת‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ַעל ָּכ ְר ֲחךָ ֵר‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, according to Rav, perforce you must say that in the first ,‫יפא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ִ ּב גְ זֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ָ ‫ ִּת ְק ָרה וְ ֵס‬clause of the mishna they disagree with regard to the decree of the ?‫ימנֵי ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ְ ִ‫ וְ ַא ְפ ִליגֵ י ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי ז‬roof, and in the latter clause, i.e., this mishna as well, they disagree with regard to the decree of the roof. Once again, the question arises: Why do I need them to disagree about the same issue twice? 

notes

But didn’t they disagree about this once – ‫וְ ָהא ִא ְפ ִליג ּו‬ ‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫ב ּה ֲח ָדא ז‬: ּ ָ At first glance, this question is difficult, as the cases are not identical. Earlier, the dispute was concerning the decree of the roof as it applies to boards used to roof a sukka, to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who prohibits its use. Here, the dispute is with regard to using the ceiling of a house as the roofing of a sukka, to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who rules leniently even when sitting beneath an actual ceiling. The fact that the Gemara raised this difficulty supports the Ritva’s explanation that the mishna concerns a ceiling with boards less than four handbreadths wide. In that case, everyone agrees, as they are not inherently unfit but are unfit because they are part of a ceiling (see Arukh LaNer). And according to Rav Yehuda who said that Rav said – ‫ו ְּל ַרב יְהו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב דְּ ָא ַמר‬: Apparently, the Gemara is raising an objection to the opinion of one amora, Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, based on the opinion of another, Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yoĥanan. In that situation, the Gemara usually asks: Are you raising a contradiction from the statement of one Sage against the statement of another Sage of equal standing? Perhaps the Gemara raises it as a question in an attempt to ascertain how Rav Yehuda would explain the mishna (Penei Yehoshua). ‫וט ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 15a 

71

notes

One who roofs his sukka with skewers – ‫ַה ְמ ָק ֶרה‬ ‫סו ָּּכתֹו ַ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין‬: According to the Rambam and others, the reference is to metal skewers. Some explain that these are wooden spits that are capable of contracting ritual impurity in certain circumstances (Tur; others; see Tiferet Yisrael). Others explain that the wooden skewers are capable of contracting impurity because they have metal tips (Korban Netanel). The breached segment is equal to the standing segment – ‫עֹומד‬ ֵ ‫פרוּץ ְּכ‬:ָ ּ This is an issue not limited to the halakhot of sukka. Rather, it applies in several different areas of halakha. In each case, the key question is whether the Torah requires the majority of the area to be fit, i.e., standing, or merely that the majority not be unfit, i.e., breached.

‫יה‬ ִ ‫ֵס ָיפא ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ‫(היא) דְּ ָקא ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ – ‫נְס ִרים‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַּמאי ָקא ָא ְס ַר ְּת ִ ּב‬:‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ ַהאי ְס ָב ָרא ְל ֵבית‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ָלא‬,ּ‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי הוּא דְּ ִאית ְלהו‬ ‫ ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו ֵ ּבית‬:‫ָ ּגזְ ִרי! וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ .‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ְ ּב ָד ָבר זֶ ה‬

The Gemara answers: Rather, the latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is saying to Rabbi Meir: Why do you prohibit roofing with boards? Is it due to the decree of the roof? That is the reason according to Beit Shammai, who are of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree. But, contrary to your opinion, Beit Hillel do not issue the decree. And Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Yehuda: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter at all. These are not two separate disputes; rather, it is one extended dispute.

‫לֹוקת ְ ּב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַמ ֲח‬,‫נִיחא ְל ַרב‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִאית ֵל‬,‫ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫יה ְ ּגזֵ ַרת‬ ּ ‫ְ ּגזֵ ַרת ִּת ְק ָרה וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֵלית ֵל‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן‬,‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַמ ֲח‬ ‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ּ ְפסו ָּלה – ֵס‬ ?‫ְ ּב ַמאי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬

The Gemara continues to ask: This works out well according to Rav, who said that the dispute is specifically in a case where the boards have four handbreadths in their width. He says that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof, and Rabbi Yehuda is not of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. However, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute is specifically in a case where the boards do not have four handbreadths in their width, but where they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit, and both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the Sages issued the decree of the roof; if so, in the latter clause of the mishna, with regard to what matter do they disagree?

ּ ‫ ְ ּב ִב‬The Gemara answers: One may not use boards of this sort for roofing :‫ ָמר ָס ַבר‬,‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫יטו ֵּלי ִּת ְק ָרה ָקא ִמ‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָה ִכי ָלא‬:‫ ּו ָמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ ָ ּב ְט ָלה ְ ּב ָה ִכי‬his sukka. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda, a sukka roofed in that man.‫ ָ ּב ְט ָלה‬ner is unfit, due to the decree of the roof. However, here, in the latter clause, it is with regard to negating an existing roof that consists of boards of this sort, in order to render the sukka fit that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The ceiling is thereby negated, by moving the boards, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the ceiling is not thereby negated unless he also removes one beam from among them.

mishna 

In the case of one who roofs his sukka with ‫מתני׳ ַה ְמ ָק ֶרה סו ָּּכתֹו ַ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין אֹו‬ metal skewersn or with the long boards of ‫ינֵיהן‬ ֶ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ֶריוַ ח ֵ ּב‬,‫ַ ּב ֲארוּכֹות ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ the bed, which compose its frame, if there is space between each one ‫חֹוטט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬.‫מֹותן – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ‬of them equal to the width of the skewers or the boards, and if he .‫ לֹו סו ָּּכה – ֵאינָ ּה סו ָּּכה‬places fit roofing in those spaces, the sukka is fit. In the case of one who hollows out and creates a space inside a stack of grain, it is not a sukka.

gemara 

Let us say, based on the mishna, that this will ‫יהוִ י ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ֱ ‫ימא ֵּת‬ ָ ‫גמ׳ ֵל‬ be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of ‫ ּ ָפר ּו ץ‬:‫ דְּ ִא ְּת ַמר‬.‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as it is stated that the amora’im dis‫ וְ ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫ מו ָּּתר‬:‫ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר‬,‫עֹומד‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ‬agreed concerning the following matter: With regard to the domains of .‫ ָאסוּר‬:‫הֹוש ַע ָא ַמר‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ֵר‬Shabbat, if the breached segment is equal to the standing segment,n is it deemed a partition or not? Rav Pappa said: It is permitted to carry within the partition; as long as the breached segment is not greater, it is considered a solid partition. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited to carry within the partition, unless the standing portion is greater. Apparently, from the mishna, even if the fit roofing is equal to the unfit skewers and boards, the sukka is fit, contrary to the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.h :‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬The Gemara answers that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, could have .‫מֹותן״ – ְ ּבנִ ְכנָס וְ יֹוצֵ א‬ ָ ‫״כ‬ ְּ ‫ ַמאי‬said to you: What is the meaning of: Like the skewers and the boards? It does not mean that the space between the skewers and boards equals the width of the skewers and boards themselves. It is referring to a case where the space is large enough so that the fit roofing can enter and emerge easily, i.e., it is wider than the unfit roofing. According to this interpretation, the mishna can be explained according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as well. The mishna agrees that even if the standing and breached areas are equal, the sukka is unfit.

halakha

He roofed it with unfit roofing – ‫ס ְּכ ָכ ּה ִ ּב ְס ָכךְ ּ ָפסוּל‬:ִ If one roofed his sukka with skewers or other unfit roofing materials, even if he inserted fit roofing between the skewers, the sukka is unfit, because it is difficult to determine that the valid roofing is equal to the unfit roofing. This is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Rav

72 

Perek I . 15a . ‫וט ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. However, if one made certain to insert a greater amount of fit roofing material, or he placed the fit roofing lengthwise and the unfit roofing widthwise or vice versa, the sukka is fit, in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:8).

Perek I Daf 15 Amud b :‫ וְ ָהא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְלצַ ְמצֵ ם! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬The Gemara asks: But isn’t it possiblen to be precise?n The .‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְעדִּ יף‬mishna need not be understood in that manner, since it is possible to calibrate the width of the spaces to equal the width of the unfit roofing, as the mishna required no more than that. Rabbi Ami said: The mishna is referring to a case where one extends the width of the spaces beyond the width of the unfit roofing. The mishna deems the sukka fit only if the width of the spaces is greater than the width of the unfit roofing. ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna is referring to a case ‫ימא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ֵּת‬ ‫נֹותנָן‬ ְ – ‫ ִאם ָהי ּו נְ תוּנִים ׁ ְש ִתי‬,‫ ַמ ְעדִּ יף‬where one does not extend the width of the spaces, and never.‫נֹותנָן ׁ ְש ִתי‬ ְ – ‫ ֵע ֶרב‬,‫ ֵע ֶרב‬theless, the fit roofing is greater than the unfit roofing, if the skewers were placed lengthwise across the sukka, one places the fit roofing widthwise, and if the skewers were placed widthwise, one places the fit roofing lengthwise. By doing so, the fit roofing overlaps the skewers at least somewhat; otherwise it would fall between the unfit roofing. Consequently, even if the space equals the unfit roofing, the fit roofing is greater than the unfit roofing. ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬.‫ § ״אֹו ַ ּב ֲארוּכֹות ַה ִּמ ָּטה״‬The mishna continues: Or with the long boards of the bed,b ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫יֹומי‬ ֵ ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי ַ ּבר ַט ְב‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬which compose its frame, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara suggests: ‫ ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה ִ ּב ְב ָל ֵאי‬:‫יֹומי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי ַ ּבר ַט ְב‬Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei, as Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei said: If one roofed .‫ֵכ ִלים – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ the sukka with worn, incomplete, vessels,n the sukka is unfit. Although these incomplete vessels are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity, they remain unfit because they were initially unfit for roofing. Proof can be adduced from the mishna: The long boards of the bed are no longer vessels but rather pieces from broken vessels;h still, they may not be used for roofing the sukka. ‫ ַ ּב ֲארו ָּכה‬:‫ִּכ ְד ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָחנָן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ ִ ּב ְק ָצ ָרה ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ְכ ָר ַעיִ ם‬,‫ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ְכ ָר ַעיִ ם‬ ,‫ ַ ּב ֲארו ָּכה ּו ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְכ ָר ַעיִ ם‬:‫ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬ .‫ִ ּב ְק ָצ ָרה ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ְכ ָר ַעיִ ם‬

background

With the long boards of the bed – ‫ב ֲארוּכֹות ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬:ּ ַ In talmudic times, bed frames consisted of four wooden boards, two long and two short. The legs of the bed were attached either to the long boards or to the short ones; when a bed was dismantled some boards would have legs attached to them and some would not. The bedding was placed on a series of intersecting ropes tied to the bed frame, or it was inserted into holes in the bed frame.

Sketch of ancient bed frame halakha

If one roofed with broken vessels – ‫יכךְ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי ֵכ ִלים‬ ֵּ ‫ס‬:ִ As vessels are susceptible to ritual impurity, one may not roof a sukka with them. This is the halakha even in the case of broken vessels, which are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei, as the baraita (16a) supports his opinion (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:2).

The Gemara rejects this: The mishna is referring to a case similar to that which Rabbi Ĥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in another context: It is not referring to the long boards alone. Rather, it is referring to a case with the long board of the bed and two of the legs attached to it or to a case with the short board of the bed with two legs attached to it. In this case, the structure could be propped up against a wall and used as a bed. Here too, the mishna is referring to roofing with the long board and two legs or with the short board and two legs, which are still considered complete vessels.

– ‫ית ַמר דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ָחנָן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְּ ‫יכא ִא‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬The Gemara asks: Where is it stated that which Rabbi Ĥanan :‫ ַא ָהא דִּ ְתנַן‬said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna:

notes

But isn’t it possible – ‫וְ ָהא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬: See Tosafot, who suggest a variant reading: But isn’t it impossible to be precise? That version appears in other commentaries as well. The change is not substantive in terms of the discussion in the Gemara; it affects only to whom the question is being posed. Is the question being posed to the Sage who holds that if the breached segment equals the standing segment it is fit? Or is it being posed to the Sage who holds that it is fit only if the breached segment is less than the standing segment (see Ritva).

e.g., where two items are precisely equal in size or when two events occur with precise simultaneity. Some Sages hold that precision is impossible because no two objects are exactly the same size and no two events occur at exactly the same time; there is always at least some minute difference. Others hold that precision is possible, at least from the perspective of a human observer, even if in essence, there is always at least a minuscule difference between two objects or events.

If one roofed the sukka with worn vessels – ‫ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה ִ ּב ְב ָל ֵאי‬ To be precise – ‫לצַ ְמצֵ ם‬:ְ The question whether or not it is pos- ‫כ ִלים‬:ֵ In the Tosefta, this issue is the subject of a tannaitic desible to be precise in measurement arises in several areas of bate: The first tanna deems roofing made of worn vessels unfit, halakha, in cases where precision is deemed to be essential, while Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems it fit.



‫וט ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 15b 

73

Perek I Daf 16 Amud a halakha

A bed becomes ritually impure even when it is dismantled into its component parts – ‫יטה ִמ ַּט ֵּמאת ֵא ָב ִרים‬ ָּ ‫מ‬:ִ If a bed breaks but either a long or a short board remains with two legs attached, it is still functional and consequently still susceptible to ritual impurity. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as explained by Rav Ĥanan (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 26:13). One who hollows out a stack of grain – ‫חֹוטט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש‬ ֵ ‫ה‬:ַ A stack of grain that was hollowed out, creating a space therein, is not a fit sukka, because the stack was not established for the purpose of shade. However, if one left a space measuring seven handbreadths square and one handbreadth high for the sake of sukka when he originally formed the stack of grain, and he subsequently expanded the space to a height of ten handbreadths, it is a fit sukka. This ruling is in accordance with the mishna and the opinion of Rav Huna (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 635:1). notes

A long board and two legs – ‫ארו ָּכה ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ְכ ָר ַעיִ ם‬:ֲ The commentaries explain that the legs of the bed had notches carved into their sides into which the long or short boards were inserted. Therefore, when the bed was dismantled, the legs often remained attached to one of the boards (Rabbi Shlomo Dessau). To lean them against the wall – ‫ל ִמ ְס ְמ ִכינְ ה ּו ַאגּ ו ָּדא‬:ְ Rashi and Rabbi Aharon HaLevi explain how this part of the bed was used. It was propped up a certain distance from the wall. The ropes upon which the bedding was to be spread were attached to the wall, forming a functional bed. One who hollows out a stack of grain – ‫חֹוטט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש‬ ֵ ‫ה‬:ַ There are commentaries and halakhic authorities who discuss at length the manner in which one hollows out the stack of grain (see Mikhtam; Tosefot Rid; Piskei Rid; Rosh). Some explain that if there is a one-handbreadth space inside the stack, it is a space fit to be covered with roofing. However, since it is only one handbreadth high, it lacks the required height for a fit sukka, and therefore one must continue to hollow it out in order to form fit walls. Since the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, does not apply to the walls, the result is a fit sukka. However, others maintain that one must hollow it out downward from the existing space. Since all the grain above the space is designated as roofing, if one hollows it, it is as though he were establishing the roofing from that which is already prepared. Others hold that since the grain over the existing space is roofing, the legal status of all the grain over the space is roofing; therefore, even if one hollows it upward from the existing space, it is tantamount to thinning roofing that is too thick (see Ran). Some explain that the different versions of Rav Huna’s opinion represent these different opinions with regard to hollowing a stack of grain (Porat Yosef ). background

One who hollows out a stack of grain – ‫חֹוטט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש‬ ֵ ‫ה‬:ַ In this haystack, a space was created within the sheaves allowing people to sit inside it and use it as a sukka.

Hollowed-out haystack

74 

Perek I . 16a . ‫זט ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫ילה ּו ִמ ַּט ֶה ֶרת‬ ָ ‫ִמ ָּטה ִמ ַּט ֵּמאת ֲח ִב‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ֲח ִב ָילה‬ ‫ ִמ ַּט ֵּמאת ֵא ָב ִרים ו ִּמ ַּט ֶה ֶרת‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ַמאי נִיהוּ? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָחנָ ן‬.‫ֵא ָב ִרים‬ ,‫ ֲארו ָּכה ּו ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְכ ָר ַעיִ ם‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ְק ָצ ָרה ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ְכ ָר ַעיִ ם‬

A bed becomes ritually impure as a complete entity if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. And it becomes ritually pure as a single entity through immersion, and in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse, through sprinkling and immersion. However, it may be neither impurified nor purified when dismantled. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis say: It becomes ritually impure even when it is dismantled into its component parts,h and, so too, it becomes ritually pure even when it is dismantled into its component parts. The Gemara asks: If the bed breaks into parts that serve no purpose, it is pure; what are these component parts mentioned by the Rabbis? Rabbi Ĥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The component parts are a long board and two legsn attached to it and a short board and two legs attached to it.

‫ ְל ַמאי ַחזְ יָ א – ְל ִמ ְס ְמ ִכינְ ה ּו ַאגּ ו ָּדא‬The Gemara asks: And for what purpose are these parts suited; .‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ָדא ַא ׁ ְש ֵלי‬,ּ‫יתב ֲע ַליְ יהו‬ ַ ‫ ו ְּל ֵמ‬what function qualifies their status as vessels? The Gemara answers: It is possible for one to lean them against the walln and to sit on them, after placing boards across the top and placing ropes across their length and width. The boards of the bed can thereby be used for the purpose of sitting or lying upon them; consequently, they are considered vessels. :‫יֹומי‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי ַ ּבר ַט ְב‬,‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה ִ ּב ְב ָל ֵאי ֵכ ִלים – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫ ַמ ְט ָלנִּיֹות‬:‫ְ ּב ָל ֵאי ֵכ ִלים? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ דְּ ָלא‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהם ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬ .‫ַחזְ יָ ין ל ֹא ָל ֲענִּיִ ים וְ ל ֹא ָל ֲע ׁ ִש ִירים‬

§ The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself cited above.

:‫יֹומי‬ ֵ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי ַ ּבר ַט ְב‬ ּ ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכוָ ֵות‬ ,‫ ׁ ִש ֶיר ָיה‬,‫ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ׁ ֶשל ׁ ִש ָיפא וְ ׁ ֶשל ֶ ּג ִמי‬ – ‫ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ֲחת ּו ִמ ְּכ ׁ ִשיעו ָּר ּה‬ .‫ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ֶהן‬

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei: In the case of a mat made of different types of vegetation, e.g., papyrus and reed grass, even though its remnants were reduced from the requisite measure for contracting ritual impurity, one may not roof the sukka with them. This precisely corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Ami.

‫דֹולה – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּג‬,‫ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ַה ָ ּקנִים‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ְק ַט ָּנה – ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ ַאף ִהיא ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ .‫ וְ ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬,‫טו ְּמ ָאה‬

The baraita continues: If a mat of reeds is large and not designated for sleeping, but is suited only for roofing, one may roof the sukka with it. However, the status of a small mat, which can be utilized for sleeping, is that of a vessel, and one may not roof the sukka with it. Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of even a large mat is that of a vessel. It is capable of contracting ritual impurity, and therefore one may not roof his sukka with it.

:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫חֹוטט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש״‬ ֵ ‫״ה‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁ ָשם ֲח ַלל‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל יֵ ׁש ׁ ָשם‬,‫ֶט ַפח ְ ּב ֶמ ׁ ֶשךְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫ֲח ַלל ֶט ַפח ְ ּב ֶמ ׁ ֶשךְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה‬ .‫סו ָּּכה‬

The mishna states: In the case of one who hollows out and creates a space inside a stack of grain,hnb it is not a sukka. Rav Huna said: The Sages taught that it is not a sukka only in a case where there is not a space one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths upon which the grain was piled. However, if there is a space measuring one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths upon which the grain was piled, and now, by hollowing out the stack, one is raising the existing walls and not forming a new space, it is a fit sukka.

‫חֹוט ט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬:‫ַּתנְ יָ א נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ .‫ַל ֲע ׂשֹות לֹו סו ָּּכה – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה סו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ֵאינָ ּה סו ָּּכה! ֶא ָּלא ָלאו‬:‫וְ ָה ֲאנַן ְּתנַן‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ִּכ ְד ַרב ה ּונָ א‬ .‫ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

That is also taught in a baraita: One who hollows out a stack of grain to make himself a sukka, it is a sukka. The Gemara wonders: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that it is not a sukka? Rather, is it not correct to conclude from it, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, that in certain circumstances it is possible to hollow out a stack of grain and establish a fit sukka? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei said: If one roofed the sukka with worn, incomplete, vessels, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: What are these worn vessels? Abaye said: They are small cloths that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, which, due to their size, are not suited for use either by the poor or by the wealthy.

‫חֹוטט‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬:‫יה ִמ ְיר ָמא; ְּתנַ ן‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫יכא דְּ ָר ֵמי ֵל‬ ,‫ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש ַל ֲע ׂשֹות לֹו סו ָּּכה ֵאינָ ּה סו ָּּכה‬ :‫ ֲה ֵרי זֹו סו ָּּכה! ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬:‫וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן – ְ ּב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ׁ ָשם ֲח ַלל ֶט ַפח‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁ ָשם ֲח ַלל‬,‫ְ ּב ֶמ ׁ ֶשךְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ .‫ֶט ַפח ְ ּב ֶמ ׁ ֶשךְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬

‫מתני׳ ַה ְמ ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ֵשל דְּ ָפנֹות ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫בֹוה ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ַּ ‫ ִאם ָ ּג‬,‫ְל ַמ ָּטה‬ ‫ ִאם‬,‫ ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬.‫ְט ָפ ִחים – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫בֹוה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ַּ ‫ָ ּג‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכ ְך ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה ְל ַמ ָּטה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬,‫ְט ָפ ִחים‬ .‫ְט ָפ ִחים‬

Some raised this matter as a contradiction between the mishna and the baraita. We learned in the mishna: One who hollows out a stack of grain in order to make himself a sukka, it is not a sukka. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that this is a sukka? Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. Here, where it is a sukka, it is a case where there is a space measuring one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths, while there, where it is not a sukka, it is a case where there is not a space one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths.

mishna 

One who lowers the walls of the sukka from up downward, if the lower edge of the wall is three handbreadths above the ground, the sukka is unfit. Since animals can enter through that space, it is not the wall of a fit sukka. However, if one constructs the wall from down upward, if the wall is ten handbreadths high, even if it does not reach the roofing, the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yosei says: Just as a wall built from down upward must be ten handbreadths, so too, in a case where one lowers the wall from up downward, it must be ten handbreadths in length. Regardless of its height off the ground, it is the wall of a fit sukka, as the legal status of a tenhandbreadth partition is that of a full-fledged partition in all areas of halakha.h

halakha

Extending walls of a sukka – ‫ש ְל ׁשוּל דְּ ָפנֹות ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬: ִ ׁ If the walls of a sukka are lowered and reach within three handbreadths of the ground, they are fit and the sukka is fit, in accordance with the mishna (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:9). A cistern that is located between two courtyards – ‫ּבֹור‬ ‫ש ֵ ּבין ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲחצֵ ירֹות‬: ֶ ׁ One may not draw water on Shabbat from a cistern located between two courtyards between which an eiruv was not established, unless a partition ten handbreadths high is built in the middle. If this partition is constructed above the water line, it must descend at least one handbreadth below the surface of the water. If the partition was constructed in the water, it must rise above the surface at least one handbreadth, in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara in tractate Eiruvin (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 376:1). background

Partitions in a cistern – ‫מ ִחיצּ ֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּבֹור‬:ְ The partitions in the image were constructed inside a cistern situated between two adjacent courtyards. One is above the surface of the water and one is below, in accordance with the Gemara’s conclusion.

gemara 

The Gemara asks: With regard to what ‫יצה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ְמ ִח‬:‫גמ׳ ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י? ָמר ָס ַבר‬ principle do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis ‫יצה ְּתלוּיָ ה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ְמ ִח‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ְּתלוּיָ ה ַמ ֶּת ֶרת‬ disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds .‫ ֵאינָ ּה ַמ ֶּת ֶרת‬that a suspended partition,n even if it does not reach all the way down, renders it permitted to carry on Shabbat, like a full-fledged partition. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a suspended partition does not render it permitted to carry on Shabbat. ‫ ּבֹור ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲחצֵ ירֹות ֵאין‬:‫ְּתנַ ן ָה ָתם‬ ‫ְמ ַמ ְּל ִאין ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ֶא ָלא ִאם ֵּכן ָע ָ ׂשה‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬,‫יצה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ּ ָ ‫ָל ּה ְמ ִח‬ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּבתֹוךְ אֹוגְ נֹו‬,‫ֵ ּבין ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬ ,‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬

We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Eiruvin: In the case of a cistern that is located between two courtyards,h situated partly in each courtyard, one may draw water from it on Shabbat only if a partition ten handbreadths high was erected specifically for the cisternb to separate the water between the domains, lest the residents of one courtyard draw water from the domain of the other courtyard. This partition is effective whether it is above, and lowered toward the water; whether it is below, in the water; or whether it is within the airspace of the cistern below the rim, above the surface of the water. A partition situated in any of these places forms a boundary between the two courtyards, permitting one to draw water from the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that this is the subject of an early dispute of tanna’im.

Partitions in a cistern

notes

A suspended partition – ‫יצה ְּתל ּויָ ה‬ ּ ָ ‫מ ִח‬:ְ There is a halakhic principle: Extend and raise the partition. This means that any partition that has the minimum requisite measure is considered to extend upward to the heavens. However, here the dispute it about whether there is a parallel principle: Extend and lower the partition, to permit a suspended partition. Some maintain that it is logical to extend and raise a partition since, typically, partitions are constructed from down upward. That reasoning logically dictates that the principle should not apply in the opposite direction. Why, then, is the ruling lenient in the case of a partition over a cistern? Perhaps



it is because at times the partition must be built above the water. Alternatively, since the nature of water is to reach the lowest point, partitions over water also extend downward (Me’iri). Others explain that suspended partitions are unfit because goats can pass through them, indicating that they are not partitions. In the case of a partition over water that problem does not exist. Later authorities discussed this subject at length and compared this halakha to the principle pertaining to cross beams: The edge of the roof descends and seals (18b; see Arukh LaNer; Sefat Emet; others). ‫זט ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 16a 

75

Perek I Daf 16 Amud b background

Tzippori – ‫צִ ּיפ ִֹורי‬: Tzippori was a large city in the Upper Galilee and the perennial rival of Tiberias for the status of the religious capital of the Galilee. During the Second Temple period, it enjoyed special status among the cities of the Galilee, due to its large and learned Jewish community. Among the tanna’im who lived there were Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri, Rabbi Ĥalafta, and his famous son Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi moved to Tzippori toward the end of his life, and it was the seat of the Sanhedrin for approximately one generation. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s leading disciples lived in Tzippori: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei; Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was later appointed Nasi; his brother, Rabbi Shimon; Rabbi Ĥanina bar Ĥama, later the head of the yeshiva in Tzippori; and Rabbi Yannai. Even after the Sanhedrin moved to Tiberias, Torah scholars continued to reside in Tzippori, among them the prominent amora’im of Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ĥanina of Tzippori and Rabbi Mana.

‫ ו ֵּבית‬,‫ ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ִה ֵּלל‬ ּ ‫דֹולה ִמן‬ ָ ‫יצה ְג‬ ּ ָ ‫ ל ֹא ְּת ֵהא ְמ ִח‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ !‫ינֵיהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹותל ׁ ֶש ֵ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ַה ּכ‬

:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Rabbi Yehuda ,‫יֹוסי ֲא ָמ ָר ּה‬ ֵ ‫יטת ַר ִ ּבי‬ ַּ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ׁ ִש‬stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that a suspended partition permits one to carry, and therefore .‫יצה ְּתלוּיָ ה ַמ ֶּת ֶרת‬ ּ ָ ‫ ְמ ִח‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר‬ the wall between the courtyards suffices to divide the cistern as well. ‫ ל ֹא ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר ָל ּה‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ִהיא‬The Gemara rejects this equation. And that is not so, as neither does n ‫יֹוסי ָס ַבר ָל ּה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, .‫ ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬nor does Rabbi Yosei hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ל ֹא ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָה ָתם‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ֵעירו ֵּבי ֲחצֵ ירֹות דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ .‫יתא – ל ֹא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ָה ָכא סו ָּּכה ד‬

The Gemara elaborates: Neither does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion that a suspended partition suffices only there, with regard to the joining of the courtyards, which is an obligation by rabbinic law. However, here, with regard to sukka, which is by Torah law, a suspended partition does not suffice.

‫ ַעד‬,‫יֹוסי ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ל ֹא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹוסי ָה ָכא ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫ָּכאן ָלא ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬.‫ דְּ ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬,‫ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ .‫דְּ ִא ּיסוּר ְס ִק ָילה – ל ֹא‬

Nor does Rabbi Yosei hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yosei states his opinion that a suspended partition suffices only here, with regard to a sukka, which is a positive mitzva. However, in the case of carrying between courtyards on Shabbat, which is a prohibition that is punishable by stoning, no, a suspended partition does not suffice.

Archaeological remains at Tzippori When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia – ‫ימי‬ ִ ִּ‫דְּ ִכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬: Rav Dimi was one of the Sages who often descended, i.e., traveled, from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, primarily to transmit the Torah of Eretz Yisrael to the Torah centers of the Diaspora, although he occasionally traveled on business as well. Consequently, many questions, particularly those concerning the Torah of Eretz Yisrael, remained unresolved until the emissary from Zion arrived and elucidated the halakha, the novel expression, or the unique circumstances pertaining to a particular statement that required clarification.

Beit Shammai say: The partition that permits drawing water must be placed below; and Beit Hillel said it must be placed above. Rabbi Yehuda said: A partition for the cistern should be no more stringent than the wall serving as a partition between the two courtyards. Once there is a wall between courtyards, there is no need to erect an additional partition specifically for the cistern.

‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ּנ ֲַע ָ ׂשה ְ ּבצִ ּיפ ִֹורי‬:‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִאם ּת‬The Gemara asks: And if you say: Since Rabbi Yosei does not hold in ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫נַע ָ ׂשה? ל ֹא ַעל ּ ִפי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֲ ‫ ַעל ּ ִפי ִמי‬accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the laws to whose opinion was the action that was taken .‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ַעל ּ ִפי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬of Shabbat, according in Tzipporibn performed, where they relied on suspended partitions even on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: It was not performed according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei but rather on the authority of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. ‫ימי‬ ִ ִּ‫ו ַּמאי ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה? דְּ ִכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬ ‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ׁ ָש ְכח ּו וְ ל ֹא ֵה ִביא ּו‬:‫ֲא ַמר‬ ‫ ְל ָמ ָחר ּ ֵפ ְירס ּו‬,‫ֵס ֶפר ּת ָֹורה ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ְס ִדינִין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָה ַע ּמו ִּדים וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ֵס ֶפר‬ .‫ וְ ָק ְרא ּו ּבֹו‬,‫ּת ָֹורה‬

And what was that incident? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,b he said: One time they forgot and did not bring a Torah scroll to the synagogue on Shabbat eve prior to the onset of Shabbat. The next day, on Shabbat, to avoid violating the prohibition against carrying, they spread and suspended sheetsn on posts that were fixed along the path from the house in which the Torah scroll was stored to the synagogue, establishing partitions. And they brought a Torah scroll along that path and read from it.

notes

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬:ַ The later commentaries discussed Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that a suspended partition is a full-fledged partition with regard to the matter of joining the courtyards, which is by rabbinic law, but not with regard to the mitzva of sukka, which is by Torah law. Is a suspended partition unfit by Torah law, but the Sages permitted using it in situations that are by rabbinic law? Or, is it a full-fledged partition by Torah law, but since goats breach the partition, the Sages were stringent and ruled it unfit in cases involving Torah law? Some commentaries discuss the practical differences between these two possibilities (see Ritva; Penei Yehoshua). In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is explained simply that Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Ĥanina ben Gamliel,

76 

Perek I . 16b . ‫זט ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

whose opinion is cited in tractate Eiruvin, all hold that a sus- that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, did not disagree with pended partition is effective like any other, citing support from his father. This is due to the understanding in the Jerusalem Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion with regard to bridges. Talmud that there is no difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei with regard to a suspended Action that was taken in Tzippori – ‫מ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ּנ ֲַע ָ ׂשה ְ ּבצִ ּיפ ִֹורי‬:ַ The partition. Ritva explains: The action in Tzippori could not have been taken in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as he permits use They spread sheets – ‫פ ְירס ּו ְס ִדינִין‬:ֵ ּ According to Rashi, they of a suspended partition only in the case of sukka and not in suspended a sheet vertically on these posts, creating a partition. the case of Shabbat. Nor could it have been in accordance with Rabbi Aharon HaLevi apparently understood that there were the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda because Rabbi Yosei, followed by two rows of posts, and the sheets were spread across the top of his sons, served as the halakhic authority in Tzippori. Therefore, the posts, hanging down one handbreadth on the sides as well. the action must have been performed in accordance with the In that case, it is permitted to extend them further downward opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who succeeded on Shabbat. However, since the edges of the sheets did not his father. In the Jerusalem Talmud, there is an explanation reach the ground, they are suspended partitions.

‫יכן ֱה ִביאוּם‬ ָ ‫ּ ֵפ ְירס ּו ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ֵמ ֵה‬ ‫ ָמצְ א ּו ְס ִדינִין ּ ְפרו ִּסין‬:‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת? ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ֵס ֶפר ּת ָֹורה‬,‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָה ַע ּמו ִּדים‬ .‫וְ ָק ְרא ּו ּבֹו‬

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that they spread the sheets on Shabbat? Carrying before the partitions were established was prohibited. From where did they bring these sheets on Shabbat? Rather, they found sheets already spread on the posts,b and they brought a Torah scroll and read from it. They relied on a suspended partition even in this matter related to Torah law. They relied neither on the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor on the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; rather, they relied on the authority of a third tanna.

‫ ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת‬:‫ימי‬ ִ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר ֲא ִב‬ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּו ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו ַמ ֶּת ֶרת ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫יה‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫ֹופן‬ ֶ ּ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ד‬ ּ ‫יכי ָע ֵביד – ָּת ֵלי ֵל‬ ‫ ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְל ַמ ָּטה‬,‫ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ּ ָפחֹות‬,‫ו ָּפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ .‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְּכ ָלבוּד דָּ ֵמי‬

§  Rav Ĥisda said that Avimi said: A mat that is four hand-

breadths and a bit widebh can permit the use of a sukka as a wall. The Gemara explains: How does one accomplish this? He suspends it in the middle of a space ten handbreadths high, with less than three handbreadths below it and less than three handbreadths above it. And the principle states: The legal status of any objects that have a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is as if they were joined [lavud]. Therefore, a mat four handbreadths and a bit wide can constitute a fit partition of ten handbreadths.

background

A sheet on posts – ‫ס ִדין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַע ּמו ִּדים‬:ָ The image depicts a sheet spread over a double row of posts. In those places where it is spread, the sheet forms a suspended partition that creates a closed corridor of sorts.

Sheet spread over posts A mat that is four handbreadths and a bit wide – ‫ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת‬ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬

– ‫ ַחד ָלבוּד‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬The Gemara asks: This is obvious. The principle of joining with ‫ ָקא‬,‫ ְּת ֵרי ָלבוּד – ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬,‫ ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬regard to a gap of less than three handbreadths is well known. answers: Lest .‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬There is no need to teach this halakha. The Gemara you say that we state the principle of lavud oncen with regard to a particular surface but we do not state the principle of lavud twice to consider it joined in different directions, Avimi teaches us that one may implement the principle twice. ‫ ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ּו ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬:‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ַמ ֶּת ֶרת ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דּ ֶֹופן! ִּכי ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ ּו ַמאי ָקא‬.‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ַה ִהיא ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְ ּג‬ ‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָל ן – דִּ ְמ ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ְש ִלין דְּ ָפנֹות‬ .‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה ְל ַמ ָּטה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Avimi from a baraita: A mat that is seven handbreadths and a bit widenh can permit use of a sukka as a wall. Apparently, a mat can serve as the wall of a sukka only when the principle of joined objects is implemented once. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to a large sukka, one considerably higher than ten handbreadths. One suspends the mat from a bit less than three handbreadths from the roofing, and it is considered a fit sukka wall although it is a significant distance off the ground. And what does it teach us? It teaches that one may lower walls from up downward, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

‫ ּ ַפס ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ ‫ּמֹוקים‬ ִ ‫ ו‬,‫ֹופן‬ ֶ ּ‫ַמ ִּתיר ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ד‬ ְ‫יה ְ ּב ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים ָסמוּך‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָסמוּךְ ַלדּ ֶֹופן‬.‫דּ ֶֹופן‬ .‫ְּכ ָלבוּד דָּ ִמי‬

Apropos forming a sukka wall based on the principle of lavud, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ami said: A board that measures four handbreadths and a bit can permit the use of a sukka, serving as a wall, and it is effective if one establishes it less than three handbreadths from the adjacent wall. And the principle states: The legal status of any objects with a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is as if they were joined.

‫ ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The principle of lavud .‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר ֶמ ׁ ֶשךְ סו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬:‫ ָלן‬is well known. The Gemara answers: He comes to teach us that the minimum measure of the horizontal extension of the wall of a small sukka is seven handbreadths. Therefore, it is possible to establish a wall for the sukka using a board that measures four handbreadths and a bit.

Narrow mat serving as a sukka wall notes

We state the principle of lavud once – ‫חד ָלבוּד ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬:ַ Some explain that the discussion here teaches a general observation with regard to the principle of lavud. That principle can be understood in two ways. One understanding is that the two surfaces are considered as though they were physically proximate to the point that they are joined. A second understanding, apparent from the Gemara, is that the empty space between the two surfaces is considered as if it were filled. This second understanding allows one to apply the principle of lavud to both sides of the partition and factor the empty space into the calculation of ten handbreadths. A mat that is seven handbreadths and a bit wide – ‫ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת‬ ‫ש ְב ָעה ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬: ִ ׁ There are several ways to understand this baraita. The question is whether the baraita is issuing a halakhic ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in his dispute with the Rabbis, or whether the baraita is merely presenting the opinion of Rabbi Yosei while the halakhic ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. A third possibility is that the baraita is referring to a case where the mat reaches within three handbreadths of the ground, and the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yosei.

halakha

Partitions four handbreadths and a bit wide – ‫ְמ ִחיצּ ֹות ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬: In the case of a sukka that is ten handbreadths high, one may position a partition that measures a bit more than four handbreadths, so that it is less than three handbreadths off the ground and less than three handbreadths from the roofing. The partition is fit based on the principle of lavud, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:9).



A mat that is seven handbreadths and a bit wide – ‫ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת‬ ‫ש ְב ָעה ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬: ִ ׁ One may position a mat measuring a bit more than seven handbreadths in width and that is within three handbreadths of the ground, even if the roofing is very high. This partition serves as a fit sukka wall. This halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, according to Rashi’s version of the Gemara (Rosh; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:9). ‫זט ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 16b 

77

Perek I Daf 17 Amud a background

A house that was breached – ‫ביִ ת ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַחת‬:ּ ַ This is referring to a house with a hole in its roof. The hole was then covered over with fit roofing, with the intent of transforming the house into a sukka.

‫יכ ּו ְך ִמן‬ ּ ‫מתני׳ ִה ְר ִחיק ֶאת ַה ִּס‬ .‫ַהדְּ ָפנֹות ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

mishna 

If one distanced the roofing from the wallsh of the sukka at a distance of three handbreadths the sukka is unfit, because three handbreadths of open space, even adjacent to the walls, render the sukka unfit.

‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש‬,‫יכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּביו‬ ֵּ ‫ ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַחת וְ ִס‬In the case of a house that was breached,b creating a hole in the – ‫יכו ְּך ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ֶ ‫ ִמן ַה ּכ‬middle of the roof, and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall ּ ‫ֹותל ַל ִּס‬ .‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬to the roofing there are four or more cubits of the remaining original roof, it is an unfit sukka. If the roofing is less than four cubits from the wall, the sukka is fit, based on the principle of curved wall; the remaining intact ceiling is considered an extension of the vertical wall. .‫וְ ֵכן ָחצֵ ר ׁ ֶש ִהיא מו ֶ ּּק ֶפת ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬ ‫דֹולה ׁ ֶש ִה ִּקיפו ָּה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ָ ‫סו ָּּכה ְ ּג‬ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ַּת ְח ָּתיו ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬,‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ּבֹו‬ .‫ַא ּמֹות – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

Breached house A courtyard that is surrounded on three sides by a portico – ‫חצֵ ר ׁ ֶש ִהיא מו ֶ ּּק ֶפת ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬:ָ Apparently, the case referred to in the mishna is similar to the one illustrated in the image. The house is built in the shape of a rectangle with one side open, with a portico around its inner walls and a courtyard in the center. One roofed the airspace of the courtyard from the edge of the portico on one side of the courtyard to the edge of the portico on the other side. The Gemara’s discussion centers on whether the inner walls of the portico, which are the walls of the house, are fit to be walls for that sukka.

Courtyard with portico

And likewise, in the case of a courtyard that is surrounded on three sides by a portico,b which has a roof but no walls, if one placed roofing over the courtyard between the different sides of the portico and the roof of the portico is four cubits wide, the sukka is unfit. Similarly, a large sukka that was surrounded at the edge of its roofing with material with which one may not roof a sukka, e.g., vessels susceptible to ritual impurity, if there are four cubits beneath the unfit roofing, the sukka is unfit.hn The principle of curved wall does not apply to unfit roofing that measures four cubits or more.

gemara 

‫ דְּ ִאי‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫גמ׳ ָּכל ָהנֵי ָל ָּמה ִלי? צְ ִר‬ ‫ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַחת – ִמ ׁ ּש ּום‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יצֹות ַל ַ ּביִ ת ֲע ִב ַידן‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָהנֵי ְמ ִח‬ ‫יצֹות‬ ּ ‫ דִּ ְמ ִח‬,‫ָחצֵ ר ַה ּמו ֶ ּּק ֶפת ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬ ,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ָלאו ְל ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ֲע ִב ִידי – ֵא‬ .‫יכא‬ ָ ‫צְ ִר‬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these cases based on the identical principle of curved wall? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to cite all the cases, as, if the mishna had taught us only the case of the house that was breached, I would have said that the principle of curved wall applies there because those walls were established for the house. Therefore, when the house is transformed into a sukka, the walls continue to serve their original function as walls of the sukka. However, with regard to a courtyard surrounded on each of the three sides by a portico, where its walls were established not for the portico but for the house that opens into the portico, and they happen to serve as the interior walls of the portico, I could say no, they are not considered as connected to the roofing at all. Consequently, it is necessary for the mishna to cite that case as well.

‫וְ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ָהנֵי ַּת ְר ֵּתי – ִמ ׁ ּש ּום‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל סו ָּּכה‬,‫דִּ ְס ָכ ָכן ְס ָכ ְך ָּכ ׁ ֵשר הוּא‬ ‫דֹולה ׁ ֶש ִה ִּקיפו ָּה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין‬ ָ ‫ְ ּג‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ דִּ ְס ָכ ָכ ּה ְס ָכךְ ּ ָפסוּל הוּא – ֵא‬,‫ּבֹו‬ .‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ָלא‬

And if the mishna taught us only these two cases, one would have said that the principle of curved wall can apply because all of their roofing is fit roofing, and the preexisting roof of the house and the portico is unfit only due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. However, here, in the case of a large sukka that was surrounded at the edge of its roofing with material with which one may not roof a sukka, where some its roofing is unfit and the fit roofing does not actually reach the wall, one could say no, the roofing is unfit. Therefore, it is necessary to state that case as well. halakha

If one distanced the roofing from the walls – ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ִה ְר ִחיק ֶאת ַה ִּס‬ ‫מן ַהדְּ ָפנֹות‬:ִ If the roofing of the sukka is three handbreadths removed from the walls horizontally, the sukka is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 632:2). Unfit roofing on the side of the sukka – ‫ס ָכךְ ּ ָפסוּל ְ ּבצַ ד ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬:ְ If the roof of a house is breached and one places fit roofing over the breach, or if one has a courtyard surrounded on three sides

by porticos and he places fit roofing over the courtyard from the edge of the portico on one side of the courtyard to the edge of the portico on the other side, the sukka is fit, provided the distance between the wall and the fit roofing is less than four cubits. This ruling is based on the principle of curved wall. However, one may not sleep beneath the unfit roofing (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 632:2).

notes

A house that was breached, a portico, and unfit roofing – ‫ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫ ו ְּס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל‬,‫ ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬,‫ש ִּנ ְפ ַחת‬: ֶ ׁ Apparently, the Gemara assumes that the house and the portico are roofed with roofing fit for a sukka. The reason these structures are unfit for use as a sukka is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. The early authorities asked: If the mishna

78 

Perek I . 17a . ‫זי ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

is discussing the halakha of a curved wall, what is the difference whether the portico is roofed with fit or unfit roofing? The Ritva explains that one may have otherwise thought that the principle of curved wall does not apply in a case where the roofing consists of material that is inherently unfit, as that roofing would interpose between the wall and the fit roofing.

‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ְח ִּתינְ ה ּו ְל ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דְּ ֵבי ַרב‬:‫ § ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav, who ְ‫ ְס ָכך‬,‫ֹוסל ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ֵ ‫ ֲאוִ יר ּפ‬:‫ דְּ יָ ְת ִבי וְ ָק ָא ְמ ִרי‬were sitting and saying in the name of Rav: Space without .‫ֹוסל ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֵ ‫ ּ ָפסוּל ּפ‬roofing renders the sukka unfit with a measure of three handbreadths of space. However, unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four handbreadths.n ‫פֹוסל ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ֵ ְּ‫ ֲאוִ יר ד‬:‫וְ ָא ִמינָ א ְלה ּו ֲאנָ א‬ ‫יכוּךְ ִמן‬ ּ ‫ ִה ְר ִחיק ֶאת ַה ִּס‬:‫ְמנָ א ְלכ ּו – דִּ ְתנַן‬ ‫ ְס ָכ ְך‬,‫ַהדְּ ָפנֹות ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫יפ ִסיל ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ְ ‫ּ ָפסוּל נַ ִמי – ָלא ִל‬ ּ ,‫יכךְ ַעל ַג ָ ּביו‬ ֵּ ‫ ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַחת וְ ִס‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫ַא ּמֹות‬ – ‫ֹותל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ֶ ‫יכוּךְ ַל ּכ‬ ּ ‫ִאם יֵ ׁש ֵ ּבין ַה ִּס‬ .‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

And I said to them: From where do you derive that space renders the sukka unfit when it amount to three handbreadths? It is as we learned in the mishna: If one distanced the roofing from the walls of the sukka at a distance of three handbreadths, the sukka is unfit. If, indeed, this mishna is the source of the halakha, also in the case of unfit roofing, let it render the sukka unfit only if the roofing measures four cubits, as we learned in the same mishna: With regard to a house that was breached and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there is four or more cubits of the remaining original roof, the sukka is unfit.h

‫ דְּ ַרב ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ ַ ּבר ִמ ָּינ ּה דְּ ַה ִהיא‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמר ּו ִלי‬And they said to me: Cite proof from the mishna, apart from ‫ֹופן ֲעקו ָּּמה נָ גְ ע ּו‬ ֶ ּ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ד‬:ּ‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬this case, as both Rav and Shmuel said that in this case, the .‫ ָ ּב ּה‬Sagesn in the mishna touched upon the principle of curved wall. In other words, the fact that this house is a fit sukka is unrelated to the minimum measure of unfit roofing. It is fit due to the principle of curved wall. ּ ‫ ָמה ִא‬:‫וְ ָא ִמינָ א ְלה ּו ֲאנָ א‬ ‫יכא ְס ָכ ְך‬ ָּ ‫יל ּו ִא‬ ‫ וַ ֲא וִ יר ּ ָפחֹות‬,‫ּ ָפס ּול ּ ָפחֹות ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫יה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין‬ ּ ָ‫ ַמ ְלי‬.‫ ַמאי – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ל ֹא יְ ֵהא ֲאוִ יר ַה ּפ‬,‫ַמאי – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ !?‫ֹוסל ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֵ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ִּכ ְס ָכךְ ּ ָפסוּל ַה ּפ‬

And I said to them: What if there is a sukka with less than four handbreadths of unfit roofing and an adjacent space of less than three handbreadths; what would be the status of the sukka? The sukka would be fit, since it lacks the minimum measure of both space and unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit. If one then filled the space with skewers, what would be the status of the sukka? It would be unfit, as there would be more than four handbreadths of unfit roofing. But shouldn’t space, which is more stringent, as it renders the sukka unfit with only three handbreadths, be as stringent as unfit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit only with four handbreadths of unfit roofing?

‫ ְל ִד ָיד ְך נַ ִמי דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬:‫וְ ָא ְמר ּו ִלי‬ ‫ ָמה ִאילּ ּו‬,‫ֹוסל ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ֵ ‫ְס ָכךְ ּ ָפסוּל ּפ‬ ,‫יכא ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל ּ ָפחֹות ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ,‫ ַמאי – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬,‫וַ ֲאוִ יר ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ‫ ל ֹא יְ ֵהא‬,‫יה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין ַמאי – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ּ ָ‫ַמ ְלי‬ ‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ֹוסל ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ִּכ ְס ָכךְ ּ ָפסוּל ַה ּפ‬ ֵ ‫ֲאוִ יר ַה ּפ‬ !?‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬

And they said to me: If so, according to you, who said that unfit roofing renders a sukka unfit only with four cubits of unfit roofing, the same question arises. Just as, if there were a sukka with less than four cubits of unfit roofing and an adjacent space measuring less than three handbreadths, what would be its status? It would be fit. If one then filled the space with skewers, what would be its status? It would be unfit. Here too, the question arises: Shouldn’t space, which is more stringent, as it renders the sukka unfit with only three handbreadths of space, be as stringent as unfit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit with only four cubits of unfit roofing?nh

notes

Space without roofing and unfit roofing – ‫אוִ יר ו ְּס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל‬:ֲ Since in both cases there is no fit roofing in that spot, why are the measures different for empty space and for unfit roofing? Some explain that these are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and therefore there is no point in searching for a logical distinction (Korban Netanel). Others explain that a space is easily discernible while unfit roofing is not; therefore, it renders the sukka unfit only with a larger measure (Taz). Curved wall – ‫דּ ֶֹופן ֲעקו ָּּמה‬: There are different opinions with regard to the rationale for the principle of curved wall. Some explain that, based on the principle, the wall is considered to draw closer to the fit roofing (Rav Nissim Gaon; Maggid Mishne; others). Most commentaries and halakhic authorities explain that the unfit roofing is considered an extension of the wall, as though the upper portion of the wall is folded and placed atop the sukka (Rashi; Me’iri; Ran). Others say that the entire wall is viewed as diagonally inclined from the floor to the edge of the fit roofing (Peri Megadim). One of the practical differences between these opinions occurs in a case where the wall does not reach the roofing. In that case, if the unfit roofing is viewed as a folded extension of the wall, the principle of curved wall may not apply (Ran; Magen Avraham). Unfit with four cubits of unfit roofing – ‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל ַה ּפ‬ ‫ב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬:ּ ְ This opinion is cited in the Jerusalem Talmud in the name of Rabbi Ĥiyya. An objection is raised to that opinion based on the principle of curved wall. If unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit only when it is four or more cubits, there is no case where the principle of curved wall would apply.

‫ ַהאי ַמאי?! ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא‬:‫ וְ ָא ִמינָ א ְלה ּו ֲאנָ א‬And I said to them: What is this comparison? Granted, ac‫ דְּ ָא ִמינָ א ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬,‫ ְל ִד ִידי‬cording to my opinion, that I say that the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit is four cubits,

halakha

Space and unfit roofing in a sukka – ‫אוִ יר ו ְּס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬: ֲ Three handbreadths of unroofed space render a sukka unfit, both in the middle of the sukka and along the side of the sukka, if the space runs along the length of the sukka. If the space in the roofing is less than three handbreadths, the sukka is fit, and the space can be factored into the calculation of the area of the sukka, although one may not sleep beneath it. If four cubits of unfit roofing on the side of the sukka run along the length of the entire sukka, or if there are four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the middle of the sukka, the sukka is unfit. If the unfit roofing measures less than four handbreadths, the sukka is fit and one may even sleep beneath it. All of these measurements apply to a large sukka; however, in the case of



a small sukka, whose area is a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, three handbreadths of unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit. If there are less than three handbreadths of unfit roofing, it is factored into the calculation of the area of the sukka, and one may sleep beneath it (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 632:1–2). Unfit roofing and space together – ‫ס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל וַ ֲאוִ יר יַ ַחד‬:ְ In a case where there are less than four handbreadths of unfit roofing and less than three handbreadths of space adjacent to it, the sukka is fit, as the two do not combine to render the sukka unfit. However, in a small sukka, if the two measure three handbreadths, they combine to render the sukka unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 632:3). ‫זי ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 17a 

79

Perek I Daf 17 Amud b notes

What is the difference to me if it was distanced due to unfit roofing – ‫מה ִּלי ִא ְת ּ ַפ ַּלג ִ ּב ְס ָכךְ ּ ָפסוּל‬:ַ The Gemara does not cite the response of the Sages of the school of Rav to Rabba’s question. One cannot contend that their opinion was rejected, as the halakha was ruled in accordance with their opinion. Therefore, one must say that their reasoning is clarified as the discussion in the Gemara develops: Since their measures are not equal, they do not join together (Ritva). Their measures are not equal – ‫דְּ ָלא ׁ ָשו ּו ׁ ִשיעו ַּריְ יה ּו‬: Rabbeinu Ĥananel explains that with regard to the ritual impurity of garments, the requisite measures are not equal among materials, as a wool or linen garment becomes ritually impure even if it is only three by three fingerbreadths, while all other materials are measured in handbreadths. There is a similar distinction here, as unfit roofing is measured in cubits, while space without roofing is measured in handbreadths (see Emek Sukkot).

‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּו ם ׁ ִש יע ּו ָרא וְ ָל או ׁ ִש יע ּו ָרא‬ ‫ ַהאי – ָלאו ׁ ִשיעו ָּרא הוּא ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫הוּא‬ ‫דְּ ָלא ׁ ָשו ּו ׁ ִשיעו ַּריְ יה ּו ַל ֲה ָד ֵדי – ָלא‬ .‫ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפי‬

the status of the sukka is determined on the basis of whether it is the requisite measure or it is not the requisite measure. In other words, the difference between unfit roofing that is four cubits and unfit roofing that is less is a unique halakha, completely unrelated to the principle of curved wall. Similarly, it is a unique halakha that three handbreadths of space in a roof render a sukka unfit. In this case, there is not the requisite measure according to either halakha; and since their measures are not equal to each other, they do not combine to render the sukka unfit. The sukka is rendered unfit only when the measure of unfit roofing reaches four cubits.

‫ דְּ ָא ְמ ִרית ּו ׁ ִשיע ּו ר‬, ‫ֶא ָלא ְל ִד ְידכ ּו‬ ‫ית ּ ַפ ַּלג‬ ְ ‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַה ְפ ָלגָ ה – ַמה ִּלי ִא‬ ‫ ַמה ִּלי ִא ְת ּ ַפ ַּלג ִ ּב ְס ָכ ְך‬,‫ִ ּב ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל‬ !‫ּ ָפסוּל וַ ֲאוִ יר‬

However, according to you, who say that the measure of four handbreadths for unfit roofing is due to the distance between the wall and the fit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit, what is the difference to me if it was distanced due to unfit roofing,n and what is the difference to me if it was distanced due to a combination of unfit roofing and space? In either case, the distance between the roofing and the wall should prevent connecting the roofing to the wall. This concludes Rabba’s account of his exchange with the Sages of the school of Rav.

‫ נְ ִהי‬,‫ ּו ְל ָמר נַ ִמי‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫דְּ ָל א ׁ ָש ו ּו ׁ ִש יע ּו ַר יְ יה ּו ְ ּב ס ּו ָּכה‬ ‫דֹולה – ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה ִמי ל ֹא ׁ ָשו ּו‬ ָ ‫ְ ּג‬ !?ּ‫ׁ ִשיעו ַּריְ יהו‬

Abaye said to Rabba: And according to the Master, too, although their measures are not equaln in a large sukka, which is larger than four cubits, in a small sukka aren’t their measures equal? In a minimally sized sukka, seven by seven handbreadths, three handbreadths of unfit roofing must render the sukka unfit. If the measure of fitness were to remain up to four handbreadths, that would mean that a sukka with a majority of unfit roofing is fit, which is unreasonable. Therefore, Rabba’s contention that the measures of unfit roofing and space are totally different is not precise.

‫ ָה ָתם ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ׁ ָשו ּו‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬Rabba said to him: There, in the case of the minimally-sized sukka, the ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ ׁ ִשיעו ַּריְ יה ּו ַל ֲה ָד ֵדי הוּא‬fact that the sukka is unfit is not due to the fact that their measures are .‫יה ְל ׁ ִשיעו ָּרא דְּ סו ָּּכה הוּא‬ ֵ ‫ דְּ ֵל‬equal. Rather, it is due to the fact that in a case where the unfit roofing ּ ‫ית‬ is three handbreadths, the sukka lacks the minimum required measure of fit roofing. In other words, it is not the amount of unfit roofing that creates the problem; rather, it is that the fit area of the sukka is too small. ‫יכא דְּ ָלא ׁ ָשו ּו ׁ ִשיע ּו ַריְ יה ּו‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכל ֵה‬ ‫ ַה ֶ ּבגֶ ד‬:‫ַל ֲה ָד ֵדי ָלא ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפי? וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬ ‫ ַה ּ ַ ׂשק ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ,‫ ָהעֹור ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ַעל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬,‫ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ .‫ַמ ּ ָפץ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ַעל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬

Rabba maintains that since the two requisite measures of unfitness are not equal, they do not join together. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that their measures are not equal, do they not combine to constitute the requisite measure? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: The garment must be at least three by three handbreadthsh in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity by means of ritual impurity imparted by treading of a zav; and the sackcloth made from goats’ hair must be at least four by four handbreadths; and the animal hide must be five by five; and a mat must be six by six?h

,‫ ַה ּ ַ ׂשק וְ ָהעֹור‬,‫ ַה ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ ַה ּ ַ ׂשק‬:‫ וְ ָתנֵי ֲע ָל ּה‬And a baraita is taught concerning the mishna: The garment and the !‫ ָהעֹור וְ ַה ַמ ּ ָפץ – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין זֶ ה ִעם זֶ ה‬sackcloth, the sackcloth and the hide, and the hide and the mat join together with one another.h If one attaches a piece of material that has a smaller, more stringent measure for ritual impurity to a piece of material that has a larger, more lenient measure, the combined cloth is susceptible to contract ritual impurity if together they compose the larger measure. Apparently, two items whose measures are not equal combine to compose the more lenient measure. halakha

The measure of a garment with regard to ritual impurity – ‫שיעוּר ֶ ּבגֶ ד ְל ֻט ְמ ָאה‬: ִ ׁ A cloth measuring three by three handbreadths can become impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading, in accordance with the mishna in tractate Kelim (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 22:1).

measure at least four by four handbreadths; leather, five by five handbreadths; and a mat, six by six handbreadths. If the swatch of fabric is any smaller, it remains ritually pure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 23:3).

Joining for ritual impurity – ‫צֵ רוּף ְל ֻט ְמ ָאה‬: If one combines The measure of different materials with regard to ritual three handbreadths of sackcloth with a single handbreadth of impurity – ‫שיעוּר ֳח ָמ ִרים ׁשֹונִים ְל ֻט ְמ ָאה‬: ִ ׁ In order to become ritu- cloth; four handbreadths of leather with one handbreadth of ally impure, sackcloth, i.e., a coarse weave of goat hair, must sackcloth; or five handbreadths of mat with one of leather, the

80 

Perek I . 17b . ‫זי ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

combination is susceptible to ritual impurity. This is because the measure of impurity was reached with the addition of the material whose measure of impurity is smaller. However, in the opposite scenario, where the measure of impurity is completed by the addition of a material whose the measure of impurity is larger, e.g., one joined two handbreadths of cloth with one handbreadth of sackcloth or three handbreadths of sackcloth with one handbreadths of leather, the combination remains pure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 23:4).

:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ָה ָתם ִּכ ְד ָק ָתנֵי ַט ְע ָמא‬ ,‫מֹושב‬ ָ ׁ ‫הֹואיל וְ ָראוּי ְל ַט ֵּמא‬ ִ – ‫ַמה ַּט ַעם‬ – ‫ ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּצ ַע ִמ ּכו ָּּלן ֶט ַפח ַעל ֶט ַפח‬:‫ְּכ ִד ְתנַן‬ .‫ָט ֵמא‬

The Gemara rejects this. There, it is as the reason is taught that Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that these different fabrics combine? They combine since all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits,n as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since they are all suitable for the same use, they join together with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. As we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who trims and processes a piece of any of the above-mentioned materialsh measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth, that piece is capable of becoming ritually impure.n There is a certain halakha for which each of the different materials has the same measure; they therefore join together in other areas as well.

‫ ֶט ַפח ַעל ֶט ַפח ְל ַמאי ֲחזִ י? וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks: For what use is a cloth that is one handbreadth by ‫הֹואיל‬ ִ :‫ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬one handbreadth fit? After all, a rag that has no use does not contract the name of .‫יטלֹו) ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ֲחמֹור‬ ְּ ‫ וְ ָראוּי ִ(ל‬ritual impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in Rabbi Yannai: Since it is suitable for use as a patchn on a donkey’s saddlecloth, it is capable of contracting ritual impurity. This ends the discussion of the exchange between Rabba and the Sages of the school of Rav. ‫ְ ּבס ּו ָרא ָא ְמ ִרי ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא ְ ּב ַהאי‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,ּ‫ ִ ּבנְ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא ַמ ְתנו‬.‫ישנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ִל‬ – ‫ ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬,‫ ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל‬:‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ֹוסל ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ֵ ‫ ִמן ַה ַ ּצד – ּפ‬,‫ֹוסל ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ִמן ַה ַ ּצד ֵ ּבין ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬:‫ וְ ַרב ָא ַמר‬.‫ַא ּמֹות‬ .‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬

The Gemara notes: In Sura, they stated this halakha in that language cited above. In Neharde’a,b however, they taught it as follows: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Unfit roofing in the center of the sukka renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing. Along the side of the sukka, it renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing. And Rav said: Both along the side and in the center, it renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing.

‫נֶסר ׁ ֶשהוּא ָר ָחב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֶ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ נָ ַתן ָע ֶל‬:‫ְּתנַן‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַרב‬.‫ְט ָפ ִחים – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ – ‫ֵ ּבין ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ֵ ּבין ִמן ַה ַ ּצד ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ֶא ָלא ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ ַא ַּמאי ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה? ָה ָכא‬,‫ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ .‫ ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬,‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן‬

We learned in a mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. And the Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav, who said that both along the side and in the center, a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that the sukka is fit. However, according to Shmuel, who said that in the center of the sukka, the sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing, why is the sukka fit? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he placed the beam along the side; but had he placed it in the center, then according to Shmuel the sukka would indeed be unfit.

‫ ׁ ְשנֵי‬,‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ְס ִדינִין – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara cites a proof with regard to Rav’s opinion. Come and :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬.‫נְס ִרים – ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬ ָ hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together .‫נְס ִרים ִּכ ְס ִדינִין‬ ָ to render the sukka unfit. However, two boards placed on the sukka do not combine to render the sukka unfit. Rabbi Meir says: Even boards have the same legal status as sheets, and they combine to render the sukka unfit. ‫ישנָ א דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ֵ ּבין‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ָה ְך ִל‬ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ֵ ּבין ִמן ַה ַ ּצד ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ .‫״מצְ ָט ְר ִפין״ – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ִ ּ ּ ‫ישנָ א דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֶא ָלא ְל ַה ְך ִל‬ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִאי דְּ ִאית ְ ּבה ּו‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ָל ָּמה ְלה ּו ִאצְ ַטרו ִּפי? ִאי דְּ ֵלית‬ !ּ‫ְ ּבה ּו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ַקנְיָא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא נִינְ הו‬

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to that version from Neharde’a that Rav said: Both along the side and in the center, a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, what is the meaning of join together? It means that the two unfit objects join together to comprise four cubits. However, according to this version from Sura, in which Rav said: A sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, what are the circumstances? If each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, why must they join together to render the sukka unfit? If each board is four handbreadths wide, each is capable of rendering the sukka unfit on its own, and if each of the boards does not have four handbreadths in its width, why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use; they are merely reeds?

notes

Since all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits – ‫הֹואיל וְ ָראוּי ְל ַט ֵּמא‬ ִ ‫מֹושב‬: ָ ׁ When a zav lies, sits, or rides on objects designated for these purposes, he renders them primary sources of ritual impurity. Anyone who comes into contact with them or moves them assumes first-degree ritual impurity status. In addition to the zav, a zava, a menstruating woman, a woman after childbirth, and, to a certain degree, a leper, all transmit impurity in this manner. Measures for ritual impurity – ‫שיעו ִּרים ְל ֻט ְמ ָאה‬: ִ ׁ The minimum measures of different objects and materials for ritual impurity are determined by their quality. Generally speaking, the more significant the object, the smaller its measure for becoming ritually impure; a coarser or more irregular garment will have a larger measure. The minimum measure for an object to become impure is also determined by the type of impurity in question. A cloth of three by three fingerbreadths becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; the measure for impurity imparted to an object by a zav sitting upon it is one square handbreadth, which is five by five fingerbreadths; the measure for impurity imparted to an object by a zav lying upon it is three by three handbreadths. Since it is suitable for use as a patch – ‫הֹואיל וְ ָראוּי‬ ִ ‫יטלֹו‬ ְּ ‫ל‬:ִ One does not sit on a piece of cloth of any type that measures only one by one handbreadth, and one does not normally combine different fabrics to patch a garment. However, with regard to patching saddles, people tend not to be so particular. Once a piece of fabric has been trimmed for this purpose, it is susceptible to ritually impurity. halakha

One who trims and processes a piece of any of them – ‫ה ְמ ַק ֵ ּצ ַע ִמ ּכו ָּּלן‬:ַ All of the measures provided for the different fabrics and materials apply to pieces torn from whole garments and the like. However, if one purposely cuts a swatch that measures one square handbreadth from any of these materials in order to sit upon it or a three square handbreadth swatch in order to lie upon it, these swatches are susceptible to impurity imparted by treading (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 23:3). background

Neharde’a – ‫נְ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא‬: A city on the Euphrates, near the Malka River, Neharde’a was one of the oldest Jewish communities in Babylonia. According to tradition, Jews lived in Neharde’a as early as the First Temple period, sixth century BCE, beginning with the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judea. Neharde’a was also one of the most significant Jewish communities in Babylonia. It was a center of Torah learning from an early period, and its yeshiva was the oldest in Babylonia. Many of the greatest tanna’im visited Neharde’a, among them Rabbi Akiva, who intercalated the calendar there (Yevamot 122b). During Rav’s time, the first half of the third century CE, the yeshiva in Neharde’a was headed first by Rav Sheila and then by Shmuel. Since the city was located near the border between the Roman and the Persian Empires, it frequently suffered from the wars between the two. Pappa ben Nazer Odonathus, king of Tadmor, destroyed it completely in 259 CE. Later, however, Jews resettled there, and many Torah scholars remained in Neharde’a even after its yeshiva moved to Meĥoza and Pumbedita.

‫ ּו ַמאי‬,‫עֹול ם דְּ ִא ית ְ ּבה ּו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a case where each of the boards ‫ ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ִמן‬has four handbreadths in its width, and what is the meaning of join .‫ ַה ַ ּצד‬together? It means they join together to constitute four cubits along the side. This understanding fits both versions of Rav’s opinion. 

‫זי ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 17b 

81

‫נְס ִרין ׁ ֶשל ֶא ֶרז ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬ ָ ‫ ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה ִ ּב‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ֵאין‬.‫ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ּפ‬,‫ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ .‫יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬

Come and hear proof from another baraita: If one roofed the entire sukka with cedar beams that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If they do not have four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems the sukka unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

Perek I Daf 18 Amud a background

Two four-handbreadth stretches of waste in the middle – ‫שנֵי ְפ ָס ִלין ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬: ְ ׁ In the case of a sukka that is eight cubits long, upon which four-handbreadth boards and four handbreadths of waste were alternately placed starting at each end, there is a patch of fit roofing measuring eight handbreadths in the center, and it is a fit sukka.

Alternating pattern of boards, with eight handbreadths of waste in the middle halakha

Lavud in the center – ‫לבוּד ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬:ָ When there is a gap that is less than three handbreadths in a sukka or in any other structure, the sides of the gap are considered joined and the gap has the legal status of being sealed. This is the case even when the gap is situated in the middle and not on the side of the structure (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 632:2).

‫ּמֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ׁ ֶש ִאם יֵ ׁש ֵ ּבין נֶ ֶסר‬ ֶ ‫ ו‬And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and ‫ינֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַּמ ּנ ִַיח ּ ֶפ ֶסל ֵ ּב‬,‫נֶסר‬ ֶ ‫נֶסר ִּכ ְמל ֹא‬ ֶ ‫ ְל‬another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one .‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit. ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֵ ּבין ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ֵ ּבין‬ ‫ִמן ַה ַ ּצד ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬.‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ?‫ ַא ַּמאי ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬,‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to the one who said: Both along the side and in the center a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that the sukka under discussion is fit, as none of the boards is four cubits wide. However, according to the one who said that a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, why is the sukka fit? Each board is capable on its own of rendering the sukka unfit.

:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב ה ּונָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ָה ָכא ְ ּבסו ָּּכה דְּ ָלא ָהוְ יָ א ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְשמֹנֶ ה‬ ,‫נֶסר ו ֶּפ ֶסל‬ ֶ ‫ וְ יָ ֵהיב‬,‫ְמצו ְּמצָ מֹות ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬ ,‫יסא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ נֶ ֶסר ו ֶּפ ֶסל ֵמ ַהאי ִ ּג‬,‫וְ נֶ ֶסר ו ֶּפ ֶסל‬ ‫נֶסר ו ֶּפ ֶסל ֵמ ַהאי‬ ֶ ְ‫נֶסר ו ֶּפ ֶסל ו‬ ֶ ְ‫נֶסר ו ֶּפ ֶסל ו‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ ,‫יסא‬ ָּ ‫ִ ּג‬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that is exactly eight cubits, i.e., forty-eight handbreadths, wide, and one began placing the roofing from the side. And he places a four-handbreadth board and then four handbreadths of waste, and another board and waste, and a board and waste, from this side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths. And then a beam and waste, a beam and waste, and a beam and waste, from that side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths.

‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ דְּ ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִלין ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬The result is that the sukka has two four-handbreadth stretches of b .‫ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬waste in the middle of the sukka, totaling eight handbreadths. In that case, there is the minimum measure of fit roofing required for fitness of a sukka in the middle, and everyone agrees that the unfit roofing in the rest of the sukka cannot render it unfit. Since the unfit roofing measures less than four cubits on either side, the sukka is fit both according to the principle of curved wall and according to the opinion that unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with four cubits. ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ֲאוִ יר ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְ ּג‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫יעטֹו ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ָקנִים ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין – ָהוֵ י‬ ֲ ‫ו ִּמ‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָקנִים – ָהוֵ י‬,‫ ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה‬.‫ִמיעוּט‬ .‫ ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין – ָלא ָהוֵ י ִמיעוּט‬,‫ִמיעוּט‬

§ Abaye said: If there is space measuring three handbreadths in a

large sukka, which is defined as one larger than seven by seven handbreadths, and one diminished the space, whether he did so with branches, fit for roofing, or whether he did so with metal skewers, unfit roofing, it is an effective diminution, as there is neither sufficient space nor sufficient unfit roofing to render the sukka unfit. However, in a small sukka, if one diminished the space with branches it is an effective diminution; if he diminished the space with skewers, it is not an effective diminution and the sukka is unfit. The three handbreadths of skewers, while insufficient to render the sukka unfit, diminish the fit area of the sukka to the point that the measure that remains does not constitute a fit sukka.

‫ ֲא ָבל ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע – ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬.‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬The Gemara notes: And this applies only if the space is along the ‫ יֵ ׁש ָלבוּד‬:‫ ַחד ָא ַמר‬.‫ ָ ּב ּה ַרב ַא ָחא וְ ָר ִבינָ א‬side of the sukka, in which case the principle of lavud applies. How.‫ ֵאין ָלבוּד ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬:‫ וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬,‫ ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬ever, if the space is in the center of the sukka, Rav Aĥa and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling. One said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the centerh of the sukka. And one said: The principle of lavud is not applied in the center of the sukka. Even if one diminished the space, the two sides of the roofing are not considered joined.

82 

Perek I . 18a . ‫חי ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫יה דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר יֵ ׁש ָלבוּד‬ ּ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫קֹורה ַהּיֹוצְ ָאה‬ ָ :‫ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ,‫כֹותל ַא ֵחר‬ ֶ ‫ֹותל זֶ ה וְ ֵאינָ ּה נֹוגַ ַעת ְ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ּכ‬ ‫ֹותל‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֵכן ׁ ְש ֵּתי קֹורֹות ַא ַחת יֹוצְ ָאה ִמ ּכ‬ ‫ וְ ֵאינָן‬,‫ֹותל ַא ֵחר‬ ֶ ‫זֶ ה וְ ַא ַחת יֹוצְ ָאה ִמ ּכ‬ ‫ ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – ֵאינֹו‬,‫נֹוגְ עֹות זֹו ָ ּבזֹו‬ – ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬,‫קֹורה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ָ ‫צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬ .‫קֹורה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ָ ‫צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬

The Gemara explains: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka? It is as it is taught in the Tosefta: With regard to a cross beam of the merging of alleyways that projects from this wallh of an alleyway but does not touch the other opposite wall, and similarly, with regard to two cross beams,b one projecting from this wall and one projecting from the other opposite wall and they do not touch each other, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam. Apparently, the principle of lavud is applied even in the center.

.‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי קֹורֹות דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬: ְ‫ וְ ִא ָידך‬The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud does not apply in the center, how would he explain the Tosefta? The Gemara clarifies that he would say that beams are different because the prohibition against carrying in an alleyway is a decree by rabbinic law,n and it is a rabbinic ordinance that beams may be placed at the entrance to the alleyway to permit carrying therein, the Sages were lenient. Therefore, proof cannot be cited from the case of the beams with regard to other situations. ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֵאין ָלבוּד‬ ‫ ֲארו ָ ּּבה ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת ו ָּב ּה‬:‫ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע – דִּ ְתנַן‬ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת – ּכו ּּלֹו‬,‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ .‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲארו ָ ּּבה – ָטהֹור‬,‫ָט ֵמא‬ ‫ט ּו ְמ ָאה ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲארו ָ ּּבה – ָּכל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ,‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאין ָ ּב ֲארו ָ ּּבה ּפ‬.‫ּכוּלּ ֹו ָטהֹור‬ ,‫טו ְּמ ָאה ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲארו ָ ּּבה – ָטהֹור‬ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲארו ָ ּּבה – ָּכל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ .‫ָטהֹור‬

What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud does not apply in the center? It is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a skylight in the roof of a housen whose opening is one square handbreadth, if there is a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpseh inside the house, all the objects in the entire house become ritually impure, as the legal status of the roof is that of a tent over a corpse. However, the objects that are directly opposite the skylightb are ritually pure, as the roof does not cover that part of the house. If the source of ritual impurity is itself situated aligned with the skylight, all the objects in the entire house are ritually pure, as there is no roof over the source of impurity.

‫ ט ּו ְמ ָאה‬,‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאין ָ ּב ֲארו ָ ּּבה ּפ‬If the skylight does not have an opening of a square handbreadth ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה‬,‫ ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲארו ָ ּּבה – ָטהֹור‬and there is ritual impurity in the house, the objects opposite .‫ ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲארו ָ ּּבה – ָּכל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ּכוּלּ ֹו ָטהֹור‬the skylight remain ritually pure. If the source of ritual impurity is aligned with the skylight, the objects in the entire house are ritually pure. Apparently, the principle of lavud is not applied in the center; if it were, all the objects in the house would become ritually impure regardless of the location of the source of impurity. The opening of the skylight should be considered closed, as the distance between the two sides of its opening is less than three handbreadths.n

halakha

A cross beam that projects from this wall – ‫קֹורה ַהּיֹוצְ ָאה‬ ָ ‫ֹותל זֶ ה‬ ֶ ‫מ ּכ‬:ִ In a case where there is a beam over the entrance of an alleyway, and it projects from one wall and stretches across the alleyway, but it does not reach the opposite wall, and there is a beam projecting from the opposite wall toward the first beam, the halakha is as follows: If the gap between the ends of these beams is less than three handbreadths, the two beams are considered joined, and it is permitted to carry in the alleyway on Shabbat (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 363:21). A skylight in a house in which there is ritual impurity imparted by a corpse – ‫ארו ָ ּּבה ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ּבֹו טו ְּמ ַאת ֵמת‬: ֲ If there is a skylight or any kind of opening in the roof of a house, and the source of the impurity is directly beneath the skylight, it renders impure any object between the source of the impurity and the heavens. However, objects in the rest of the house remain pure. This is the halakha whether or not the opening is one handbreadth wide. If the source of the impurity is under the roof, all the contents of the house become impure, except for the objects directly beneath the skylight (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 16:1). background

Two cross beams – ‫ש ֵּתי קֹורֹות‬: ְׁ

In this image, two cross beams are projecting from two alleyway walls but not touching each other. They are also an example of cross beams that project from one wall but do not reach the opposite wall. Opposite the skylight – ‫כנֶ גֶ ד ֲארו ָ ּּבה‬:ְּ

Skylight

‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ִה ְלכֹות טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ ָה ִכי‬:‫ וְ ִא ָיד ְך‬The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud applies .ּ‫ ְ ּג ִמ ִירי ְלהו‬in the center, how would he explain the mishna? The Gemara answers: The halakhot of ritual impurity are different, as that is the way they learned them through tradition. The halakhot of tents and ritual impurity are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Therefore, their details are unique, and other areas of halakha cannot be derived from them.

notes

Beams are different because the prohibition against carrying in an alleyway is a decree by rabbinic law – ‫שאנֵי קֹורֹות דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬: ָׁ The Sage who despite this distinction, cited proof from beams, holds that all of the ordinances that the Sages instituted were modeled after similar Torah laws (see Emek Sukkot).

and able to render other objects impure and a case where the source of impurity is partially under the skylight and partially under the roof of the house (see Me’iri).

The proof from a skylight in the house – ‫ר ָאיָה ֵמ ֲארו ָ ּּבה ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת‬:ְ The proof cited here to the principle of lavud is based on the asA skylight in the roof of a house, etc. – ‫ארו ָ ּּבה ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת וכו׳‬:ֲ There sumption that the halakhot of the opening of a handbreadth in are other opinions, which proposed a variant reading of the terms of a tent over a corpse are virtually identical to the halakha mishna but were rejected. In the version of the mishna cited of three handbreadths with regard to partitions. The proof is from here, there is no difference between a skylight whose opening the second half of the mishna which is referring to an opening is one handbreadth and one whose opening is smaller. Indeed, less than a handbreadth. Just as the principle of lavud is not apthe differences between the two cases are not manifest in the plied to an opening less than a handbreadth in the middle and it halakhot discussed here, but in other halakhot, e.g., whether one is not considered sealed, the same should be true of an opening who obstructs the skylight with his feet becomes ritually impure of less than three handbreadths (Ritva).



‫חי ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 18a 

83

language

Abramis [avroma] – ‫רֹומא‬ ָ ‫א ְב‬:ַ From the Greek ἀβραμίς, abramis, a fish indigenous to the Nile River. It may refer to a kind of bream or mullet.

Flathead mullet Small fish [tzaĥanta] – ‫צַ ַחנְ ָּתא‬: Tzaĥanta is parallel to the Arabic ‫صحناءة‬, sִ iĥnā’ah, meaning small fish that are cut up into smaller pieces.

‫ ַ ּביִ ת‬:‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה ַ ּבר ֶא ְל ַעאי‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫יכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּביו – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ֵּ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַחת וְ ִס‬ ,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ְל ָפנָיו ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ – ‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬:‫ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש! ָּכךְ ּ ֵפ ַיר ׁש ַא ָ ּבא‬ .‫ ּ ָפחֹות ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

§ Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: A house that was breached

‫רֹומא‬ ָ ‫ ַא ְב‬:‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּבר ֶא ְל ַעאי‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ְל ָפנָיו ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ׁ ַש ְריָ א‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש! ָּכ ְך ָא ַמר ַא ָ ּבא‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ – ‫ ׁ ֶשל ָמקֹום ּ ְפלֹונִי‬,‫ָמקֹום ּ ְפלֹונִי – ֲאסו ָּרה‬ !‫מו ֶּּת ֶרת‬

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: With regard to the abramis [avroma],l it is permitted to eat it, despite the fact that it is a very small fish that is typically caught in a net with many similar, nonkosher, fish, and it is difficult to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explainn your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: The abramis found in the rivers of place so-and-so, where there are also non-kosher fish, is prohibited; however, the abramis of a different place so-and-so, where there are no non-kosher fish, is permitted.

‫ ַהאי צַ ַחנְ ָּתא דְּ ַבב‬:‫ִּכי ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ִא ֵיל‬.‫נַ ֲה ָרא ׁ ַש ְריָ א‬ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְר ִד ִיפי ַמּיָ א וְ ַהאי דָּ ג ָט ֵמא ֵּכיוָ ן‬ ,‫יה חוּט ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְד ָרה ָלא ָמצֵ י ָק ֵאים‬ ּ ‫דְּ ֵלית ֵל‬ !‫וְ ָהא ָקא ָחזֵ ינַן דְּ ָק ֵאי‬

The Gemara notes that this is similar to that which Abaye said: These small fish [tzaĥanta]l of the Bav Riverb are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? If we say that it is due to the fact that the water flows rapidly, and these nonkosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist in that water, as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case. Don’t we see that non-kosher fish exist in rivers with strong currents?

‫ וְ ַהאי דָּ ג ָט ֵמא‬,‫יחי ַמּיָא‬ ִ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְמ ִל‬ ‫ וְ ָהא‬.‫יה ִק ְיל ֵפי ָלא ָמצֵ י ָק ֵאי‬ ּ ‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ֵלית ֵל‬ ‫ָקא ָחזֵ ינַן דְּ ָק ֵאי! ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא ַמ ְר ֶ ּבה‬ ‫ וְ ָה ִאידָּ נָ א‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬.‫ִטינַיְ יה ּו דָּ ג ָט ֵמא‬ – ‫יתן וּנְ ַהר ַ ּג ְמדָּ א ְל ָה ָתם‬ ָ ‫דְּ ׁ ָש ְפ ִכי נְ ַהר ֵא‬ .‫ֲא ִס ָירא‬

Rather, perhaps Abaye permitted it because the water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist in that water because they do not have scales. This, too, is not the case, as don’t we see that non-kosher fish exist in salty water? Rather, Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River because the mud in that river is not suited for non-kosher fish to reproduce. The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for nonkosher fish. Ravina said: And today, since the government built canals between the rivers, and the Eitan River and the Gamda River spill into the Bav, it is prohibited to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.

background

The small fish of the Bav River – ‫צַ ַחנְ ָּתא דְּ ַבב נַ ֲה ָרא‬: It is difficult to identify the fish discussed here. According to Rashi on tractate Avoda Zara (39a), this fish is identical to the ĥilak or sultanit fish mentioned there. It develops fins and scales only when reaching maturity, and at earlier stages it is virtually impossible to distinguish it from non-kosher fish. Therefore, it may be eaten only if it was caught in water known to contain exclusively kosher fish. halakha

A portico with posts for the sukka – ‫ימין ְלסו ָּּכה‬ ִ ‫א ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ִעם ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬:ַ If valid roofing is placed over a portico with posts and the posts are within three handbreadths of each other, they form a wall and the sukka is fit. This is the halakha both in the case where the sukka is adjacent to the portico and in the case where the portico itself serves as the sukka. If the posts are at the sides of the portico, it is also fit (Rambam). Many (Rashi; Tosafot; Rif; others disagree, however, and therefore one may not construct a sukka in this manner ab initio (Rema; see Levush). One may certainly not use a portico for this purpose if there are no posts. In that case, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava in his dispute with Abaye (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:8).

and one roofed over it is a fit sukka. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: If the ceiling between the wall and the breach is four cubits long, the sukka is unfit. If it is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit.

‫יכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָל ּה‬ ֵּ ‫ ִס‬,‫  § ִא ְּת ַמר‬It was stated that the amora’im disagree: If one roofed a n h ‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬,‫ימין‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬.‫ימין – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ִ ‫ ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬portico that has posts on its open side, the sukka is fit. If ‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬:‫ וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬one roofed a portico that does not have posts on its open side, Abaye said: The sukka is fit, and Rava said: The sukka is unfit. ,‫ָא ַמר ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said: The sukka is fit,

notes

My teacher, explain – ‫ר ִ ּבי ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש‬:ַ With regard to the abramis, Rabbi Yehuda taught the halakha according to the situation in his locale, where all the fish of this type were kosher. With regard to the house, he did not elaborate, because he holds that a standard house measures eight cubits. Therefore, in any case where the breach in the roof is the minimal measure of a sukka, the breach will be less than four cubits removed from the walls (Arukh LaNer).

it is a portico whose roof is four cubits wide that surrounds an inner courtyard on three sides. The posts that are less than three handbreadths apart support the roof of the portico. Others explain that the sukka is adjacent to the portico, which has two walls in an L-shape. The posts that are less than three handbreadths apart are positioned on the third side (Tosafot; Tur; others). Yet others say explain that the roofing for the sukka is placed atop an uncovered section of the portico itself. The portico One roofed a portico – ‫יכ ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬ ֵּ ‫ס‬:ִ Already in the has protruding side posts that close that side (Rambam, acdays of the ge’onim, there were multiple interpretations of this cording to Maggid Mishne and Kesef Mishne). Others say that case, and more interpretations were raised throughout the this is referring to a sukka built like an alleyway. Its third wall generations. One central opinion is that the sukka is adjacent is formed by the edge of the portico, where there are posts to the portico and is not the portico itself. According to Rashi, along the sides (Me’iri).

84 

Perek I . 18a . ‫חי ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Perek I Daf 18 Amud b ‫ ָר ָבא‬.‫סֹותם‬ ֵ ְ‫יֹורד ו‬ ֵ ‫ ּ ִפי ִּת ְק ָרה‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬as we say that the edge of the roof descends and sealsn the open‫ ּ ִפי ִּת ְק ָרה‬:‫ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן‬,‫ ָא ַמר ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ing. The edge of the roof itself is considered as though it were a .‫סֹותם‬ ֵ ְ‫יֹורד ו‬ ֵ small partition that extends downward and forms a wall. Rava said: This sukka is unfit, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals. ‫ ְל ִד ָידךְ דַּ ֲא ַמ ְר ְּת‬:‫יה ָר ָבא ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫סֹותם – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִה ְפ ִחית‬ ֵ ְ‫יֹורד ו‬ ֵ ‫ּ ִפי ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ‫מֹודינָ א ָל ְך‬ ֵ :‫יה‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬ ּ ‫ֹופן ֶא ְמצָ ִעי! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ .‫יה ְּכ ָמבֹוי ַה ְמפו ָּל ׁש‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ְ ּב ַה ִהיא‬

Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said: The edge of the roof descends and sealsn the opening like a wall, then in a case where the roofing of the sukka consists of straight beams, even if one removed the middle wall, leaving the sukka with only two parallel walls, the sukka would nevertheless be fit. Since the edge of the roof descends and seals, the legal status of that sukka is the same as one that has walls on all sides. Abaye said to him: I concede to you that in that particular case the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, does not apply, as it is considered like an open alleyway, through which the multitudes pass on two opposite sides.n In other cases, the principle applies.

‫ימא ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ָר ָבא ִ ּב ְפלוּגְ ָּתא דְּ ַרב‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬:‫ דְּ ִא ְּת ַמר‬,‫ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ ‫ מו ָּּתר ְל ַט ְל ֵטל‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬,‫ְ ּב ִב ְק ָעה‬ .‫סֹותם‬ ֵ ְ‫יֹורד ו‬ ֵ ‫ דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן ּ ִפי ִּת ְק ָרה‬,‫ְ ּבכוּלּ ֹו‬ ‫ ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬ ‫ דְּ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן ּ ִפי ִּת ְק ָרה‬,‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ .‫סֹותם‬ ֵ ְ‫יֹורד ו‬ ֵ

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to the same issue that was the subject in the dispute of Rav and Shmuel; they are merely elaborating on a fundamental dispute between other amora’im. As it was stated: Amora’im disagree with regard to a portico,n which has a roof and no walls or incomplete walls, located in a field,hbn which is a karmelit. Rav said: It is permitted to move an object throughout the entire portico, as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening, rendering the portico a private domain, as it is effectively surrounded by partitions. And Shmuel said: One may move an object in the portico only within four cubits, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. Therefore, the portico’s legal status is that of the surrounding field. Ostensibly, the basis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava is identical to the basis of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

halakha

A portico in a field – ‫א ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ְ ּב ִב ְק ָעה‬:ַ If a portico with fewer than four complete walls stands in a field, which is a karmelit, the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, is applied, provided that two adjacent walls are complete. Therefore, one may carry in the portico on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion in ritual matters (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 361:2, and in the comment of the Rema). background

A portico in a field – ‫א ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ְ ּב ִב ְק ָעה‬: ַ According to Tosafot, this is referring to a portico with two walls. The question is whether or not the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, applies to the other two walls.

Portico with two walls

‫יבא דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַא ִּל‬The Gemara rejects this comparison and says: According to the .‫ ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬opinion of Shmuel, everyone, even Abaye, agrees that one does not apply the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, to the case of a sukka.

notes

The edge of the roof descends and seals – ‫סֹותם‬ ֵ ְ‫יֹורד ו‬ ֵ ‫פי ִּת ְק ָרה‬:ִ ּ The principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, is not applied to all beams. Some hold that the principle applies only if the beam is at least one handbreadth wide, like the beam at the entrance to an alleyway. Others say that it must be at least three handbreadths. Furthermore, it is evident from the discussion of this issue that this principle applies only to the roof of a permanent structure, but not to the beam of the sukka, which is a temporary structure (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi and others). Who said the edge of the roof descends and seals – ‫דַּ ֲא ַמ ְר ְּת‬ ‫סֹותם‬ ֵ ְ‫יֹורד ו‬ ֵ ‫פי ִּת ְק ָרה‬:ִ ּ Some hold that Abaye applies the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, to only one side of the structure (see Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva; Tosafot; others). However, others maintain that Abaye applies this principle even to three sides (Sefer Hashlama). As it is considered like an open alleyway on two opposite sides – ‫יה ְּכ ָמבֹוי ַה ְמפו ָּּל ׁש‬ ּ ‫דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬: According to Abaye, although there is a principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, it does not apply to two parallel walls. The Torah requires a sukka



to have three walls, and only two walls are observable in this structure, which appears to have two open ends, enabling people to pass through it (see Ritva and others). Portico – ‫א ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬: ַ According to Rashi, this portico has no walls at all, as according to his understanding of Rav’s opinion, one may apply the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, to all four sides. Others say that this is a case of a portico with two or three complete walls (see Tosafot; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). In a field – ‫ב ִב ְק ָעה‬:ּ ְ This case takes place in a field and not in a deep valley, and its status in terms of the domains of Shabbat is the subject of a dispute. Some say that it is a karmelit because the multitudes do not pass through it. Others say that the legal status of this field is that of the public domain (Ritva and others). Many of the later commentaries examine why the Gemara discusses the case of a portico in a field, as opposed to the more common case of a portico in a courtyard in which no joining of courtyards was established (see Emek Sukkot). ‫חי ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 18b 

85

Perek I Daf 19 Amud a background

Rav Kahana’s sukka – ‫סו ַּּכת ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬: Below are diagrams depicting Rav Kahana’s sukka. In the first two diagrams, which depict one case, the sukka viewed from the outside ostensibly has only two walls; however, from the inside one is able to see one of the posts of the portico. Therefore, the sukka has a partial third wall. In the second two diagrams, which depict another case, the sukka seems from the inside to have only two walls; however, from the outside one can see the difference in the thickness of the sukka and portico walls. This width is considered a post for the portico. Therefore, this sukka also has a partial third wall.

.‫יבא דְּ ַרב; ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְּכ ַרב‬ ּ ָ ‫ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ַא ִּל‬ ‫ ַעד ָּכאן ל ֹא ָא ַמר‬: ָ‫וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר ְלך‬ ‫יצֹות ְל ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬ ּ ‫ַרב ָה ָתם ֶא ָּלא דִּ ְמ ִח‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא דְּ ָלאו ְל ָה ִכי‬,‫הוּא דַּ ֲע ִב ִידי‬ .‫ֲע ִב ִידי – ָלא‬

When they disagree is according to the opinion of Rav. Abaye holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The edge of the roof descends and seals both in the portico in the field and in the portico that one roofed as a sukka. And Rava could have said to you: Rav stated his opinion only there, with regard to a portico in the field, because the partitions formed by the descent of the edge of the roof are partitions established for the portico. However, here, in the case of a sukka, where the partitions formed by the descent of the edge of the roof are not partitions established for the portico, no, Rav would not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

.‫ וְ ֵכן ָחצֵ ר ַה ּמ ּו ֶ ּק ֶפת ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬:‫ ְּתנַ ן‬The Gemara cites another proof. We learned in the mishna: With !‫סֹותם‬ ֵ ְ‫יֹורד ו‬ ֵ ‫נֵימא ּ ִפי ִּת ְק ָרה‬ ָ ?‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי‬regard to a courtyard that is surrounded on three sides by a porti­ co, if there are four cubits beneath the unfit roofing, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: And why is the sukka unfit? Let us say that the edge of the roof descends and seals, forming a fit partition at the point where the roofing of the sukka begins? :‫יב א דְּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִּת ְר ְ ּג ָמ ּה ָר ָב א ַא ִּל‬Rava interpreted the mishna in accordance with the opinion of .‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִה ׁ ְשוָ ה ֶאת ֵקירוּיֹו‬Abaye: It is a case where one equalized the level of its roofing, i.e., the roofing of the sukka with the level of the roof of the portico. Since the edge of the roof of the portico is not visible inside the sukka, the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, does not apply.

Visible from the inside

‫ְ ּבסו ָּרא ַמ ְתנֵי ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא ְ ּב ַהאי‬ ‫יכךְ ַעל‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ִל‬ ֵּ ‫ ִס‬:‫ ְ ּבפו ְּמ ַ ּב ִד ָיתא ַמ ְתנֵי‬.‫ישנָ א‬ ‫ימין – דִּ ְב ֵרי‬ ִ ‫ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬ ‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬,‫ימין‬ ִ ‫ יֵ ׁש ָל ּה ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬.‫ַה ּכֹל ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ .‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .‫ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ָלבוּד‬,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬:‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬ .‫ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן ָלבוּד‬,‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬:‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ .‫ישנָ א ַק ָּמא‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ִל‬

In Sura, they would teach this halakha in that language cited above. In Pumbedita they would teach it differently: If one roofed a portico that does not have posts on its open side, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. In the case of a portico that has posts less than three handbreadths apart on its open side, Abaye said: The sukka is fit, and Rava said: The sukka is unfit. Abaye said: The sukka is fit, as we say that the principle of lavud applies here; the posts are joined and form a partition for both the portico and the sukka in the courtyard outside the portico. Rava said: The sukka is unfit, as we do not say that the principle of lavud forms a partition for the sukka. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is ruled in accordance with the first version.n

‫יה ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ָקא‬ ּ ‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ֵח‬ ‫ְמ ַס ֵּכ ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה‬ ‫ ָלא ָס ַבר ָמר ָהא‬:‫יה‬ ִ ‫ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ימין‬ ,‫ימין – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ִ ‫ יֵ ׁש ָל ּה ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫יה‬ ִ ‫ֵאין ָל ּה ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬ ּ ‫ימין – ּ ְפסו ָּלה? ַא ֲחוֵ י ֵל‬ .‫נִ ְר ֶאה ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים וְ ׁ ָשוֶ ה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi found Rav Kahana, who was placing roofing for a sukka atop a portico that did not have posts.b He said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that which Rava said: If it has posts, the sukka is fit; if it does not have posts it is unfit? How can you use this as a sukka? Rav Kahana showed him that in this sukka the disparity between the sukka and the portico was visible from the inside and even from the outside. From outside, the portico and the sukka appeared to be one continuous structure. However, from inside, one of the walls of the portico was visibly thicker than the wall of the sukka, and that one handbreadth thickness serves as the third wall of the sukka.

Even from the outside

.‫ נִ ְר ֶאה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ וְ ׁ ָשוֶ ה ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬:‫ ִאי נַ ִמי‬Alternatively, in this case that disparity was visible from the outside and even from the inside.h The exterior walls of the portico and of the sukka were not even. From the outside, it was plainly discernible that they were two separate structures. However, from the inside the sukka appeared to be a direct extension of the portico with no post protruding. In both cases, the protruding segment serves as the third wall of the sukka, which measures one handbreadth, and the sukka is fit.

Visible from the outside

notes

And the halakha is ruled in accordance with the first version – the halakha, as it is an exception to the talmudic principle that ‫ישנָ א ַק ָּמא‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ִל‬: The Gemara must emphasize that this is the halakha is in accordance with the second version cited.

Even from the inside

halakha

Visible from the outside and even from the inside – visible from only one side, i.e., inside or outside the alleyway ‫נִ ְר ֶאה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ וְ ׁ ָשוֶ ה ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬: A post that protrudes from the side (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 363:13, and Magen Avraham of the alleyway serves its halakhic function, even if it is there).

86 

Perek I . 19a . ‫טי ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫ נִ ְר ֶא ה ִמ ַ ּבח ּו ץ וְ ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬:‫ דְּ ִא ְּת ַמ ר‬This distinction is as it was stated in the context of merging ‫ וְ ֶל ִחי‬,‫ ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים – נִידּ ֹון ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֶל ִחי‬courtyards that open into an alleyway that is open on one side to .‫ימין‬ ִ ‫ ַהיְ ינ ּו ּ ַפ ִ ּצ‬allow carrying there on Shabbat, one must establish a side post on one side of its opening: Any object that protrudes and is visible from outside the alleyway but is even with the wall on the insideb of the alleyway has legal status of a side post, since it can be discerned from the outside. And the provisions that apply to a side post in the case of merging of alleyways are the same as those that apply to posts in the case of sukka. Rav Kahana’s sukka was essentially a portico with a post, and was fit for use as a sukka.

background

Visible from outside but even on the inside – ‫נִ ְר ֶאה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ וְ ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬ ‫מ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬:ִ There are several opinions among the early authorities as to the exact meaning of this term. One relatively simple interpretation is depicted in the diagram. The side posts are positioned outside the alleyway. Consequently, they are visible to those outside the alleyway; however, to people on the inside they appear as continuations of the alleyway wall.

‫ ּ ֶפ ֶסל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה נִידּ ֹון‬:‫ § ָּתנָ א‬It was taught in the Tosefta: Fit roofing that consists of different ?‫ ַמאי ּ ֶפ ֶסל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬.‫ ַּכ ּסו ָּּכה‬kinds of agricultural waste products that extend from the h ‫חֹורי‬ ֵ ‫ ָקנִים ַהּיֹוצְ ִאים ַל ֲא‬:‫ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬sukka has the legal status like that of the sukka. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Waste products that extend from .‫סו ָּּכה‬ the sukka? Ulla said:b Branches that extend behind the sukka and are not limited to the area within the sukka walls. .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫וְ ָהא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ׁ ָשל ֹׁש דְּ ָפנֹות! ִ ּב ְד ִא‬ .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫וְ ָהא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה! ִ ּב ְד ִא‬ !‫וְ ָהא ָ ּב ֵעינַן צִ ָּל ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה‬ .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ִ ּב ְד ִא‬

The Gemara asks: But don’t we require three walls to render an area covered with roofing a fit sukka? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there are three walls. The two side walls of the sukka do not end at the middle wall between them; rather, they too extend behind the sukka, forming a second sukka. The Gemara asks: But don’t we require seven by seven handbreadths as the minimum area for fitness of a sukka? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there is the requisite minimum area. The Gemara asks: But don’t we require that its shade exceeds its sunlight? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where there is more shade than sunlight.

:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ימ ָרא?! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ְ ‫ ִאי ָה ִכי ַמאי ְל ֵמ‬After noting that the sukka has three walls, the requisite area, and sufficient shade, the Gemara asks: If so, what purpose is there to ‫ ו ִּל ְב ָראי ָלא‬,‫הֹואיל ו ְּלגַ ַּוואי ֲע ִב ִידי‬ ִ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ֲע ִב ִידי – ֵא‬state this halakha? The fact that this sukka extends from another is not relevant. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say that since, as evidenced by the placement of the connecting middle wall, these walls were initially established for inside the original sukkan but not for outside the original sukka; and therefore you say no, the middle wall cannot be considered a wall for the additional sukka, Ulla teaches us that the initial intention is not relevant. ‫ ָה ָכא‬:ּ‫יֹוסף ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ ויְ יהו‬ ֵ ‫ַר ָ ּבה וְ ַרב‬ ,‫ְ ּב ָקנִים ַהּיֹוצְ ִאים ִל ְפנִים ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ .ּ‫ו ָּמ ׁ ְש ָכא וְ ָאזְ ָלא ֲח ָדא דּ ֶֹופן ַ ּב ֲה ַדיְ יהו‬ ‫ ָהא ֵלית ָ ּב ּה ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫סו ָּּכה‬

Rabba and Rav Yosef b both say with regard to the case in the Tosefta: Here, it is referring to a case with branches that extend before the front entrance of the sukka,h and one of the side walls extends together with the roofing. Lest you say that this extension does not have the minimum requisite size for the fitness of a sukka, in terms of its area and number of walls, therefore, Ulla teaches us that it is fit because it is considered an extension of the sukka.

Side posts visible only from the outside of the alleyway Ulla’s opinion – ‫יטת עו ָּּלא‬ ַּ ‫ש‬: ִׁ

Side walls extend behind the sukka Rabba and Rav Yosef’s opinion – ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫יטת ַר ָ ּבה וְ ַרב‬ ַּ ‫ש‬: ִׁ

halakha

Agricultural waste products that extend from the sukka – ‫פ ֶסל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬:ֶ ּ Fit roofing that extends beyond the central wall of the sukka renders the sukka fit, provided that it covers an area sufficient for a fit sukka; its shade exceeds its sunlight; and it is surrounded by three walls, although that central wall was not constructed to serve as the wall of the sukka formed outside the original sukka. This ruling is in accordance with the baraita as explained by Ulla (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:6).

Agricultural waste that extends out over the front of the sukka – ‫פ ֶסל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִל ְפנֵי ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬:ֶ ּ If the roofing extends beyond the open side of the sukka and one of the side walls extends as well, at first glance it might seem that only that single wall is related to the roofing. Nevertheless, the other two walls are attributed to that roofing, and the legal status of the area beyond the original sukka is that of a sukka. This ruling is in accordance with the baraita as explained by Rabba and Rav Yosef (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:7).

One side wall extends past the entrance of the sukka

notes

Established for inside the original sukka – ‫לגַ ַּוואי ֲע ִב ִידי‬:ְ According to Rashi and others, the Gemara here is referring to a wall established for the purpose of the interior of the sukka and not for the portion extending beyond it. The question arises: Why is this different from the halakha concerning the wall of a house and a portico? There, the wall established for the house can be used for the sukka; why not in this case as well? There is a distinction between the two cases, as the walls in the case of the house and the portico are permanent,



while the walls of a sukka are temporary and consequently may be considered walls only for their prescribed use (Ritva). Or, the distinction is that the wall of the house can serve as the wall of the portico as well because the portico is an entranceway to the house; the same cannot be said for the wall of the sukka with the extended walls (Penei Yehoshua). Others say that the discussion here does not pertain to the walls at all but to the branches used for the roofing, which were placed outside the sukka and not to provide shade (see Sefat Emet). ‫טי ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 19a 

87

halakha

A sukka that has a minority that is unfit – ‫סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫מיעוּט ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬:ִ If there is more shade than sunlight in the sukka as a whole, although in certain spots the sunlight exceeds the shade, it is fit. There are some who rule stringently in the case of a large sukka in which the particular spot where the sunlight exceeds the shade is the minimum size of a sukka, i.e., seven by seven handbreadths (Rema, citing Ran), in accordance with Rabbi Yoĥanan’s explanation of the baraita (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:2). Unfit roofing…in a small sukka – ‫ּל…בסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה‬ ּ ְ ‫ס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסו‬:ְ Unfit roofing that measures less than four handbreadths in a small sukka does not render the sukka unfit. One may even sleep beneath the unfit roofing, in accordance with the baraita as explained by Rabbi Abba (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 632:1). notes

And one may sleep beneath it – ‫ישנִים ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ ֵ ׁ ִ‫ו‬: Some explain that in this case, the space is sufficient for one’s head and most of his body (Ritva; Ran). Rabbi Aharon HaLevi explains that the Gemara is referring to space sufficient for placing one’s head. That space combines, etc. – ‫זֶ ה ִמצְ ָט ֵרף וכו׳‬: Some explain that one may sleep beneath empty space but not beneath unfit roofing (see ge’onim and Ritva).

‫ ל ֹא‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫נִצְ ְר ָכה ֶא ָּלא ְלסו ָּּכה ׁ ֶשרו ָ ּּב ּה צִ ָּל ָת ּה‬ ‫ ּו ִמע ּו ָט ּה ַח ָּמ ָת ּה‬,‫ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה‬ ‫ ִּת ּ ָפ ֵסל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬.‫ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ ָּל ָת ּה‬ ‫ ו ַּמאי‬.‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ְ ּב ַה ְך ּפו ְּר ָּתא‬ .‫יֹוצֵ א – יֹוצֵ א ֵמ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר סו ָּּכה‬

Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The Tosefta was needed only to teach the case of a sukka where in its majority its shade exceeds its sunlight, and in its minority its sunlight exceeds its shade.h Lest you say that since the extension lacks this basic requirement of a sukka, it is treated as if it were not there at all, and consequently the entire sukka should be rendered unfit due to that little area, therefore, Ulla teaches us that the entire area is one fit sukka. The Gemara asks: According to that understanding of the Tosefta, what is the meaning of: Waste that extends from the sukka? It means that the roofing extends beyond the halakhic parameters for fitness of a sukka. It does not refer to a physical extension of the sukka.

‫ ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכה ֶא ָּלא‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א ָא ַמר‬ ַ ׁ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ִל ְס ָכ ְך ּ ָפסוּל ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְ ּבסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ו ַּמאי יֹוצֵ א – יֹוצֵ א ִמ ּת ַֹורת‬.‫ְק ַט ָּנה‬ .‫סו ָּּכה‬

Rabbi Oshaya said: This Tosefta was needed only to teach the case of unfit roofing that measures less than three handbreadths in a small sukka.h And what is the meaning of: Waste that extends from the sukka? It means that the roofing extends beyond the halakhic status of a fit sukka; it is not referring to a physical extension of the sukka. Nevertheless, it does not render the entire sukka unfit.

‫ ל ֹא ֵיְהא ֶא ָּלא‬:‫הֹוש ֲעיָא‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב‬Rav Hoshaya strongly objects to this: What is the novel element ‫ וַ ֲאוִ יר ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים‬,‫ ֲאוִ יר‬in this Tosefta? Let the status of unfit roofing be only as strict as !?‫ ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה ִמי ּ ָפ ֵסיל‬the status of empty space. And does space measuring less than three handbreadths in a small sukka render the entire sukka unfit? If less than three handbreadths of space, which has a stringent measure for rendering the sukka unfit, does not render the sukka unfit, clearly the same measure of unfit roofing does not render the sukka unfit. ‫ישנִים‬ ֵ ׁ ִ‫ זֶ ה ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ו‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Abba said to him: There is a distinction between unfit roof‫ וְ זֶ ה ִמצְ ָט ֵרף – וְ ֵאין יְ ׁ ֵשנִים‬,‫ ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ing and empty space. This unfit roofing combines with the fit the requisite measure. And one may even sleep .‫ ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬roofing to compose beneath it,n since the unfit roofing is nullified by the majority of fit roofing and completely incorporated into it. However, that space, although it too combinesn with the fit roofing to comprise the requisite measure of the sukka, one may not sleep beneath it, as it is not transformed into fit roofing. Therefore, there is a novel element in the explanation of Rabbi Hoshaya as well. ‫יכא ִמידֵּ י דְּ ִאצְ ַטרו ֵּפי ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ ָּ ‫ ו ִּמי ִא‬The Gemara questions this contention. Is there any item that ‫ וְ הוּא ַעצְ מֹו ֵאינֹו ָּכ ׁ ֵשר? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬combines with other items to engender fitness, but the item itself ,‫ ִאין‬:‫ ֶ ּבן ֶא ְליָ ׁ ִשב‬is not fit? Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Elyashiv said: Yes, that model exists in other areas of halakha as well.

Perek I Daf 19 Amud b ‫ ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ ָט ֵרף ְל ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬,‫יֹוכ ַיח‬ ִ ‫ ִטיט ַהנָ רֹוק‬The case of mortar that is liquid and can be poured proves that ‫ וְ ַה ּט ֵֹובל ּבֹו ל ֹא ָע ְל ָתה לֹו‬,‫ ְס ָאה‬there are situations where items that themselves are unfit render with water to .‫ ְט ִב ָילה‬other items fit, as, on the one hand, it combines complete the requisite measure of forty se’an to render a ritual bath fit to purify. But, on the other hand, one who immerses in a bath filled only with mortar, the immersion does not fulfill his obligation.

notes

Forty se’a – ‫א ְר ָ ּב ִעים ְס ָאה‬:ַ By Torah law, a ritually impure person or object can be purified only through immersion in spring water or in a ritual bath. Many natural bodies of water qualify as ritual baths e.g., the sea and certain rivers and ponds. A ritual bath must contain at least forty se’a, 330 ℓ, of water,

88 

Perek I . 19b . ‫טי ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

accumulated naturally and not collected in vessels. The mishna in tractate Mikvaot, which deals with the halakhot of ritual baths, e.g., how they are constructed and what disqualifies them, teaches that other liquids can be substituted for some of the water in specific circumstances.

mishna 

One who establishes his sukka like a type ,‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ְּכ ִמין צְ ִריף‬ ׂ ֶ ‫מתני׳ ָה‬ of circular hut,b with no roof whose walls ‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫אֹו ׁ ֶש ְּס ָמ ָכ ּה ַל ּכ ֶֹותל‬ slope down from the center or who rested the sukka against the .‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬,‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬wall,bn by taking long branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall to establish a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof,nh and the Rabbis deem it fit; as, in their opinion, the roof and the walls may be a single entity, indistinguishable from each other.

background

A sukka like a type of circular hut – ‫סו ָּּכה ְּכ ִמין צְ ִריף‬: Teepees traditionally used by nomadic tribes of the Great Plains in the United States exemplify this kind of structure.

gemara 

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ‫יעזֶ ר ׁ ֶש ִאם‬ ֶ ‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ֶ :‫גמ׳ ָּתנָ א‬ concedes that if one lifted one of these ‫ִהגְ ִ ּב ָיה ּה ִמן ַה ַ ּק ְר ַקע ֶט ַפח אֹו ׁ ֶש ִה ְפ ִליגָ ּה‬ types of sukkot off the ground at least one handbreadth,b thereby .‫ֹותל ֶט ַפח – ׁ ֶש ִהיא ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ֶ ‫ ִמן ַה ּכ‬creating a vertical wall, or if one distanced the sukka resting against the wall one handbreadth from the wall, the sukka is fit. In these cases, the difference between the wall and the roof is conspicuous. ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ַמיְ יה ּו דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ׁ ִש ּיפו ֵּעי א ָֹה ִלים‬The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rab.ּ‫ ַּכ ֲא ָה ִלים דָּ מו‬bis, who deem a sukka fit even where it is an inclined roof rather than a flat one? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, the legal status of the incline of a tent is like that of a tent. As long as it provides shelter, there is no need for a distinct, conspicuous roof for it to be a fit sukka. ‫יֹוסף דְּ ָקא ְ ּגנֵי‬ ֵ ‫יה ְל ַרב‬ ּ ‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ֵח‬ ַּ ‫ְ ּב ִכ‬ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ילת ֲח ָתנִים ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ׁ ָש ְב ַק ְּת ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ !?‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָע ַב ְד ְּת ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬

It is related: Abaye found Rav Yosef, his teacher, who was sleeping inside a netted bridal canopy, whose netting inclines down, inside a sukka. Ostensibly, Rav Yosef did not fulfill his obligation, as he slept in the tent formed by the canopy and not directly in the sukka. Abaye said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you hold, that you do not consider this netting a tent? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that a structure without a distinct roof does not have the legal status of a tent, and therefore the netting does not constitute a barrier between the roofing of the sukka and the person sleeping below? Did you abandon the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the netting constitutes a barrier because the legal status of a structure without a distinct roof is that of a tent, and act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? In disputes between an individual Sage and multiple Sages, the halakha is in accordance with the multiple Sages, i.e., the Rabbis.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יפ ָכא ָּתנֵי‬ ְ ּ ‫יתא ִא‬ ָ ְ‫ ָ ּב ַרי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Yosef said to him: In the baraita, the opposite is taught. Rab.‫ֹוס ִלין‬ ְ ‫יעזֶ ר ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ ֱא ִל‬bi Eliezer deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit. Abaye asked !?‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫נִיתין וְ ָע ַב ְד ְּת ְּכ ָב ַרי‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ָש ְב ַק ְּת ַמ ְת‬him: Did you abandon the mishna, whose formulation is authoritative, and act in accordance with a baraita, which may not be accurate?

Teepee Rested it against a wall – ‫ס ָמ ָכ ּה ַל ּכ ֶֹותל‬:ְ

Leaning sukka One lifted it…one handbreadth – ‫…ט ַפח‬ ֶ ‫יה ּה‬ ָ ‫הגְ ִ ּב‬:ִ

notes

Rested the sukka against the wall – ‫סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ְּס ָמ ָכ ּה ַל ּכ ֶֹותל‬: Some say that this wall must measure seventeen handbreadths, including the required handbreadth from the wall; ten handbreadths for the wall and seven for the roof (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva; Me’iri). Others say that beyond the ten handbreadths height of the inclined wall, the interior of the sukka must extend seven handbreadths from the wall (Tosafot; Rosh; Tur). Others say that as long as the sukka reaches a height of ten handbreadths, that is sufficient, provided that the width on the ground is seven handbreadths (see Kesef Mishne and Biur HaGra on the Shulĥan Arukh). Alternatively, perhaps one may calculate the total volume of this sukka, including the section where the roof is lower than ten handbreadths; if the

volume of this sukka equals the volume of a standard sukka, which is seven by seven handbreadths by ten handbreadths high, then it is fit (Baĥ). Because it does not have a roof – ‫מ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬:ִ The fact that an inclined roof may render a sukka unfit because it does not have the status of a roof does not contradict the principle that the legal status of the incline of a tent is like that of a tent. Although that principle is applied in other areas of halakha, the sukka requires a more significant roof, so that it will resemble a residence (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). Apparently, that is the reason that the Me’iri said that one should not build his sukka with a circular roof, even if it has full-fledged walls.

Leaning sukka, raised slightly

halakha

A sukka without a roof – ‫סו ָּּכה ְלל ֹא ַ ּגג‬: A sukka that lacks a roof, e.g., a sukka that is circular or whose walls rest against a vertical wall, is unfit. However, if the sukka has a roof that measures a single handbreadth, or if one raises the walls a single handbreadth off the ground, the sukka is fit. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, who had a variant reading of the mishna. In his version, the opinions are reversed, so that this opinion is actually the majority opinion. Some say that it is not sufficient to have the wall elevated one



handbreadth off the ground; rather this single handbreadth must be part of either the wall or the roofing (Rema, citing Rosh, who cited Rabbeinu Yitzĥak and Rambam). The sukka must be seven by seven handbreadths and ten handbreadths high (Rema, citing Tur). Additionally, the portion of the wall above the ten-handbreadth line must be made of material fit for roofing, in which case it is permitted even to sleep beneath it (Rema, citing Ran and Rabbeinu Yeruĥam; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:10). ‫טי ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 19b 

89

notes

The mishna is an individual version of the dispute – ‫יְח ָיד ָאה ִהיא‬ ִ ‫נִיתין‬ ִ ‫מ ְת‬:ַ According to this understanding, the version in this mishna is not the result of the fact that the redactor of the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in accordance with this opinion. Rather, he simply found a mishna edited according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan and incorporated it in the Mishna (Emek Sukkot).

.‫נִיתין יְ ִח ָיד ָאה ִהיא‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ְּכ ִמין צְ ִריף‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָה‬:‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬,‫ֹותל‬ ֶ ‫אֹו ׁ ֶש ְּס ָמ ָכ ּה ַל ּכ‬ ,‫ֹוסל ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ַ ּגג‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬

A large mat of reeds – ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫מ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ָקנִים ְ ּג‬:ַ There is a variant reading of the text: A reed mat and a large mat. Both are typically used as roofing. A large mat is presumably designed for roofing while a reed mat is hard and uncomfortable, and therefore undesirable for the purpose of lying down (Tosefot Rid; see Melekhet Shlomo). Large and small mats – ‫דֹולה ו ְּק ַט ָּנה‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּג‬: The Ran explains that the word small is referring to a mat appropriate for sleeping, while anything larger is referred to as large.

‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ָקנִים ְ ּג‬ ‫יבה – ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת ט ּו ְמ ָאה וְ ֵאין‬ ָ ‫ִל ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ‫יכו ְּך – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ּ ‫ ַל ִּס‬,‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַחת ְק ַט ָּנה וְ ַא ַחת ְ ּג‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ,‫ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה – ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫יכו ְּך – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין‬ ּ ‫ ַל ִּס‬,‫וְ ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ .‫ָ ּב ּה וְ ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה‬

Rav Yosef said to him: I have proof that the formulation of this particular baraita is precise, as the formulation of the mishna is an individual version of the dispute,n and most of the Sages adopt the version of the baraita, as it is taught in another baraita: One who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut or rests the sukka against the wall, Rabbi Natan says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the structure unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit. Apparently, the mishna reflects only Rabbi Natan’s version of the argument. According to most of the Sages, the correct formulation of the dispute is that of the baraita: Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit. The halakha in in accordance with the latter version of the dispute, and therefore it is permitted to sleep inside a bridal canopy in a sukka.

mishna 

In the case of a large mat of reeds,n if one initially produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity like any other vessel, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. If one initially produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, as its legal status is not that of a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer says that the distinction between mats is based on use, not size. Therefore, with regard to both a small mat and a large mat, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. If one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

gemara 

The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the ‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬:‫ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬,‫גמ׳ ָהא גּ ו ָּפ ּה ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ mishna and raises a difficulty. This mishna ‫ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה וְ ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין‬ itself is difficult, as it contains an apparent contradiction. On the ‫ ָהא‬,‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דַּ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬.‫ ָ ּב ּה‬one hand, you said: If one produced it for the purpose of lying . ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ ְס ָת ָמא – ְל ִס‬upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason it is unfit for roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. Presumably, a mat produced without designation is for roofing, and therefore one may roof a sukka with it. ‫ ְל ִס ּיכוּךְ – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה וְ ֵאינָ ּה‬:‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ָּתנֵי‬And then it is taught in the mishna: If one produced it for roofing, ‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דַּ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬.‫ ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה‬one may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual !‫ ָהא ְס ָת ָמא – ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬, ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ ְל ִס‬impurity. The reason it is fit roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for roofing. This implies that a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. The inferences drawn from these two clauses in the mishna about a mat produced without designation contradict each other. – ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫ ָהא ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן – ִ ּבג‬The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the first clause .‫ ִ ּב ְק ַט ָּנה‬of the mishna, it is referring to a large mat, which is typically not produced for the purpose of lying upon it. Therefore, it is unfit for roofing only if it is produced specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is produced without designation, it is presumably for roofing, and one may roof a sukka with it. There, in the second clause of the mishna, it is referring to a small mat,n which is typically not produced for roofing. Therefore, one may roof a sukka with it only if it is produced specifically for roofing. If it is produced without designation, it is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and one may not roof a sukka with it. ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫(ב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ִּ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:)‫ דִּ ְתנַ ן‬,‫יעזֶ ר ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַחת ְק ַט ָּנה וְ ַא ַחת ְ ּג‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה – ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דַּ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬.‫וְ ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ . ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ְס ָת ָמא – ְל ִס‬,‫ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬

90 

Perek I . 19b . ‫טי ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to the Rabbis this is not difficult; as the above distinction resolves the apparent contradiction in the mishna. However, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the contradiction remains difficult, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to both a small mat and a large mat, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason it is unfit for roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. This implies that a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for roofing, and therefore one may roof a sukka with it.

‫יכוּךְ – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬And say that in the latter clause of the mishna, where Rabbi ּ ‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְל ִס‬:‫ימא ֵס ָיפא‬ ‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דַּ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬,‫ וְ ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה‬Eliezer continues: If one produced it for roofing, one may roof h !‫ ָהא ְס ָת ָמא – ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬, ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ ְל ִס‬a sukka with it and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the reason it is fit roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for roofing. However, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and therefore one may not roof a sukka with it. The inferences drawn from these two clauses in the mishna contradict each other. The resolution cited above cannot resolve the contradiction according to Rabbi Eliezer, as he does not distinguish between a large mat and a small mat. ‫דֹולה ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא‬ ָ ְ‫ ִ ּבג‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ .‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ִ ּב ְק ַט ָּנה‬, ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דִּ ְס ָת ָמא ְל ִס‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ְס ָתם ְק ַט ָּנה ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬:‫ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ָס ַבר‬ . ְ‫יכוּך‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ ְס ָתם ְק ַט ָּנה נַ ִמי ְל ִס‬:‫יעזֶ ר ָס ַבר‬

Rather, Rava said: The above resolution is rejected. With regard to a large mat, everyone agrees that if it was produced without designation, presumably it is for roofing. Where they disagree, is with regard to a small mat: The first tanna holds that a small mat produced without designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that a small mat produced without designation is also presumably for roofing.h

halakha

A mat with regard to ritual impurity – ‫ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ְל ִענְיַ ן‬ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה‬: A mat designed for the purpose of lying upon it is susceptible to ritual impurity, with the exception of certain very specific types. A mat designed for roofing is not susceptible to ritual impurity. In the case of a mat that has no designation, if it is large it is presumably for roofing and not susceptible to ritual impurity; and if it is small it is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it and susceptible to ritual impurity (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 25:13). A mat with regard to roofing a sukka – ‫ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ְל ִענְיַ ן‬ ‫יכו ְּך‬ ּ ‫ס‬:ִ Small mats made of reeds, straw, or bulrushes may not be used to roof a sukka, since they are typically used for the purpose of lying upon them. However, if a mat of this sort was designated for use as roofing, then it is fit roofing. According to the Rema, based on the Rosh, that is the halakha in a place where most people in that place use a mat of that kind for roofing. If it is large, one may roof a sukka with it, as roofing is its typical use. However, if it was designated for the purpose of lying upon it, it is unfit roofing. The Rema understands this, too, as referring to a place where it is typically used for the purpose of lying upon it. This halakha is in accordance with the response of Rav Pappa and the opinion of the unattributed mishna in the dispute with Rabbi Eliezer (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:6).

Perek I Daf 20 Amud a ‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה‬,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ַה ָ ּקנִים ְ ּג‬:‫וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה – ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה וְ ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין‬ ‫ ָהא‬,‫יבה‬ ָ ‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דַּ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ִל ׁ ְש ִכ‬.‫ָ ּב ּה‬ ,‫יכו ְּך‬ ֲ – ‫ְס ָת ָמא‬ ּ ‫נַע ָ ׂשה ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְל ִס‬ – ‫יכו ְּך‬ ְ .‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ּ ‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְל ִס‬,‫(ק ַט ָּנה‬ ,‫יכו ְּך‬ ּ ‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דַּ ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ְל ִס‬,‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ,‫נַע ָ ׂשה ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬ ֲ – ‫ָהא ְס ָת ָמא‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ וַ ֲא ָתא ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.)‫וְ ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ ְס ָת ָמא‬,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַחת ְק ַט ָּנה וְ ַא ַחת ְ ּג‬:‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ . ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה ְל ִס‬

And this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to a large matb of reeds, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity, and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason is that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it; however, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation becomes as a mat produced for roofing, and one may roof a sukka with it. With regard to a small mat of reeds, if one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it. The reason is that one produced it specifically for roofing; however, by inference, a mat that one produced without designation becomes as a mat produced for the purpose of lying upon it, and one may not roof a sukka with it. And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say that both a small mat and a large one produced without designation are fit for roofing.

‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַ״ר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to him: If so, if their dispute is only with regard to a ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫דֹולה״? ַא ַחת ְ ּג‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַחת ְק ַט ָּנה וְ ַא ַחת ְ ּג‬small mat, then instead of saying: Rabbi Eliezer says: Both a !‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ַחת ְק ַט ָּנה ִמ‬small mat and a large mat,nthe mishna needed to say: Both a ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ large mat and a small mat. In a phrase with the format: Both this and that, one typically mentions the more obvious item first. Why then, does Rabbi Eliezer mention the small mat first, if it is with regard to the small mat that they disagree? ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫דֹולה הוּא דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ָ ְ‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ִ ּבג‬:‫וְ עֹוד‬ ,‫ ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ַה ָ ּקנִים‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫יעזֶ ר ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫דֹולה ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ָ ְ‫ִ ּבג‬ !‫ִאם ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת טו ְּמ ָאה – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬

And furthermore, there is proof that when they disagree, it is with regard to a large mat, and Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is a stringency and not a leniency, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a reed mat, with a large mat one may roof a sukka. Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, one may roof his sukka with it. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that without designation, one may not roof his sukka with a large mat.

‫ ִ ּב ְק ַט ָּנה ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ .‫דֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ִ ּבג‬.‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דִּ ְס ָת ָמא ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬, ְ‫יכוּך‬ ָ ‫ ְס ָתם ְ ּג‬:‫ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ָס ַבר‬ ּ ‫דֹולה ְל ִס‬ .‫דֹולה נַ ִמי ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬ ָ ‫ ְס ָתם ְ ּג‬:‫יעזֶ ר ָס ַבר‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬

Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rava’s proposed resolution is rejected. Rather, with regard to a small mat, everyone agrees that if it was produced without designation, presumably it is for the purpose of lying upon it. When they disagree, is with regard to a large mat: The first tanna holds that a large mat produced without designation is presumably for roofing, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that a large mat produced without designation is also presumably for the purpose of lying upon it.



background

Mats – ‫מ ְחצָ לֹות‬:ַ Mats in general are woven from different types of reeds. There are types of mats that differ in their materials, processing, and use. The coarsest mats were produced from complete reed stems tied together with string or rope. These were used primarily as partitions or roofing, but not for the purpose of lying upon them. Somewhat finer mats were produced from woven papyrus reeds, often after splitting the reeds into their component parts. These would only rarely be used for the purpose of lying upon them. Other mats were woven from strips produced from the inner section of the papyrus reed. Sometimes these strips would be spun into a type of thread, and use these in the small mats. These mats were soft and were typically used for sitting and lying upon them. notes

The mishna needed to say both a large mat and a small mat – ‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫דֹולה וְ ַא ַחת ְק ַט ָּנה ִמ‬ ָ ‫א ַחת ְ ּג‬:ַ When the Gemara ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ cites a tanna saying: Both this and that, likening the halakhot or properties of two items, the order is significant. Typically, the more obvious matter is cited first, followed by the more novel element. There are exceptions to this rule, e.g., when the Sage making the statement is continuing a statement made previously by another Sage (see Tosafot) or when chronological or other considerations call for a different sequence.

‫כ ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 20a 

91

halakha

Any item that becomes ritually impure by treading also becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse – ‫כל ַה ִמ ַּט ֵּמא ִמ ְד ָרס ִמ ַּט ֵּמא ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬:ָּ A significant principle is that anything susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and all other types of impurity (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 23:1). notes

Even with impurity imparted by treading – ‫אף ִמ ְד ָרס‬:ַ Not all objects are equally susceptible to all forms of ritual impurity. This is determined either by Torah decree or based on the type of impurity. Ritual impurity imparted by treading is one of those categories to which not all objects are susceptible. In order to become impure with this impurity, the vessel must be designated primarily for treading, sitting, or lying upon it. If that is not its primary designation, it does not become a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading, but it assumes first-degree ritual impurity status by means of contact with the zav.

‫ ו ַּמאי ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה דְּ ָק ָא ַמר – ָה ִכי‬What, then, is the meaning of: If one produced it for the purpose ,‫ית ּה נַ ִמי ִל ׁ ְש ִכ ָיבה‬ ָ ָ‫ ְס ָתם ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬:‫ ָק ָא ַמר‬of lying upon it, that Rabbi Eliezer states? This is what he is saying: . ְ‫יכוּך‬ ּ ‫ ַעד דְּ ָע ֵביד ְל ִס‬Making mats without designation is also for the purpose of lying upon it, until one makes it specifically for roofing. ,‫ ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ׁ ֶשל ׁ ִש ָיפה וְ ׁ ֶשל ֶ ּג ִמי‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ ְק ַט ָּנה – ֵאין‬,‫דֹולה – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּג‬ ,‫ ׁ ֶשל ָקנִים וְ ׁ ֶשל ֵח ָילת‬.‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ ֲארוּגָ ה – ֵאין‬,‫דֹולה – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּג‬ .‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬

§ The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In the case of a mat [maĥatzelet]

woven of papyrusb or bulrushes,b if it is a large mat, one may roof a sukka with it, as it is not typically produced for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is a small mat, one may not roof a sukka with it, as it is typically produced for the purpose of lying upon it. However, with regard to a mat produced of ordinary reeds or reeds specifically used for plaiting, if the mat is plaited with a large, coarse weave, one may roof a sukka with it, as it was certainly not produced for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is woven with a small, fine weave, one may not roof the sukka with it, as typically mats of this sort are woven only for the purpose of lying upon them.

‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his .‫ ַא ַחת זֹו וְ ַא ַחת זֹו ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ּה‬:‫ ָא ִביו‬father: Both with this plaited mat and with that woven mat, one .‫אֹומר ִּכ ְד ָב ָריו‬ ֵ ‫ֹוסא‬ ָ ּ‫ וְ ֵכן ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ד‬may roof a sukka, as without specific designation otherwise they are not produced for the purpose of lying upon them, and therefore they are ritually pure. And likewise, Rabbi Dosa would say in accordance with his statement. ‫ ָּכל ַהחֹוצָ לֹות ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין‬:‫ ְּתנַ ן ָה ָתם‬We learned in a mishna there: All types of ĥotzalot can become ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫ֹוסא‬ ָ ּ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ד‬,‫ ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. Since their legal status is that of a vessel, they become a primary source of rit.‫ ִמ ְד ָרס‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ual impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: They become impure with the impurity imparted by treading. If a zav lies or sits on one of the ĥotzalot, they become a primary source of ritual impurity, like a chair or bed of a zav. ‫ ְט ֵמא ֵמת – ָלא? וְ ָהא‬,‫ ִמ ְד ָרס – ִאין‬The Gemara asks: Impurity imparted by treading, yes; impurity ‫ ָּכל ַה ִמ ַּט ֵּמא ִמ ְד ָרס ִמ ַּט ֵּמא‬:‫ ֲאנַ ן ְּתנַ ן‬imparted by a corpse, no? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: Any .‫ ַאף ִמ ְד ָרס‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ְט ֵמא ֵמת! ֵא‬item that becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading also becomes ritually impure with other types of impurity, including impurity imparted by a corpse,h although the reverse is not necessarily so. The opinion of the Rabbis is difficult. The Gemara explains: Emend the mishna and say: They become ritually impure even with the impurity imparted by treading.n These mats are not merely nondescript vessels, which become primary sources of ritual impurity through exposure to a corpse, they are vessels designated for sitting and lying upon them, and therefore they also become primary sources of ritual impurity if a zav sits or lies upon them. background

92 

Perek I . 20a . ‫כ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

Papyrus [shifa] – ‫ש ָיפה‬: ִ ׁ According to Rashi’s identification, the Hebrew word shifa might refer to the papyrus sedge plant, Cyperus papyrus L., which grows in streams and swamps and is used in various industries. Its outer, harder section was traditionally used in the weaving of mats, while paper was manufactured from its inner part in ancient Egypt and other countries. These soft, inner parts were also converted into strips with which objects could be tied or which were occasionally used to bandage wounds.

Bulrushes [gemi] – ‫ג ִמי‬:ּ ֶ Rashi’s translation of this word into the Old French jonc refers to the rush family. Here, gemi may be referring to the spiny rush, Juncus acutus, which grows throughout Europe and the Middle East. The spiny rush thrives in both wet and dry soil and can grow up to 150 cm in length. It has hard, long, cylindrical leaves that can be quite sharp. Bulrushes have long been used for animal fodder and for weaving mats and baskets.

Papyrus sedge

Spiny rush

‫ימי ַ ּבר‬ ִ ִּ‫ַמאי חֹוצָ לֹות? ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ְבד‬ ‫זֹוב ֵלי? ָא ַמר‬ ְ ‫ ַמאי ַמ ְר‬.‫זֹוב ֵלי‬ ְ ‫ ַמ ְר‬:‫ַה ְמדו ִּרי‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬.‫ ְמ ְ ּזַב ֵלי‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ .‫ ַמ ְחצָ לֹות ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ

The Gemara asks about the term used in the mishna: What is the meaning of ĥotzalot? Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri said: They are marzovelei. The Gemara is unfamiliar with the term and asks: What is the meaning of marzovelei? Rabbi Abba said: They are called mezablein in Babylonia. They are leather sacks used by shepherds to feed their animals. Shepherds place them under their heads when lying down. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Ĥotzalot are a different term for actual mats.

‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ָאזְ ָדא ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ְל ַט ֲע ֵמ‬ ‫ ֲה ֵרינִי ַּכ ּ ָפ ַרת ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬:‫ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה ְּכ ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ְּכ ָחה ּת ָֹורה‬.‫ו ָּבנָיו‬ ,‫ִמּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ָע ָלה ֶעזְ ָרא ִמ ָ ּב ֶבל וְ יִ ְּס ָד ּה‬ ‫נִש ַּת ְּכ ָחה ָע ָלה ִה ֵּלל ַה ַ ּב ְב ִלי‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ָחזְ ָרה ו‬ ‫נִש ַּת ְּכ ָחה ָעל ּו ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ ָחזְ ָרה ו‬,‫וְ יִ ְּס ָד ּה‬ :‫ וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ו ָּבנָיו‬.‫ו ָּבנָיו וְ יִ ְּסדו ָּה‬ ‫ֹוסא וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַעל‬ ָ ּ‫ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו ַר ִ ּבי ד‬ ‫ַמ ְחצָ לֹות ׁ ֶשל או ׁ ָּשא‬

The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Reish Lakish said: I am the atonement forn Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons,p as initially, when some of the Torah laws were forgotten from the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, Ezra ascended from Babylonia and reestablished the forgotten laws. Parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, and Hillel the Babylonian ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. When parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections.n This expression of deference toward Rabbi Ĥiyya introduces the halakha that Reish Lakish is citing in his name. And so said Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons: Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis did not disagree concerning the soft mats of Usha,

notes

Mezablei – ‫זַב ֵלי‬ ּ ְ ‫מ‬:ְ Some explain that these are mats woven like narrow curtains that are subsequently attached (Arukh). Others explain that these are used by shepherds, who occasionally roll them up and place them under their heads (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; see Rashi).

a combination of Torah and greatness not seen since the days of Moses, lived there. If the discussion is restricted to certain halakhot whose traditions were unclear in Eretz Yisrael, the comment of the Gemara is more easily understood (Ritva). Alternatively, one could suggest that Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons disseminated Torah in Eretz Yisrael to prevent it from I am the atonement for – ‫ה ֵרינִי ַּכ ּ ָפ ַרת‬:ֲ The expression means: being forgotten in the first place (Ritva). Another possibility is I accept upon myself the afflictions of so-and-so (Arukh). This that with each wave of immigration, the Sages brought with expression is customarily used for the twelve months followthem novel elements and approaches from Babylonia. Ezra ing the death of one’s father or teacher. Reish Lakish, however, reestablished the study of the oral tradition, that suffered in out of great devotion, continued to do so although years had Eretz Yisrael and thrived in Babylonia with the exile of the elite, already passed since the death of Rabbi Ĥiyya (Rav Ya’akov eleven years prior to the destruction of the first Temple; Hillel Emden). brought with him innovative Talmudic methodology; and Ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections – …ּ‫ ָעלו‬Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons introduced the study of baraitot to ‫וְ יִ ְּסדו ָּה‬: Rashi explained that they did not forget the whole augment study of the Mishna (Arukh LaNer). Others explained Torah. Rather, they forgot certain halakhot, and these Sages that Rabbi Ĥiyya brought the principles of halakhic ruling from came and reestablished them. This explanation avoids the Babylonia. In addition, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi forgot much of his question of what Torah Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons reestablished learning due to illness, and Rabbi Ĥiyya reviewed it with him in Eretz Yisrael when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, in whom there was and reminded him. Personalities

Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons – ‫ר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ו ָּבנָיו‬:ַ Rabbi Ĥiyya ben Abba from the city of Kafri in Babylonia was among the last tanna’im. Rabbi Ĥiyya descended from a family of distinguished lineage that traced its ancestry back to King David and produced many prominent Sages. While he was still in Babylonia, Rabbi Ĥiyya was considered a Torah luminary. When he came to Eretz Yisrael, he became a disciple and a colleague of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who redacted the Mishna and with whom he had a very close relationship. He was especially close to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was also his business partner. Rabbi Ĥiyya was among the prominent Torah scholars in his generation and was the right-hand man of his nephew Rav, who, although he was known as the Rabbi of all of Israel, received certain traditions from Rabbi Ĥiyya. In addition to his prominence as a Torah scholar, Rabbi Ĥiyya was outstanding in his piety, as reflected in several anecdotes throughout the Talmud. His most significant project was the redaction he did with his disciple-colleague, Rabbi Oshaya, of an anthology of external mishnayot to complement the Mishna. Their anthology was considered to be most authoritative, to the point that it was said that any baraita



that was not reviewed by them is unfit to enter the study hall. Some believe that he edited the Tosefta. Apparently, upon his arrival in Eretz Yisrael, he received financial support from the house of the Nasi; however, his primary livelihood was from international trade, primarily of silk. He had twin daughters, Pazi and Tavi, who were the matriarchs of distinguished families of Torah scholars. He also had twin sons: Yehuda, son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, and Ĥizkiya. Both were among the leading Torah scholars in the transitional generation between tanna’im and amora’im, and they apparently replaced him at the head of his private yeshiva in the city of his residence, Tiberias. All of the students of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi were his friends, and he was close with the tanna Rabbi Shimon ben Ĥalafta. The younger students of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Rabbi Ĥanina, Rabbi Oshaya, Rabbi Yannai, and others, studied Torah from him and were, to a certain degree, his students as well. His primary disciples were his brothers’ sons, Rabba bar Ĥana, and above all, the great amora, Rav. He also appears as a central character in the Zohar. Rabbi Ĥiyya was buried in Tiberias, and his two sons were later buried beside him. ‫כ ףד‬. ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 20a 

93

Perek I Daf 20 Amud b notes

That has an upturned edge – ‫יה ְ ּג ַדנְ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫דְּ ִאית ֵל‬: This upturned edge, regardless of its size, turns the mat into a wooden receptacle, which is a vessel susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, there is no need to ascertain whether or not the mat is designated for sitting upon it, as it is unfit for roofing in any case. Upturned edge [gedanpa] – ‫ ְ ּג ַדנְ ּ ָפא‬: This is the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew misgeret, meaning rim or frame. Its primary root is gpa, meaning side or wing. Covers for vats of ale – ‫אתא‬ ָ ָ‫נַזְ י‬: See Tosafot. Apparently, there is a distinction between mats that are used temporarily as covers and those initially designated as covers for vessels. The latter are considered part of that vessel (see Arukh LaNer). halakha

Mats that have edges – ‫מ ְחצָ לֹות ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָל ֶהן ָ ׂש ָפה‬:ַ Any mat that has an upturned edge is rendered a receptacle and may not be used in roofing the sukka, even if the edge is subsequently turned down. This ruling is in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:6). language

Sacks [gulkei] – ‫ ּגו ְּל ֵקי‬: From the Middle Persian guwālak, which means sack.

94 

Perek I . 20b . ‫כ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳א‬

‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵהן ְט ֵמאֹות‬ ‫ ַעל ַמה ֶּנ ְח ְלק ּו – ַעל ׁ ְש ָאר‬.‫ְטהֹורֹות‬ ‫יכא דְּ יָ ֵתיב‬ ָּ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ֵל‬:‫ ָמר ָס ַבר‬.‫ְמקֹומֹות‬ :‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ֲע ַליְ יה ּו – ִּכ ְד ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א דָּ ְמיָ ין‬ ‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִמ ְק ֵרי וְ יָ ְת ִבי ֲע ַליְ יה ּו – ִּכ ְדאו ׁ ָּשא‬ .‫דָּ ְמיָ ין‬

that they can become ritually impure, even with impurity imparted by treading, as those mats are produced for the purpose of lying upon them. And they also agreed concerning the coarse mats of Tiberias, that they are ritually pure, as these are produced exclusively for use in partitions and for roofing. Concerning what mats do they disagree? It is concerning the mats produced in the rest of the places. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Since there is no one who sits on these mats regularly, they are comparable to the mats of Tiberias and are pure. And one Sage, Rabbi Ĥiyya, holds that since it happens and one sits on them on occasion, they are comparable to the mats of Usha and are impure.

‫ ָּכל ַהחֹוצָ לֹות ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין ְט ֵמא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָמר‬The Gemara analyzes the mishna cited above. The Master said: All ‫ וְ ֵכן ָהיָה‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬.‫ֹוסא‬ ָ ּ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ד‬,‫ ֵמת‬types of ĥotzalot can become ritually impure with impurity im!‫אֹומר ִּכ ְד ָב ָריו‬ ֵ ‫ֹוסא‬ ָ ּ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ד‬parted by a corpse; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. Apparently, they are all considered vessels, which is why they are susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof the sukka with them. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in the baraita: And likewise, Rabbi Dosa would say in accordance with his statement, i.e., in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the name of his father, that all types of mats are ritually pure, and one may roof a sukka with them? Don’t these two sources contradict each other? ,‫יה ְ ּג ַדנְ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ִאית ֵל‬:‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This mishna is referring to nh .‫יה ְ ּג ַדנְ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ֵלית ֵל‬a mat that has an upturned edge, which renders the mat a vessel susceptible to ritual impurity. That baraita is referring to a mat that does not have an upturned edge [gedanpa];n therefore, it is not a vessel and is not susceptible to impurity. ‫ חֹוצָ לֹות ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַעם וְ ׁ ֶשל‬:‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ֶ ּג ִמי וְ ׁ ֶשל ַ ׂשק וְ ׁ ֶשל ְס ִפ ָירא – ִמ ַּט ֵּמא‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ֹוסא‬ ָ ּ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ד‬,‫ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬ .‫ ַאף ִמ ְד ָרס‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ

The Gemara raises an objection: Ĥotzalot made of papyrus, or of bulrushes, or of sackcloth produced out of goat hair, or of horsehair, all of which are woven and comfortable, can become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse but not with the impurity imparted by treading, because while they are considered vessels, they are not designated for sitting; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: They do become ritually impure, even with the impurity imparted by treading.

‫זֹוב ֵלי – ׁ ֶשל‬ ְ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַמ ְר‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשל‬,‫ׁ ַש ַעם וְ ׁ ֶשל ֶ ּג ִמי ֲחז ּו ִכינְ ָתא דְּ ֵפ ֵירי‬ .‫ַ ׂשק וְ ׁ ֶשל ְס ִפ ָירא – ֲחז ּו ְלגו ְּל ֵקי וְ צַ ּנֵי‬ ,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַמ ְחצָ לֹות ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ׁ ֶשל ַ ׂשק וְ ׁ ֶשל ְס ִפ ָירא – ֲחז ּו‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַעם וְ ׁ ֶשל‬,‫ותא‬ ָ ָ‫ִל ְפ ָר ֵסי וְ נַ ְפו‬ .‫אתא‬ ָ ָ‫ֶ ּג ִמי ְל ַמאי ֲחזוּ? ֲחז ּו ְלנַ זְ י‬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that ĥotzalot are sacks called marzovelei, there is no problem. The reasoning of the one who holds that they do not become impure with impurity imparted by treading is that they are not designated for sitting. However, since they are vessels, they become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And for what are these vessels used? The vessels made of papyrus and of bulrushes are fit to be used as a fruit basket, and the ones made of sackcloth and of horsehair are fit to be used as small sacks [gulkei]l and baskets for legumes and small fruits, because their weave is finer. However, according to the one who said that ĥotzalot are actual mats without upturned edges, what is the basis for the dispute? These mats are fit only for the purpose of lying upon them. Granted, the mats made of sackcloth, of goat hair, or of horsehair are fit for use as screens and flour sifters. However, the mats of papyrus and of bulrushes, for what use are they fit? The Gemara answers: They are fit for use as covers for vats of ale.

‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַעם וְ ׁ ֶשל‬, ‫ַמ ְחצָ לֹות ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשל ַ ׂשק וְ ׁ ֶשל‬,‫אתא‬ ָ ָ‫ֶ ּג ִמי – ֲחז ּו ְלנַ זְ י‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ותא‬ ָ ָ‫ְס ִפ ָירא – ֲחז ּו ִל ְפ ָר ֵסי וְ נַ ְפו‬ ‫זֹוב ֵלי – ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ׁ ֶשל‬ ְ ‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַמ ְר‬ ,‫ַ ׂשק וְ ׁ ֶשל ְס ִפ ָירא – ֲחז ּו ְלגו ְּל ֵקי וְ צַ ּנֵי‬ ?ּ‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַעם וְ ׁ ֶשל ֶ ּג ִמי ְל ַמאי ֲחזו‬ .‫ֲחז ּו ְל ִכינְ ָתא דְּ ֵפ ֵירי‬

Some say a different version of this exchange: Granted, according to the one who said that ĥotzalot are actual mats, then the mats of papyrus and of bulrushes are fit to be used as covers for vats of ale,n while those of sackcloth, i.e., goat hair, and of horsehair may be used as screens or sifters. However, according to the one who said that the ĥotzalot are sacks called marzovelei, what is the basis of their dispute? Granted, sacks made of sackcloth and of horsehair are fit to be used as small baskets and sacks; but for what are mats of papyrus or of bulrushes fit; why are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: They are fit to be used as a fruit basket.

‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשּיָ ַר ְד ִּתי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנַ נְ יָ ה‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ :‫ וְ ָא ַמר ִלי‬,‫אתי זָ ֵקן ֶא ָחד‬ ִ ָ‫ַלגּ ָֹולה ָמצ‬ ‫אתי ֵאצֶ ל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָ ּב‬,‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ְ ּבבו ְּדיָ א‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫הֹודה ִל ְד ָב ָריו‬ ָ ‫יְהֹוש ַע ֲא ִחי ַא ָ ּבא‬ ֻׁ .‫יה ְ ּג ַדנְ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ וְ הוּא דְּ ֵלית ֵל‬:‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ĥananya said: When I descended to the exile of Babylonia, I found one Elder, who said to me: One may roof the sukka with a mat. When I returned to Eretz Yisrael and came to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya, the brother of my father, and related to him what the Elder said, he agreed with his statement. Rav Ĥisda said: That applies only to a mat that does not have an upturned edge and is not fit for any use other than for roofing.

,‫ ָהנֵי ּבו ְּדיָ ָתא דִּ ְבנֵי ְמחֹוזָ א‬:‫ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬ .ּ‫ִא ְל ָמ ֵלא ִקיר ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן – ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ְ ּבהו‬ ‫ וְ ִאם‬,‫ ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ְ ּבבו ְּדיָ א‬:‫ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ .‫יֵ ׁש ָל ֶהן ִקיר – ֵאין ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ָ ּב ֶהן‬

Ulla said: These mats of the residents of Meĥoza, if not for their wall, i.e., upturned edge, one would be permitted to roof a sukka with them. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One may roof the sukka with a mat; and if they have a wall, one may not roof a sukka with them because the upturned edge renders it a receptacle susceptible to ritual impurity.

‫הדרן עלך סוכה‬



‫כ ףד‬: ‫ ׳א קרפ‬. Perek I . 20b 

95

Summary of Perek I This chapter summarized most of the halakhot relating to the sukka itself and its construction: Its structure, its dimensions, the materials with which it is constructed, and the manner in which it is constructed. In terms of the height of the sukka, there are two significant parameters. A sukka may be no less than ten handbreadths high and no more than twenty cubits high. With regard to its area, the sukka may be no less than seven by seven handbreadths. There is no upper limit for its area. A sukka may be square, round, or any other shape, as long as its walls and roof are distinct. With regard to a square sukka, a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai says that there must be at least two full-fledged walls that extend the full length of the sukka and a third wall that is at least one handbreadth long. There was extensive discussion with regard to a sukka whose walls are incomplete, as two of the walls must be actual, conspicuous walls and not merely symbolic walls. Therefore, it was necessary to define what is considered a wall for the purposes of a sukka. The essence of a sukka is its roofing. While the walls may consist of any material, provided that they are sturdy and support the roofing, the roofing must consist of material that grows from the ground and is no longer connected to the ground when placed on the sukka and that is not susceptible to ritual impurity. The Sages were stringent with regard to the latter criterion; they prohibited not only the use of complete vessels, but also the use of broken vessels, even though once broken they are no longer susceptible to impurity. Similarly, they prohibited the use of certain objects, e.g., mats, even though their status with regard to becoming ritually impure is indeterminate. Even in terms of its construction, the roofing is the essence of the sukka. Although halakhically, the construction of a sukka has no set time, and one is not required to have specific intention when building it, there is a principle that applies here and in other areas of halakha: Prepare it, and not from that which is already prepared, which requires one to place the roofing after the walls are already standing and to do so with the express intent of using it as roofing. This halakha invalidates a sukka whose roofing was placed on a structure for a purpose other than roofing the sukka and subsequently declared that it is roofing for a sukka. The halakha is that a sukka may be constructed anywhere, on public or private property. However, in addition to being properly constructed, a sukka must be fit for use. Therefore, one may construct a sukka neither beneath another sukka, nor beneath a tree or a house. The details of these halakhot as well as other halakhot of sukka, e.g., the halakha of a curved wall, were elucidated in this chapter. In addition, several other areas of halakha were discussed as they relate to fundamental issues of sukka.

97

In sukkot shall you reside seven days; all the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot. (Leviticus 23:42) So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves sukkot, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the House of God, and in the broad place of the water gate, and in the broad place of the gate of Ephraim. And all the congregation of them that came back out of the captivity made sukkot, and resided in the sukkot; as since the days of Joshua bin Nun until that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness. (Nehemiah 8:16–17)

Introduction to Perek II

The Torah commands the children of Israel to reside in a sukka for seven days. This chapter deals primarily with defining the phrase: Shall you reside. What are the nature and parameters of this residence? Here too, this question includes several aspects. One is the duration of this residence. When is one obligated to reside in the sukka? Is it only during the day, or is it at night as well? Must one stay in the sukka throughout the day, or is the obligation restricted to specific times? Another question concerns the essence of this residence. Is the mitzva simply to reside in the sukka, or is one obligated to eat and sleep there as well? If the latter, are there objective measures that characterize eating, drinking, and sleeping that must be performed in the sukka, or are these determined by the desires of each individual? In addition, who is obligated to fulfill the mitzva? Are all Jewish men, women, and children obligated to reside in the sukka, or is the mitzva incumbent only on certain individuals? Is the obligation in effect throughout the Festival without exceptions, or only under certain conditions? Others questions arise with regard to the manner of this residence. Must one sit in the sukka without any barriers or obstructions between him and the roofing of the sukka, so that it is clear that he is residing in the sukka? Or in the interest of comfort, may one place a barrier between himself and the roofing? In particular, may one cover himself or cover the sukka, or does putting any barrier between him and the roofing prevent fulfillment of the mitzva in its fullest sense? When the mitzva of residence in the sukka is analyzed, it leads to different conclusions with regard to the manner in which the sukka is constructed and its basic structure. The question is whether in order to fulfill the mitzva, one must reside in a sukka that will be fit for residence for the entire Festival, or whether it is sufficient that the sukka is fit for residence at the moment in question and its status throughout the rest of the Festival is irrelevant. Resolving the fundamental problems with regard to residence in the sukka and the peripheral problems that stem from questions about preparing the structure of the sukka is the focus of this chapter.

99

Perek II Daf 20 Amud b – ‫מתני׳ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ל ֹא יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬ ‫נֹוהגִ ין ָהיִ ינ ּו ׁ ֶש ָהיִ ינ ּו יְ ׁ ֵשנִים ַּת ַחת‬ ֲ ‫ַה ִּמ ָּטה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַהּזְ ֵקנִים וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו ָלנ ּו‬ .‫דָּ ָבר‬

‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ָט ִבי ַע ְבדּ ֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ‫יאל ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה יָ ׁ ֵשן ַּת ַחת‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶשל ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬,‫ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫יתם ָט ִבי ַע ְבדִּ י‬ ֶ ‫ ְר ִא‬:‫ַלּזְ ֵקנִים‬ ‫יֹוד ַע ׁ ֶש ֲע ָב ִדים ּ ְפטו ִּרין‬ ֵ ְ‫ַּת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכם ו‬ ‫יכ ְך יָ ׁ ֵשן הוּא ַּת ַחת‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִפ‬,‫ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ו ְּל ִפי דַּ ְר ֵּכינ ּו ָל ַמ ְדנ ּו ׁ ֶש ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן‬.‫ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ .‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה ל ֹא יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬

‫יכא ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה! ִּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא‬ ָּ ‫גמ׳ וְ ָהא ֵל‬ .‫ ְ ּב ִמ ָּטה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬

‫ ֶא ָחד חֹור ׁ ֶש ֲח ָררוּה ּו ַמיִ ם‬:‫ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן‬,‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ֲא ָכ ַל ּת ּו ַמ ַּל ַחת‬,‫אֹו ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים‬ – ‫ וְ ֵכן ְסוָ אר ׁ ֶשל קֹורֹות‬,‫ִמ ְד ַ ּבךּ ֲא ָבנִים‬ .‫ַמ ֲא ִהיל ַעל ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬

mishna 

One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukkanh did not fulfill his obligation, because the bed constitutes a tent that serves as a barrier between him and the roofing of the sukka. Rabbi Yehuda said: It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bedn before the Elders and they did not say anything to us to the effect that we are not fulfilling our obligation. Apparently, the halakhic status of the bed is not like that of a tent and it does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva.

§ Rabbi Shimon said, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving Tavi,p the Canaanite slave of Rabban Gamliel, who was sleeping beneath the bed, and Rabbi Gamliel lightheartedly said to the Elders: Did you see my slave Tavi,n who is a Torah scholar and knows that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? Since it is a positive, timebound mitzva, Canaanite slaves, whose status with regard to this halakhic category is like that of women, are exempt from the obligation to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. Therefore, he sleeps under the bed. Rabbi Shimon continued: And by the way, as Rabban Gamliel was not issuing a halakhic ruling, we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

gemara 

The mishna states that one who is sleeping beneath a bed did not fulfill his obligation because a bed, like a tent, acts as a barrier between the person and the roofing. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the height of the space beneath the bed lacking ten handbreadths, and a space less than ten handbreadths high does not constitute a tent? Shmuel interpreted the mishna: It is referring to the case of a bed ten handbreadths high.

notes

One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukka – ‫ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַּת ַחת‬ ‫ה ִּמ ָּטה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬:ַ There are two primary opinions in explanation of the problem with sleeping beneath a bed. One opinion is that the legal status of a bed is like that of a tent; therefore, sleeping beneath a bed is tantamount to residing in a tent and not beneath the roofing of a sukka. Although the bed is only a temporary tent, the sukka too is a temporary structure that can be negated by the temporary structure of the bed (Rashi; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Me’iri). According to that opinion, the prohibition against sleeping beneath the bed applies by rabbinic law (Baĥ). Others explain that the prohibition is due to the fact that a bed of appropriate size is essentially a sukka beneath a sukka (Rif; Rosh; and see Rabbeinu Ĥananel and Me’iri). According to that opinion, sleeping beneath the bed is prohibited by Torah law (Baĥ). The early authorities discussed the difficulties inherent in each of these opinions (see Ritva). It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bed – ‫יְשנִים ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫נֹוהגִ ין ָהיִ ינ ּו ׁ ֶש ָהיִ ינ ּו‬: ֲ From the Jerusalem Talmud it appears, at least in its initial assumption, that Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree with the basic halakha that one does not fulfill his obligation under a bed in the sukka. Rather, he is underscoring the significance of Torah study. One may sit beneath a bed in order to study Torah in the sukka (see Jerusalem Talmud). Did you see my slave Tavi – ‫ר ִא ֶיתם ָט ִבי ַע ְבדִּ י‬:ְ This incident is discussed in the Jerusalem Talmud. The question arises: Why would it be prohibited for a slave to sleep in a sukka? Although he has no obligation to sleep in the sukka, he is entitled to fulfill the mitzva. In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained that he did not sit beneath the bed to avoid transgressing a prohibition. Rather, the sukka was crowded and there was no room for him. Nevertheless, because he wanted to participate in the discussion of matters of Torah in the sukka, he sat beneath the bed.

The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there with regard to the impurity of a tent: Both a hole that was perforated in a rock by water or by creeping animals, or a hole in a rock that was perforated because it was eaten away by salt, and likewise a space in a course of stones, and likewise a space in a pile of beams all have the legal status of a tent over impurity.h A source of impurity imparted by a corpse transmits impurity to other objects in those spaces, as they constitute a tent over a corpse.

‫ ָּכל א ֶֹהל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬Rabbi Yehuda says: The legal status of any tent that is not estab‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ָע ׂשוּי ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם – ֵאינֹו א ֶֹהל‬lished by a person is not that of a tent and does not transmit ?‫ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where did he derive that halakha?

halakha

One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukka – ‫ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַּת ַחת‬ ‫ה ִּמ ָּטה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬:ַ If one sleeps beneath a bed at least ten handbreadths high in a sukka he does not fulfill his obligation, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the Mishna, as explained by Shmuel (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 627:1).

handbreadth long, wide, and high is that of a tent with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. It imparts impurity to all objects susceptible to impurity in that space and serves as a barrier preventing the spread of impurity beyond the space. There is no difference whether the space was created intentionally or inadvertently, in accordance with the opinion What kind of space is called a tent for impurity – ‫ ֵאיזֶ ה ָח ָלל‬of the Sages in tractate Oholot (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot ‫קרוּי א ֶֹהל ְלטו ְּמ ָאה‬:ָ The legal status of any space at least one Tumat Met 13:1). Personalities

Tavi – ‫ט ִבי‬:ָ Tavi was the slave of Rabban Gamliel of Yavne and was acknowledged for his propriety and erudition. He was highly praised by his master and other Sages. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria spoke in hyperbole, saying: Where are you, Canaan, who rendered his descendants liable…by right he should be reclining at the meal and I should be the one serving



him. Rabban Gamliel sought to liberate him but was unsuccessful due to the prohibition against liberating a Canaanite slave. When Tavi died, Rabban Gamliel accepted condolences as one would for a close family member. He explained: My slave, Tavi, is not like all the rest of the slaves; he was virtuous. ‫כ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 20b 

101

Perek II Daf 21 Amud a notes

A grave in the depths – ‫ק ֶבר ַה ְּתהֹום‬:ֶ A grave in the depths refers to an uncertainty based on the distant possibility that a corpse is buried there even though there is no evidence that the source exists. And they would bring pregnant women – ‫נָשים עו ָ ּּברֹות‬ ִ ׁ ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ו ְּמ ִב‬: The commentaries already proved that this extra precaution was taken only to prevent impurity imparted by a corpse. However, they could not avoid all types of impurity, e.g., the impurity of a menstruating woman or a woman after childbirth (see Me’iri). Nevertheless, they limited the drawing of water to children up to age seven or eight, with regard to whom there is no concern that they will experience a seminal emission. Apparently, they were especially vigilant in preventing impurity caused by bodily emissions (see Ritva and others). Higher standards of purity with regard to the red heifer – ‫ַמ ֲעלֹות‬ ‫ב ָפ ָרה ֲאדו ָּּמה‬:ּ ְ The Sages explained why higher standards of purity were instituted for the red heifer ritual. In order to demonstrate that the opinion of the Sadducees was rejected, they would purposely impurify the priest who was to burn the red heifer and then immediately have him immerse for purification. The Sages held, contrary to the opinion of the Sadducees, that even one who immersed during that day could perform that ritual. As a result, there were those who treated the purity required in preparing the red heifer with contempt. Therefore, the Sages instituted higher standards of purity to completely distance the priest from impurity, and imposed restrictions that are not imposed in comparable cases (see Rashi). Due to the rarity of the burning of red heifers, as only nine, and some say seven, were burned throughout history, several stringencies were imposed. Earlier generations took extraordinary steps to that end, e.g., construction of a bridge connecting the location of the burning of the red heifer on the Mount of Olives with the Temple Mount. background

When they reached the Siloam pool – ‫ה ִ ּגיע ּו ַל ׁ ּ ִשילּ ַֹוח‬‎ִ : The Siloam pool is a pool hewed in rock on the southern slope of the City of David, southeast of the Old City of Jerusalem outside the walls. Water from the Giĥon Spring filled the pool, carried there by two aqueducts. Only in the early twenty-first century did archaeological excavations uncover this Second Temple pool.

Taking water from the Siloam pool

‫יָ ֵליף א ֶֹהל א ֶֹהל ִמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן; ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ״זֹאת ַה ּת ָֹורה ָא ָדם ִּכי‬:‫ָה ָכא‬ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬,‫יָ מוּת ְ ּבא ֶֹהל״‬ ,‫״וַ ּיִ ְפרֹשׂ ֶאת ָהא ֶֹהל ַעל ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן״‬ ‫ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם – ַאף ָּכאן‬ ‫ א ֶֹהל א ֶֹהל‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם‬ .‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ִר‬

He derives by means of a verbal analogy that only a man-made tent transmits impurity, deriving the tent written with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse from the tent written with regard to the Tabernacle. It is written here with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse: “This is the teaching when a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14). And it is written there with regard to the Tabernacle: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle” (Exodus 40:19). Just as there, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent was established by a person, so too here, with regard to impurity of a corpse, it is a tent established by a person. And according to the Rabbis, because the passage dealing with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., tent tent, is repeated several times, this amplifies and includes any structure that provides shelter, even if it is not a standard tent.

‫וְ ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה ָּכל א ֶֹה ל‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָע ׂשוּי ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם ֵאינֹו‬ ‫ ֲחצֵ ירֹות ָהי ּו‬:‫א ֶֹהל? ּו ְר ִמינְ ה ּו‬ ‫ְ ּבנ ּו יֹות ִ ּביר ּו ׁ ָש ַל יִ ם ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬ ‫יהם ָח ָלל ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַת ְח ֵּת‬,‫ַה ֶּס ַלע‬ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ּו ְמ ִב‬,‫ֶק ֶבר ַה ְּתהֹום‬ ‫ ו ְּמגַ דְּ לֹות‬,‫יֹולדֹות ׁ ָשם‬ ְ ְ‫עו ָ ּּברֹות ו‬ .‫נֵיהם ׁ ָשם ַל ּ ָפ ָרה‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב‬

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that the legal status of any tent that is not established by a person is not that of a tent? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Para 3:2): Courtyards were built in Jerusalem atop the rock, and beneath these courtyards there was a space of at least a handbreadth due to the concern lest there is a grave in the depths.n In that case, the space served as a barrier preventing the impurity from reaching the courtyards above. And they would bring pregnant women,n and they would give birth there in those courtyards. And they would raise their children there and would not leave there with the children until they grew. All this was done so that the children would be untainted by any impurity and would be able to assist in the ritual of the red heifer,n whose ashes are used to purify those impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫יאין ׁ ְשוָ ִורים וְ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּב‬ ִ ‫ּו ְמ ִב‬ ‫יֹוש ִבין ַעל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ִתינֹוקֹות‬,‫דְּ ָלתֹות‬ .‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫יהן וְ כֹוסֹות ׁ ֶשל ֶא ֶבן ִ ּב ֵיד‬ ֶ ‫ַ ּג ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ִה ִ ּגיע ּו ַל ׁ ּ ִש‬ ‫תֹוך‬ ְ ‫יל ַֹוח – יָ ְרד ּו ְל‬ ‫ וְ ָעל ּו וְ יָ ׁ ְשב ּו‬,‫ילא ּום‬ ְ ‫ַה ַּמיִ ם ּו ִמ‬ ‫ ִמ ְּמקֹומֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ָל ֶהם‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ֶק ֶבר‬,‫ָהיָה ְמ ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ֵשל ו ְּמ ַמ ֵּלא‬ .‫ַה ְּתהֹום‬

And once they reached age seven or eight and were capable of assisting in the performance of this ritual, the priests would bring oxen there. And they would place doors on the backs of these oxen, and the children would sit upon the doors and they would hold cups of stone, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity, in their hands. When they reached the Siloam pool,b they descended into the water and filled the cups with water, and ascended and sat themselves on the doors. The water in the cups was mixed with the ashes of the heifer and used for sprinkling on the impure person or vessels. Rabbi Yosei says: The children did not descend from their oxen; rather, each child from his place on the door would lower the cup with a rope and fill it with waterh due to the concern lest there is a grave in the depths beneath the path leading from the oxen to the pool.

‫ ל ֹא ָהי ּו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬,‫וְ ַתנְיָא‬ .‫יאין דְּ ָלתֹות ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְשוָ ִורים‬ ִ ‫ְמ ִב‬ ‫ דְּ א ֶֹהל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬,‫וְ ָהא ׁ ְשוָ ִורים‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ָעשׂ וּי ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם הוּא‬ ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ל ֹא ָהי ּו ְמ ִב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ !‫דְּ ָלתֹות ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְשוָ ִורים‬

And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: They would not bring doors; rather they would bring only oxen. The size of the spinal column and the body of the animal was sufficient to constitute a tent and therefore served as a barrier before the impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. And this is difficult, as aren’t oxen a tent that is not established by a person; and it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: They did not bring doors; rather they brought only oxen. Apparently, the legal status of a tent that is not man-made is that of a tent.

halakha

Drawing water for the waters of purification – ‫ׁ ְש ִא ַיבת ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ל ֵמי ַח ַּטאת‬:ְ Among the many higher standards instituted by the Sages with regard to purification waters is that they should be drawn by children who never became impure. How was that accomplished? There were courtyards in Jeru­ salem built on rock under which there was a hollow space. Pregnant women were brought there to give birth. When they wanted to sprinkle the purification waters on the priest

Siloam pool

102 

Perek II . 21a . ‫אכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

who was to burn the red heifer, they would bring oxen carrying doors on their backs to the courtyard. The children sat on the doors, and when they reached the Siloam pool, they would descend and fill stone cups with water. They then remained on the doors until they reached the Temple Mount. This procedure was performed in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 2:7).

:‫ימי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ִ ִּ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬ ‫ ַּתנְיָ א‬.‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִּכ ְמל ֹא ֶאגְ רֹוף‬ ֶ ‫יפין‬ ִ ‫ּמֹודה ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִק‬ ֶ ‫ ו‬:‫נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ .‫ו ִּבנְ ִק ֵיקי ַה ְּס ָל ִעים‬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the legal status of a tent that is not man-made is that of a tent when the tent is a fistbreadth,n which is more than a handbreadth in terms of length, width, and height. It is only when the tent is less than the size of a fist that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is not a tent. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of caves and deep cavities in the rocks that their status is that of a tent even though they are not manmade.

,‫רֹופין‬ ִ ְ‫ דְּ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ַּכ ָּמה ֶאג‬,‫וַ ֲה ֵרי דֶּ ֶלת‬ ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ל ֹא ָהי ּו ְמ ִב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫וְ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫דְּ ָלתֹות ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְשוָ ִורים! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ .‫הוּצְ ְרכ ּו ְל ָה ִביא דְּ ָלתֹות‬

The Gemara asks: But a door on the back of an ox is an object that measures several fistbreadths, and it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: They did not bring doors but only oxen. Apparently, a door does not constitute a tent, since that is not the manner in which a tent is typically established. Abaye said in response that Rabbi Yehuda did not say that the legal status of the door is not that of a tent; rather, he said: They did not need to bring doors because the oxen themselves were sufficiently broad.

‫יאין דְּ ָלתֹות‬ ִ ‫ ל ֹא ָהי ּו ְמ ִב‬:‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ּ ָ ‫ָּכל ִע‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִּמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשדַּ ְע ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ִּתינֹוק‬,‫יקר‬ ‫ֹאשֹו אֹו ֶא ָחד‬ ׁ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא יֹוצִ יא ר‬,‫גַ ָּסה ָע ָליו‬ ‫ וְ יִ ָּט ֵמא‬,‫ֵמ ֵא ָב ָריו‬

Rava said Rabbi Yehuda’s statement should be explained differently. They would not bring doors at all. Because a child has an exaggerated sense of self-confidence due to the width of the door, he might allow himself to move from side to side and as a result, perhaps he will extend his head or one of his limbs beyond the edge of the door and will become impure

notes

A fistbreadth – ‫כ ְמל ֹא ֶאגְ רֹוף‬:ִּ This does not mean an average person’s fist, which is approximately one handbreadth, but rather the size of an exceptionally large fist: That of ben Batiaĥ the giant, whose fist was said to be the size of a typical adult man’s head. Rabbi Yehuda concedes in that case, as the legal status of a space that size is that of a tent with regard to several halakhot of impurity.

Perek II Daf 21 Amud b .‫ ְ ּב ֶק ֶבר ַה ְּתהֹום‬with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ּ ָ ‫יאין דְּ ָלתֹות ָּכל ִע‬ ,‫יקר‬ ִ ‫ל ֹא ָהי ּו ְמ ִב‬ ,‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשדַּ ְע ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ִּתינֹוק ַ ּג ָּסה ָע ָליו‬ ‫ֹאשֹו אֹו ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֵא ָב ָריו‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ָּמא יֹוצִ יא ר‬ ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְמ ִב‬.‫וְ יִ ָּט ֵמא ְ ּב ֶק ֶבר ַה ְּתהֹום‬ ,‫יהן ְר ָחבֹות‬ ֶ ‫יסֹות‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ְשוָ ִורים ַה ִּמצְ ִרים ׁ ֶש ְּכ ֵר‬ ‫יהן וְ כֹוסֹות‬ ֶ ‫יֹוש ִבין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּב‬ ְ ׁ ‫וְ ַה ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ ‫ילֹוח יָ ְרד ּו‬ ַ ‫ ִה ִ ּגיע ּו ַל ׁ ִש‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶשל ֶא ֶבן ִ ּב ֵיד‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָעל ּו וְ יָ ׁ ְשב ּו ָל ֶהן ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּב‬,‫ו ִּמ ְּלאוּם‬

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rabbi Yehuda says: They would not bring doors at all, because a child has an exaggerated sense of self-confidence and perhaps he will extend his head or one of his limbs beyond the edge of the door and will become impure with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. Rather, they would bring Egyptian oxen whose bellies are broad, and the children would sit upon them and they would hold cups of stone in their hands. When they reached the Siloam pool they descended and filled them, and ascended and sat themselves on the backs of the oxen.

,‫ ו ְּתנַן‬.‫רֹופים‬ ִ ְ‫ דְּ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ַּכ ָּמה ֶאג‬,‫וַ ֲה ֵרי ִמ ָּטה‬ ‫נֹוהגִ ים ָהיִ ינ ּו ׁ ֶש ָהיִ ינ ּו‬ ֲ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫יְ ׁ ֵשנִים ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַהּזְ ֵקנִים! ׁ ָשאנֵי‬ ‫ ׁ ְשוָ ִורים נַ ִמי‬.‫הֹואיל ו ְּלגַ ָ ּב ּה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה‬ ִ ,‫ִמ ָּטה‬ !‫ְלגַ ָ ּבן ֲע ׂשוּיִ ם‬

The Gemara asks: But with regard to a bed, which measures several fistbreadths, didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bed before the Elders? Apparently, despite the fact that a bed measures several handbreadths, its legal status is not that of a tent. The Gemara answers: A bed is different, since it is designed specifically for use upon it; therefore, the status of the space beneath it is not that of a tent. The Gemara asks: Aren’t oxen like those used to transport the children to bring water for the red heifer also designated specifically for use upon them and nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda deems their spinal column and bellies a tent.

‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי‬:‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ,‫רֹועים‬ ִ ‫הֹואיל ּו ְמגִ ינִים ַעל ָה‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְשוָ ִורים‬ ‫ ו ַּב ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬,‫ַ ּב ַח ָּמה ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַח ָּמה‬ ‫הֹואיל‬ ִ ,‫ ִמ ָּטה נַ ִמי‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים‬ !‫נְע ִלים וְ ַסנְדָּ ִלים ׁ ֶש ַּת ְח ֶּת ָיה‬ ָ ‫ו ְּמגִ ינָ ה ַעל ִמ‬

When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Elazar said: Oxen are different since they protect the shepherds in the sun from the sun, and in the rain from the rain. Shepherds would lie beneath the bellies of the oxen as protection from the elements. The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if an ox is rendered a tent because it provides protection, even if its primary designation is for use upon it, then the status of a bed too should be that of a tent, since it protects shoes and sandals that are placed beneath it.



‫אכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 21b 

103

,‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ׁ ְשוָ ִורים‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫הֹואיל וַ ֲע ׂשוּיִ ם ְל ָהגֵ ין ַעל ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ם‬ ִ ‫ישנִי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ״עֹור ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ַּת ְל ִ ּב‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬ .‫סֹוכ ֵכנִי״‬ ְ ‫ו ַּב ֲעצָ מֹות וְ גִ ִידים ְּת‬

Rather, Rava rejected that explanation and said: Oxen are different and their status is that of a tent since their bellies and backs are made to protect their innards,n as it is stated: “With skin and flesh You have clothed me, and with bones and sinews You have knitted me together” ( Job 10:11). Since flesh and skin are mentioned in the verse as providing shelter, the status of the oxen is that of a tent.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִא י ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬ ‫ סו ָּּכה דִּ ַירת ֶק ַבע‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ,‫יה ִמ ָּטה דִּ ַירת ֲע ַראי‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ָא ֵתי א ֶֹהל‬,‫וְ סו ָּּכה א ֶֹהל ֶק ַבע‬ .‫ֲע ַראי ו ְּמ ַב ֵּטל א ֶֹהל ֶק ַבע‬

And if you wish, say instead: In this case Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his reasoning, as he stated elsewhere: We require a sukka that is a permanent residence. The bed in a sukka is a temporary residence, and the sukka is a permanent tent; and a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent. The permanent sukka is significant and that significance supersedes any temporary structure within it. Therefore, in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the status of the bed is not that of a tent.

‫וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון דְּ ָא ַמר נַ ִמי סו ָּּכה‬ ‫(הא) וְ ָא ֵתי א ֶֹהל‬ ָ ,‫דִּ ַירת ֶק ַבע ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָהא‬,)‫(אין‬ ִ !‫ֲע ַראי ו ְּמ ַב ֵּטל א ֶֹהל ֶק ַבע‬ ‫ ָא ֵתי א ֶֹהל ֲע ַראי‬:‫ ָמר ָס ַבר‬:‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ‫ ָלא‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ו ְּמ ַב ֵּטל א ֶֹהל ֶק ַבע‬ .‫ָא ֵתי א ֶֹהל ֲע ַראי ו ְּמ ַב ֵּטל א ֶֹהל ֶק ַבע‬

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who also stated that we require a sukka that is a permanent residence, nevertheless, a temporary tent comes and negates a permanent tent. The Gemara answers: Yes, and that is the point over which they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: A temporary tent comes and negates a permanent tent, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: A temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent.

‫״א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ָט ִבי‬ ָ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬.‫ַע ְבדּ ֹו״‬ ‫יאל ָל ַמ ְדנ ּו ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ֵ ‫יחתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ָ ‫ִמ ּ ִ ׂש‬ ‫ְד ָב ִרים; ָל ַמ ְדנ ּו ׁ ֶש ֲע ָב ִדים ּ ְפטו ִּרים ִמן‬ ‫ וְ ָל ַמ ְדנ ּו ׁ ֶש ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬,‫ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ .‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ל ֹא יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬

The mishna relates that Rabbi Shimon said, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving Tavi, the Canaanite slave of Rabban Gamliel who was sleeping beneath the bed, and Rabban Gamliel claimed that Tavi did so because he was a Torah scholar and knew that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel we learned two matters. We learned that Canaanite slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka,n and we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

!?‫יאל״‬ ֵ ‫״מדְּ ָב ָריו ׁ ֶשל ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ִ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵל‬ ְּ ‫ִמ‬ ‫יה ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ְ ‫יל ָתא ַא ַ ּגב‬ ּ ‫אֹור ֵח‬ ,‫ ִּכי ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַאדָּ א‬,‫ָלן‬ ‫וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַאדָּ א‬ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶש ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יחת ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ַ ‫יל ּו ִ ׂש‬ ‫ ״וְ ָע ֵלה ּו‬:‫ימוּד – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ָ ‫צְ ִר‬ ּ ‫יכה ִל‬ .‫יִבֹול״‬ ּ ‫ל ֹא‬

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And let Rabbi Shimon say: From the statement of Rabban Gamliel. Why did he use the atypical expression: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Through this expression he teaches us another matter in passing, like that which Rabbi Aĥa bar Adda said, and some say that Rabbi Aĥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Hamnuna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that even the conversation of Torah scholarsn require analysis, even when the intention of the speaker was apparently not to issue a halakhic ruling? It is as it is stated with regard to the righteous: “Which brings forth its fruit in its season and whose leaf does not wither” (Psalms 1:3). This teaches that with regard to a Torah scholar, not only is his primary product, his fruit, significant but even ancillary matters that stem from his conversation, his leaves, are significant.

notes

Made to protect their innards – ‫ֲע ׂשוּיִ ם ְל ָהגֵ ין ַעל ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ם‬ ‫ש ָּל ֶהן‬: ֶ ׁ Tosafot point out that although the verse in Job refers to people, it is all the more so applicable to animals. While a human stands upright and his back protects no other part of his body, animals stand on all fours with their backs above their innards.

mitzva, from which both women and slaves are exempt, since a bush, as in the verse: “And she cast the child beneath the Gemara below requires a special derivation to exempt one of the shrubs [siĥim]” (Genesis 21:16), and matters of women from the mitzva of sukka as there are reasons that Torah, which are called siĥa, as in the verse referring to it might enter one’s mind to obligate them, there is a novel the Torah: “When you walk, it shall lead you, when you lie element in exempting slaves as well (Ritva). down, it shall watch over you; and when you awaken, it shall talk with you [tesiĥekha]” (Proverbs 6:22). Just as the converConversation of Torah scholars – ‫יחת ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ַ ‫ש‬: ׂ ִ Some sations of Torah scholars are ancillary, like leaves relative to Canaanite slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka – explain that this derivation is based on the etymological simi- fruit, they too are Torah from which lessons can be learned ‫ע ָב ִדים ּ ְפטו ִּרים ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬:ֲ Although this is a positive, time-bound larity between the Hebrew word for the leaves of a tree or (Arukh).

104 

Perek II . 21b . ‫אכ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

mishna 

One who supports his sukka on the legs ‫ֹומ ְך סו ָּּכתֹו ְ ּב ַכ ְר ֵעי‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ַה ּס‬ of the bed,hbn i.e., he leans the sukka :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ַה ִּמ ָּטה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ roofing on a bed, the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says:n If the – ‫כֹולה ַל ֲעמֹוד ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ ָ ְ‫ ִאם ֵאינָ ּה י‬sukka cannot stand in and of itself without support of the bed, .‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬it is unfit. ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה? ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ּ ‫גמ׳ ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬ .‫ָ ּב ּה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ֶמ ֶמל‬ ‫ וְ ַחד‬,‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ֶק ַבע‬:‫ַחד ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ֲע ִמ ָיד ּה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .‫טו ְּמ ָאה‬

gemara 

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda deeming this sukka unfit? Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagree with regard to the rationale. One said: It is unfit because it lacks permanence. The sukka is not stable enough, as if the bed is moved the sukka will collapse. And one said: It is unfit because he is supporting the roofing with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity,n as the bedframe is a vessel. Not only the roofing, but that which supports the roofing as well may not be susceptible to ritual impurity.

‫ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ּנ ַָעץ ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְל ִפי‬.‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫יכךְ ֲע ֵל‬ ֵּ ‫ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל וְ ִס‬ ,‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ֶק ַבע – ֲה ֵרי יֵ ׁש ָל ּה ֶק ַבע‬ ‫ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ֲע ִמ ָיד ּה ְ ּב ָד ָבר‬ ‫ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה – ֲה ֵרי ַמ ֲע ִמ ָיד ּה ְ ּב ָד ָבר‬ .‫ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה‬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them?n The Gemara explains: The difference is in a case where one wedged iron skewers into the ground and roofed the sukka upon them. According to the one who said that the reason the sukka is unfit is because it lacks permanence, this sukka has permanence, and it is fit. However, the one who said the reason the sukka is unfit is because he is supporting the roofing with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, he is supporting it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, so it is unfit.

,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ָס ַמ ְך‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ .‫יכ ְך ַעל ַ ּגב ַה ִּמ ָּטה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ֵּ ‫ֲא ָבל ִס‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן‬,‫ָל ּה ֶק ַבע – ֲה ֵרי יֵ ׁש ָל ּה ֶק ַבע‬ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ֲע ִמ ָיד ּה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל‬ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה – ֲה ֵרי ֵאין ַמ ֲע ִמ ָיד ּה ְ ּב ָד ָבר‬ .‫ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה‬

Abaye said: The Sages taught this dispute only in a case where one leaned the roofing on the bed. However, if one placed the roofing atop the bed, i.e., he affixed poles to the bed and the roofing is supported by those poles, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason that it is fit? According to the one who said that the sukka is unfit because it lacks permanence, this sukka has permanence as even if the bed is moved, the roofing will move with it and will not collapse. And according to the one who said the sukka is unfit because he supports it with an object that is susceptible to ritual im­purity, in this case he is not supporting it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, as the roofing is not supported by the bed.

halakha

One who supports his sukka on the legs of the bed – ‫ֹומ ְך‬ ֵ ‫ַה ּס‬ ‫סו ָּּכתֹו ְ ּב ַכ ְר ֵעי ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬: In a case where one supports his sukka on a bed, the legs of which comprise part of the walls of the sukka, if there is a distance of ten handbreadths between the bed and the roofing, the sukka is fit; if not, it is unfit. This is in accordance with the Jerusalem Talmud, where the halakhic ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, one may not construct a sukka as a sagging residence, but if the roofing rests on posts and beds serve as the walls, the sukka is fit, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:13). background

A sukka supported on the legs of the bed – ‫סו ָּּכה ַה ּנ ְִס ֶמ ֶכת‬ ‫ב ַכ ְר ֵעי ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬:ּ ְ

In this sukka, the posts do not reach the ground but are resting on a bed, and the legs of the bed essentially support the sukka.

notes

One who supports his sukka on the legs of the bed – ְ‫ֹומך‬ ֵ ‫ַה ּס‬ ‫סו ָּּכתֹו ְ ּב ַכ ְר ֵעי ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬: There are many different explanations of this passage in the mishna. Most of the commentaries based their explanations on the Jerusalem Talmud, where it is explained that the bed was the floor of the sukka. The Rid, in his halakhic rulings, explains that the reference is to a large bed, whose area is sufficient to render it a fit sukka and whose legs are long enough to render the space beneath the bed a fit sukka. He stated that in the Gemara, the fitness of that space is dependent on whether or not the space between the top of the bed and the roofing is ten handbreadths. The Ra’avad explains that the supports of the roofing are resting on the bed, and if the bed falls the sukka will collapse. The Ramban maintains that it is a bed ten handbreadths high that was turned over and roofing was placed on its legs. The concern is that someone will come and take the bed, leaving no sukka at all (see Ritva and others).

authorities argue whether to rule in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, which is the opinion of many Sages, or in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, upon whose opinion the discussion in the Gemara appears to be based (see Rif; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Ra’avad’s commentary on the Me’iri, and others). The Rosh holds that Rabbi Yehuda is explaining, not disputing, the opinion of the Rabbis, and consequently there is only one opinion here. Supporting with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity – ‫מ ֲע ִמ ָיד ּה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה‬:ַ Some explain that this is prohibited due to the concern that the object will be used to roof the sukka (Me’iri).

What is the practical difference between them – ‫ַמאי‬ ‫בינַיְ יה ּו‬:ּ ֵ Both earlier and later authorities noted that there is a conspicuous difference between the opinions. According to one opinion, the prohibition is in effect by rabbinic decree, Rabbi Yehuda says – ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬:ַ The early halakhic while according to the other opinion it is by Torah law.



‫אכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 21b 

105

Perek II Daf 22 Amud a notes

An impoverished sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ֲענִּיָ יה‬: The question arises: What is novel about the concept that a sukka whose shade is greater than its sunlight is fit? Why was it necessary for Rav to state this apparently obvious halakha? The Ritva and Rabbeinu Yonatan explain that he is teaching that this sukka is fit despite the concern that the roofing might be sparse, leaving less than the minimal measure of fitness. Others explain that this was mentioned only within the context of an impoverished sukka with the minimum measure of fitness. It might have entered one’s mind that in that case the sukka roofing must be more substantial (Sefat Emet). A disordered sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ְמבו ְּל ֶ ּב ֶלת‬: The commentaries and halakhic authorities (Rid and others) discussed the possibility that in this disordered sukka that Shmuel deems fit the shade is greater than the sunlight, and the novel element in this ruling is unrelated to the quantity of shade but rather to the fact that the sukka is not rendered unfit because its roofing is beneath another roofing (Me’iri). Most commentaries, however, agree with Rashi that this is referring to a disordered sukka in which the sunlight is greater than the shade when the sunlight penetrates the roofing, but when the sunlight is directly overhead the shade is greater than the sunlight. This is the explanation that appears in the Jerusalem Talmud as well.

mishna 

A sukka that is meduvlelet and whose ָּ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ִ ּצ‬,‫מתני׳ סו ָּּכה ַה ְמדו ְּב ֶל ֶלת‬ ‫יל ָת ּה‬ shade exceeds its sunlight is fit. A ‫ ַה ְמעו ָ ּּבה ְּכ ִמין‬.‫ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ sukka whose roofing is thick like a house of sorts, even ‫ֹוכ ִבים נִ ְר ִאין‬ ָ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַה ּכ‬,‫ ַ ּביִ ת‬though it is so thick that the stars cannot be seen from with.‫ ִמ ּת ָֹוכ ּה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬in it, is fit.

gemara 

.‫ סו ָּּכה ֲענִּיָ יה‬:‫גמ׳ ַמאי ְמדו ְּב ֶל ֶלת? ָא ַמר ַרב‬ .‫יֹורד‬ ֵ ‫עֹולה וְ ָקנֶ ה‬ ֶ ‫ ָקנֶ ה‬:‫ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of meduvlelet? Rav said: It means an impoverished sukka,nh i.e., a sukka whose roofing is sparse, although at no point in the roofing is there a gap of three handbreadths. And Shmuel said: It means that the roofing is aligned with one reed ascending and one reed descending.h There are two layers of roofing, with each reed on the upper layer situated directly above the space between each reed on the lower level.

‫ ַרב ָּתנֵי‬.‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָּתנֵי ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬,‫ַרב ָּתנֵי ֲח ָדא‬ – ‫ ַמאי ְמדו ְּב ֶל ֶלת‬,‫ סו ָּּכה ְמדו ְּב ֶל ֶלת‬:‫ֲח ָדא‬ ָּ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִ ּצ‬,‫ְמדו ְּלדֶּ ֶלת‬ – ‫יל ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה‬ – ‫ ַמאי ְמדו ְּב ֶל ֶלת‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָּתנֵי ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬.‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ סו ָּּכה ְמבו ְּל ֶ ּב ֶלת‬:‫ וְ ַת ְר ֵּתי ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ְמבו ְּל ֶ ּב ֶלת‬ ָּ ִ‫ וְ צ‬,‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ .‫יל ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

The Gemara explains: Rav taught the first clause in the mishna as one halakha, and Shmuel taught that clause as two halakhot. Rav taught one halakha: The halakha of a sukka meduvlelet. And what is a sukka meduvlelet? It is a sparse sukka. Nevertheless, as long as the shade exceeds the sunlight the sukka is fit. And Shmuel taught two halakhot. What is a sukka meduvlelet? It is a disordered sukka.n And he teaches two halakhot: A disordered sukka is fit, and one whose shade exceeds its sunlight is fit.

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֵ ּבין זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל יֵ ׁש ֵ ּבין זֶ ה ְלזֶ ה ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬,‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ְט ָפ ִחים – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫יל ּו יֵ ׁש‬ ‫ ָלא ֲא ָמ ַרן‬,‫ֵ ּבין זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים נַ ִמי‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁיֵש ְ ּבגַ גֹּו ֶט ַפח‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּבגַ גֹּו ֶט ַפח‬ .‫ דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן ֲחבֹוט ְר ִמי‬,‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

Abaye said: They taught that a sukka with two layers of roofing is fit only in a case where there is not a gap of at least three handbreadths between the top and bottom layers. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths between them it is unfit. Rava said: Even if there is a gap of three handbreadths between them, we say that the two layers of roofing are not considered joined only in a case where there is not the width of a handbreadth in its upper roof. However, if there is the width of a handbreadth in its upper roof, even if the gap between them is three handbreadths, the sukka is fit, because we say that the principle: Lower and cast down the upper level of the sukka roofing down to the level of the lower sukka roofing, applies here.

halakha

An impoverished sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ֲענִּיָ יה‬: If one roofed a sukka sparsely and there are many empty spaces in the roofing, but none of the spaces measures three handbreadths, if altogether the shade is greater than the sunlight, the sukka is fit, in accordance with Rav’s interpretation of the mishna (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:4).

that the space between the upper and lower sukka roofing is not more than three handbreadths, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye. If the distance between them is greater than three handbreadths, but the segment of the upper roofing is one or more handbreadths wide and it is aligned over a space in the lower roofing, the sukka is fit. This is because, in accordance with the opinion of Rava, the principle: Lower and One reed ascending and one reed descending – ‫עֹולה‬ ֶ ‫ ָקנֶ ה‬cast, is applied. According to the Rema, if the sukka roofing is ‫יֹורד‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָקנֶ ה‬: If the sukka roofing is not level, but rather one sec- fit, even if at certain times of the day the sunlight is greater tion is higher and one is lower, the sukka is fit, in accordance than the shade, the sukka is fit, provided that when the sun with the opinion of Shmuel, as he is not disagreeing with Rav is directly over the roofing the shade is greater than the sunbut merely stating another halakha (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rabbi light (Ran and Beit Yosef, citing Rambam; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Zeraĥya HaLevi; Ran; and others). This is the halakha, provided Ĥayyim 631:5).

106 

Perek II . 22a . ‫בכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

‫ ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה דְּ ִכי ִאית‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵלית‬,‫יה ֶט ַפח ָא ְמ ִרינַן ֲחבֹוט ְר ִמי‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ :‫יה ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ֲחבֹוט ְר ִמי – דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫קֹורֹות ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ָה ֲע ִלּיָ יה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ַּת ַחת‬,‫ַמ ֲעזֵ ָיבה וְ ֵהן ְמכ ּו ָּונֹות‬ .‫יה ָט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן – ַּת ְח ֶּת‬

,‫ינֵיהן ָט ֵמא‬ ֶ ‫ֵ ּבין ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ָל ֶע ְליֹונָ ה – ֵ ּב‬ ‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה – ְּכנֶ גְ דָּ ּה ַעד ָל ָר ִק ַיע‬ ,‫ ָהי ּו ָה ֶע ְליֹונֹות ְּכ ֵבין ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונֹות‬.‫ָט ֵמא‬ ,‫יהן – ַּת ַחת ּכו ָּּלן ָט ֵמא‬ ֶ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה ַּת ְח ֵּת‬ .‫יהן – ְּכנֶ גְ דָּ ן ַעד ָל ָר ִק ַיע ָט ֵמא‬ ֶ ‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּב‬

Rava said: From where do I learn to say that when there is a handbreadth of width in its roof, we say that the principle lower and cast applies, and when there is not a handbreadth in its roof, we do not say that the principle lower and cast applies? Rava learns this from the halakha of impurity imparted by a corpse, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to the boards of the ceiling of the first floor of the house and of the second story that do not have plaster on them, so that each of the boards is considered a separate entity, and the boards of each are aligned so that the boards of the ceiling of the second story are directly above the boards of the house:b If there is a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse beneath one of the lower boards,nh any object that is directly beneath that board is rendered impure by means of a tent over a corpse. However, any object that is above the board or off to the side remains pure. If the source of impurity is in the airspace of the second story between the lower and upper boards, any object between the two boards is impure; however, any object beneath the lower board or above the upper board or off to the side remains pure. If the source of impurity is atop the upper board, any object aligned with the source of impurity even up to the heavens is impure. However, if the upper boards are spaced between the lower boards,nb if the source of impurity is beneath any of the boards within the house, any object that is beneath any of the boards is impure, as the legal status of the roof is as though the upper boards were lowered to the level of the lower boards, and the result is one continuous ceiling. If the source of impurity is above them, i.e., above the top boards, any object aligned with the source of impurity even up to the heavens is impure.

‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ִ ּבזְ ַמן‬:‫וְ ָתנֵי ֲע ָל ּה‬ .‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח‬ ֵ ‫ינֵיהן ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ֶט ַפח ו ֵּב‬ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה‬,‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח‬ ֵ ‫ינֵיהן ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ָבל ֵאין ֵ ּב‬ ,‫יה ָט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫ַּת ַחת ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן – ַּת ְח ֶּת‬ ‫ ִּכי‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫יהן ָטהֹור‬ ֶ ‫ינֵיהן וְ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ֵ ּב‬ ,‫יה ֶט ַפח – ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ֲחבֹוט ְר ִמי‬ ּ ‫ִאית ֵ ּב‬ ‫יה ֶט ַפח – ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן ֲחבֹוט‬ ּ ‫וְ ִכי ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ְר ִמי‬

And it is taught in the Tosefta elaborating on this mishna: In what case is this statement said? It is only when these boards have the width of a handbreadth, and between them is the space of a handbreadth. However, if the boards are close together and there isn’t even the space of a handbreadth between them, then if the source of impurity is directly beneath one of the boards, only objects in the space beneath it is impure, while an object between the two layers of boards and atop them remains pure. Apparently, when there is a handbreadth in the upper layer, we say lower and cast the upper sukka roofing down to the level of the lower sukka roofing. And when there is not even a handbreadth in the upper layer, we do not say lower and cast the upper sukka roofing down. Indeed, conclude from here that this is the halakha.

.‫יָ ֵתיב ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א וְ ָק ָא ַמר ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא‬ ‫ וְ ָכל‬:‫יה ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יה ֶט ַפח ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן‬ ָ ‫ֵה‬ ּ ‫יכא דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ ?‫ֲחבֹוט ְר ִמי‬

The Gemara relates: Rav Kahana sat in the study hall and stated this halakha of Rava, that in a case where the upper sukka roofing is a handbreadth wide, even if the gap between the two layers of roofing is greater than three handbreadths, they are considered attached. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Is it so that wherever there is not the width of a handbreadth, we do not say lower and cast?n

notes

Boards of the ceiling of a house beneath which there is a source of impurity – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫קֹורֹות ַה ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶשטו ְּמ ָאה ַּת ְח ֵּת‬: These halakhot, which are part of the corpus of halakhot of a tent over a corpse, are detailed in the mishna and Tosefta of tractate Oholot. The fundamental principle in these halakhot is that a space has the legal status of a tent over a corpse only when the length and width of the covering and the height of the space beneath it each measure a handbreadth. Anything smaller does not constitute a tent and it neither transmits impurity to items beneath it nor does it serve as a barrier to the spread of impurity beyond its confines. If the upper boards are spaced between the lower boards – ‫הי ּו ָה ֶע ְליֹונֹות ְּכ ֵבין ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונֹות‬:ָ Opinions differ with regard to the halakhot of impurity as well as with regard to the related halakhot of sukka. According to many of the commentaries and halakhic authorities, the principle: Lower and cast, is applicable only when the space between the lower boards and the space between the upper boards are perfectly aligned, or the space in the lower sukka roofing and the space in the upper sukka roofing are perfectly aligned (Kesef Mishne according to the Rambam and others). Some say that the principle is applicable even when the space on the lower level is smaller than the upper board or roofing (Leĥem Mishne). Others maintain that even if the upper board or roofing is smaller than the space below, the principle is applicable provided that if the upper roofing is lowered and cast into the lower space, the result would be fit roofing (Rid the Younger and others). The difficulty raised by Rav Ashi – ‫ק ׁ ְשיַ ת ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬:ֻ Rav Ashi does not dispute the principle: Lower and cast, with regard to the halakhot of a tent over impurity, as that appears in a mishna. Rather, he wondered whether this principle applies to areas of halakha other than impurity (Ritva). halakha

Boards of the ceiling of a house beneath which there is a source of impurity – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫קֹורֹות ַה ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶשטו ְּמ ָאה ַּת ְח ֵּת‬: In a case where the boards that constitute the ceilings of the lower and upper stories of a house are not covered with plaster and are directly aligned with each other, if the boards are a handbreadth wide and there is a source of impurity beneath them, impurity is transmitted only to objects directly beneath them but not to those in the rest of the house. If the source of impurity is atop the boards of the first floor, only objects in the space between the floor of the upper story and the boards above the upper story are impure. If there is a source of impurity in the house, the entire house is impure, but this is only if the boards are a handbreadth wide (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 16:6).

background

Boards that are aligned – ‫קֹורֹות ְמכ ּו ָּונֹות‬:

If the upper boards are spaced between the lower boards – ‫הי ּו ָה ֶע ְליֹונֹות ְּכ ֵבין ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונֹות‬:ָ

Boards of the first story and those of the second story are directly aligned.

Upper boards are aligned with the spaces between the lower boards of the house.



‫בכ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 22a 

107

‫קֹורה ַהּיֹוצְ ָאה ִמ ּכ ֶֹותל זֶ ה וְ ֵאינָ ּה נֹוגַ ַעת‬ ָ :‫וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ֹותל‬ ֶ ‫ ַא ַחת יֹוצְ ָאה ִמ ּכ‬,‫ וְ ֵכן ׁ ְש ֵּתי קֹורֹות‬,‫כֹותל זֶ ה‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב‬ ,‫ֹותל זֶ ה וְ ֵאינָן נֹוגְ עֹות זֹו ָ ּבזֹו‬ ֶ ‫זֶ ה וְ ַא ַחת יֹוצְ ָאה ִמ ּכ‬ ,‫קֹורה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ָ ‫ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – ֵאינֹו צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬ .‫קֹורה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬

Isn’t it taught in the Tosefta with regard to the halakhot of the merging of alleyways that one of the means of rendering carrying in a closed alleyway permitted on Shabbat is by placing a beam one handbreadth wide over the entrance of the alleyway within twenty cubits but no less than ten handbreadths off the ground? With regard to a cross beam that projects from this wall of an alleyway but does not touch the other opposite wall, and similarly, with regard to two cross beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from the other opposite wall, and they do not touch each other, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall, or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for a person to carry within it. This is because they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam.

:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that the principle of lavud applies to a gap of up to four handbreadths wide, says:

Perek II Daf 22 Amud b halakha

Two parallel beams – ‫ש ֵּתי קֹורֹות ַמ ְת ִאימֹות‬: ְ ׁ If there are two parallel beams at the entrance of an alleyway and neither one can support a small brick, but together, widthwise, they can support a small brick, which is one handbreadth wide, then the following distinction applies: If the distance between the beams is no more than three handbreadths, there is no need to place another beam. If not, another beam must be placed. Some maintain that in order for the cross beam to be effective the distance between the beams must be no more than one handbreadth (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 363:22). Beams that are not parallel – ‫קֹורֹות ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן ַמ ְת ִאימֹות‬: If one of the cross beams over the entrance of an alleyway is higher than the other, they are considered adjacent provided that neither of the beams is more than twenty cubits or less than ten handbreadths off the ground and the distance between them is no more than three handbreadths, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda (Rambam). Others rule that the cross beams are not considered joined in this case (Rif; Rosh; Maharam of Rothenburg; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 363:23). background

Two parallel beams – ‫ש ֵּתי קֹורֹות ַמ ְת ִאימֹות‬: ְׁ

,‫קֹורה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ָ ‫ ּ ָפחֹות ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬If there is a gap of less than four handbreadths, one need not .‫קֹורה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ָ ‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬bring another cross beam. However, if there is a gap of four handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam. ‫ ל ֹא ָ ּבזֹו ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַק ֵ ּבל‬,‫וְ ֵכן ׁ ְש ֵּתי קֹורֹות ַה ַּמ ְת ִאימֹות‬ ‫ ִאם ְמ ַק ְ ּבלֹות‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ָ ּבזֹו ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ָא ִר ַיח‬,‫ָא ִר ַיח‬ ‫קֹורה‬ ָ ‫יך ְל ָה ִביא‬ ְ ‫ָא ִר ַיח ְל ָר ְח ּבֹו ֶט ַפח – ֵאין צָ ִר‬ .‫קֹורה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬,‫ַא ֶח ֶרת‬

And similarly, if two parallel, extremely narrow cross beamshb are placed alongside each other, even though there is not sufficient width in this beam in order to receive and support a small brick, and there is not sufficient width in that beam in order to receive and support a small brick, if the two beams together can receive a small brick along its handbreadth width, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it. But if not, one is required to bring another cross beam.

‫ ִאם ְמ ַק ְ ּבלֹות ָא ִר ַיח‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the two cross beams ‫קֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ָא ְר ּכֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬can receive a small brick along its length, which is three .‫קֹורה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ִביא‬,‫ ַא ֶח ֶרת‬handbreadths, one need not bring another cross beam, but if not, one must bring another cross beam. ‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָהי ּו ַא ַחת ְל ַמ ְע ָלה וְ ַא ַחת ְל ַמ ָּטה‬ ‫רֹואין ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ִהיא ְל ַמ ָּטה‬ ִ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫וְ ֶאת ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ִהיא ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫ְּת ֵהא ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה וְ ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה‬ – ‫תֹוך ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ָהא זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה ְ ּב‬.‫ְל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ !‫יה ֶט ַפח‬ ּ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬,‫ָא ְמ ִרינַן ֲחבֹוט ְר ִמי‬

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If these two narrow cross beams are placed at different heights, one above and one below,h one considers the upper one as though it were below, and the lower one as though it were above, i.e., close together. If the two together are capable of supporting a small brick, they render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, although they are not actually close to each other, provided that the upper cross beam is not above twenty cubitsn off the ground and the lower one is not below ten handbreadths off the ground, between which a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it. By inference, if both this beam and that beam are within twenty cubits, we say that the principle: Lower and cast the upper beam down even though there is not the width of a handbreadth in the upper beam. This is difficult according to Rava’s opinion, as he holds that the principle: Lower and cast, does not apply when the width of the upper crossbeam is less than a handbreadth.

Alleyway with two thin, parallel beams over its entrance notes

The upper cross beam is not above twenty cubits – ‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ ‫ת ֵהא ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה‬:ְּ In order to render it permitted to carry in an alleyway on Shabbat, the cross beam over the entrance to the alleyway must be placed neither more than

108 

Perek II . 22b . ‫בכ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

twenty cubits nor less than ten handbreadths off the ground. Therefore, any beam placed higher than twenty cubits or lower than ten handbreadths is halakhically irrelevant and cannot be joined with another beam.

‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד‬:‫ימא ָה ִכי‬ ָ ‫ ְּת ֵריץ וְ ֵא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּת ֵהא ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ‫ וְ ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְסמו ָּכה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ‫ ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬:‫ ִאי נַ ִמי‬.‫ָל ּה ְ ּב ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּת ֵהא ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ‫ וְ ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְסמו ָּכה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬.‫ָל ּה ְ ּב ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ‫יה ֶט ַפח – ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ֲחבֹוט‬ ּ ‫דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ .‫ְר ִמי‬

Rav Kahana said to him: Interpret the baraita and say as follows: Provided that the upper beam is not above twenty cubits but rather within twenty cubits and the lower one is adjacent to it, less than three handbreadths from it, as in that case they are joined due to the principle of lavud and not the principle of lower and cast. Alternatively, interpret the baraita as follows: Provided that the lower beam is not below ten handbreadths but rather above ten handbreadths and the upper beam is adjacent to it, less than three handbreadths from it. However, if the distance between the beams is three handbreadths, since there is not the width of one handbreadth in the beam, we do not say: Lower and castn the upper beam, and each beam is considered on its own.

ָּ ‫״וְ ׁ ֶש ִ ּצ‬ .‫יל ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ֵמ ַח ָּמ ָת ּה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה״‬ ְ‫ וְ ָהא ְּתנַן ְ ּב ִא ָידך‬,‫ָהא ִּכי ֲה ָד ֵדי – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ַח ָּמ ָת ּה ְמרו ָ ּּבה ִמ ִ ּצ‬:‫ּ ִפ ְיר ִקין‬ – ‫יל ָת ּה‬ !‫ ָהא ִּכי ֲה ָד ֵדי ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

§ The mishna continues: A sukka whose shade exceeds its sunlight

– ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫ ָּכאן – ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬:‫ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬.‫ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬ ‫יס ְּת ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ְּכז ּו זָ א ִמ ְּל ֵעיל ְּכ ִא‬:‫ֱא ינָ ׁ ֵשי‬ :‫ִמ ְּל ַת ַחת‬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where the inference was that when the sunlight and shade are equal the sukka is unfit, it is referring to the ratio of shade to sunlight from above, in the sukka roofing itself; and there, where the inference was that when the sunlight and shade are equal the sukka is fit, it is referring to the ratio of shade to sunlight from below,n on the sukka floor. The two inferences are not contradictory, as the lower in the sukka one observes the light, the more diffused it is. Therefore, if the shade and the sunlight are equal on the floor of the sukka, clearly, the roofing is sufficiently dense and exceeds the gaps. Rav Pappa said: That is the meaning of the folk saying with regard to light: Like a zuz coin above, like an isterab coin below.

‫ ַה ְמעו ָ ּּבה‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫״מעו ֶ ּּבה ְּכ ִמין ַ ּביִ ת״‬ ְ ‫ֹוכ ִבים‬ ָ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַה ּכ‬,‫ְּכ ִמין ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫ ֵאין ּכ ָֹוכ ֵבי ַח ָּמה‬.‫נִ ְר ִאין ִמ ּת ָֹוכ ּה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ ו ֵּבית‬,‫ֹוס ִלין‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ּפ‬,‫נִ ְר ִאין ִמ ּת ָֹוכ ּה‬ .‫ִה ֵלל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬

The mishna continues: A sukka whose roofing is thick like a type of house is fit.h The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a sukka whose roofing is thick like a type of house, although it is so dense that the stars are not visible from within it, the sukka is fit. However, if it is so thick that the rays of the sunn are also not visible from within it, Beit Shammai deem the sukka unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit.

background

Zuz and istera – ‫יס ְּת ָרא‬ ְ ‫זוּז וְ ִא‬: Istera refers to the stater, which is the name of both a weight and a common coin, from the Greek στατήρ, statèr. The Talmud uses the term istera to refer to various coins of different value. It is hard to determine which coin the Talmud is referring to here. What is clear, however, is that the istera was larger than the zuz. With regard to the folk saying, Rav Pappa meant that a hole in the ceiling as small as a zuz projects light on the ground the size of the larger istera.

is fit. From the formulation of the mishna, it can be inferred that if its shade and sunlight are equal,h the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna in another chapter in this tractate: A sukka whose sunlight exceeds its shade is unfit. From the formulation of that mishna it can be inferred that if its sunlight and shade are equal, the sukka is fit. The inferences of the two mishnayot are contradictory.

notes

We do not say lower and cast – ‫לא ָא ְמ ִרינַן ֲחבֹוט ְר ִמי‬:ָ The principle: Lower and cast, is not elucidated here because the principle of lavud also applies within three handbreadths. Perhaps the principle: Lower and cast, applies only when the space below and the beam above are perfectly aligned (see Sefat Emet). Here from above, there from below – ‫ ָּכאן ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬,‫כאן ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬:ָּ Most commentaries and halakhic authorities agree with the above explanation of the Gemara, which is according to Rashi’s interpretation. Other opinions are based on different rationales; their primary problem with Rashi’s explanation is that it is not compatible with the dispute and the halakhic principle: The breached segment is equal to the standing segment (see Tosafot;

Ittur; Sefer Yere’im). The counterargument is that the principle: The breached segment is equal to the standing segment, does not apply to sukka roofing, where the ratio of sunlight to shade is the determining factor. Even if the standing segment is greater than the breached segment, if the sunlight is greater than the shade, the sukka is unfit (Rid). In addition, the ratio of sunlight to shade is not determined by the amount of roofing; it is determined by the perspective of the one sitting in the sukka (Me’iri). Rays of the sun – ‫כ ָֹוכ ֵבי ַח ָּמה‬:ּ Most commentaries explain that this term refers to rays of sunlight that appear like stars through thick roofing. However, the Rambam explains that it refers to very large stars that can be seen even in daylight.

halakha

A sukka whose sunlight and shade are equal – ‫סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ַח ָּמ ָת ּה‬ ‫שוָ ה ְלצִ ָּל ּה‬: ָ ׁ A sukka in whose roofing the sunlight and shade are equal is unfit because on the sukka floor the sunlight is greater than the shade. If on the sukka floor the sunlight and shade are equal, the sukka is fit, in accordance with the opinion of most halakhic authorities (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rashi; Rid; Rambam; Ran; Ramban; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:1).



Thick like a type of house – ‫מעו ֶ ּּבה ְּכ ִמין ַ ּביִ ת‬:ְ One should place the roofing on the sukka so that large stars are visible through the roofing at night, ab initio. If its thickness prevents visibility, the sukka is fit after the fact. If the roofing is so thick that rain cannot penetrate it, there are some who deem the sukka unfit, based on the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam (Levush; Baĥ; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 631:3). ‫בכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 22b 

109

halakha

A sukka at the top of a tree – ‫ֹאש ָה ִא ָילן‬ ׁ ‫סו ָּּכה ְ ּבר‬: If one establishes a sukka at the top of a tree or on an animal, it is fit; however, one may not enter it on the Festival. If it is partially on a tree and partially on a different surface, and it is constructed in a manner that it would remain standing if the tree were removed, then one may enter it on the Festival (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 628:3).

‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ְ ּבר‬ ׂ ֶ ‫מתני׳ ָה‬ ,‫ֹאש ַה ְּס ִפינָ ה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ׁ ‫ָה ֲעגָ ָלה אֹו ְ ּבר‬ ‫ֹאש ָה ִא ָילן‬ ׁ ‫ ְ ּבר‬.‫עֹולין ָל ּה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ ‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫אֹו ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָ ּג ָמל – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ .‫ָל ּה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬

background

Atop a camel – ‫על ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָ ּג ָמל‬:ַ

‫ אֹו‬,‫ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ָ ּב ִא ָילן וְ ַא ַחת ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם‬ – ‫ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם וְ ַא ַחת ָ ּב ִא ָילן‬ ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬.‫עֹולין ָל ּה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ,‫ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם וְ ַא ַחת ָ ּב ִא ָילן – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ .‫עֹולין ָל ּה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬

mishna 

In the case of one who establishes his sukka at the top of the wagon or at the top of the ship, although it is portable it is fit, as it is sufficient for a sukka to be a temporary residence. And one may ascend and enter it even on the first Festival day. In the case of one who establishes his sukka at the top of a treeh or atop a camel,b the sukka is fit, but one may not ascend and enter itn on the first Festival day because the Sages prohibit climbing or using trees or animals on the Festival.

If two of the walls of the sukka are in the tree and one is established on the ground by a person,n or if two are established on the ground by a person and one is in the tree, the sukka is fit, but one may not ascend and enter it on the first Festival day because it is prohibited to use the tree. However, if three of the walls are established on the ground by a person and one is in the tree, then since it contains the minimum number of walls required, it is fit, and one may enter it on the first Festival day. notes

It is fit but one may not ascend and enter it – ‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ֵאין‬ ‫ל ּה‬:ָ A sukka on a tree or an animal is fit for the intermediate days of the festival of Sukkot. However, even if one violates the rabbinic decree and actually enters the sukka on the first Festival day, he has fulfilled his obligation to reside in a sukka.

Sukka built on a camel

Two in the tree and one by a person – ‫ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ָ ּב ִא ָילן וְ ַא ַחת ִ ּב ֵידי‬ ‫א ָדם‬:ָ There are various opinions with regard to the situation described by the mishna. Some maintain that part of the sukka

floor rests on the tree and part of the floor is supported by poles driven into the ground. Another opinion explains that the floor of the sukka is supported by the pegs driven into the tree (Rashi; Me’iri). Others explain that the tree is a wall of the sukka and the roofing rests on the tree. Use of that sukka is prohibited because people would typically store objects on the roofing of the sukka, and use of a tree is prohibited on a Festival (see Tosafot and Melekhet Shlomo).

Perek II Daf 23 Amud a notes

This is the principle, etc. – ‫זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל וכו׳‬: The early authorities noted that the addition of the expression: This is the principle, comes to teach several additional halakhot. If the sukka can stand firmly without resting against the tree, then even if the walls are in the tree, the sukka is fit. On the other hand, if its primary support is the tree, the sukka is unfit even if most of the walls stand on the ground (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Me’iri; and others). halakha

Sukka at the top of the ship – ‫ֹאש ַה ְּס ִפינָ ה‬ ׁ ‫סו ָּּכה ְ ּבר‬: If one establishes a sukka on top of a ship, the following distinction applies: If it cannot withstand a typical land wind, it is unfit; if it can withstand a typical land wind, then even if it cannot withstand a typical sea wind it is fit, in accordance with Abaye’s interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 628:2).

‫יכֹולה‬ ָ ִ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשּיִ ּנ ֵָטל ָה ִא ָילן ו‬:‫ זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל‬The mishna summarizes that this is the principle:n Any case ‫עֹולין‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ ַל ֲעמֹוד ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬where, were the tree removed, the sukka would be able to re.‫ ָל ּה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬main standing in and of itself, it is fit, and one may ascend and enter it on the Festival, since the tree is not its primary support.

gemara 

The Gemara comments: In accordance ‫יבא‬ ָ ‫נִיתין – ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬ ִ ‫גמ׳ ַמ ּנִי ַמ ְת‬ with whose opinion is the mishna? It is ‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ְ ּבר‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָה‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ִהיא‬ in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,p as it is taught in ‫ֹוסל וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫יאל ּפ‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬,‫ ַה ְּס ִפינָ ה‬a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka at the top .‫ ֲע ִק ָיבא ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬of the ship,h Rabban Gamlielp deems it unfit and Rabbi Akiva deems it fit.

Personalities

Rabbi Akiva – ‫ר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬:ַ Akiva ben Yosef was one of the greatest of the tanna’im. He lived from just after the destruction of the Second Temple until the bar Kokheva revolt. According to legend, Rabbi Akiva began his studies at the age of forty, when Raĥel, the daughter of the wealthy Kalba Savua, consented to marry him on condition that he would agree to study Torah. Rabbi Akiva became the student of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya. Ultimately, he became a prominent Torah scholar with twenty-four thousand students. Among Rabbi Akiva’s first students were Shimon ben Azzai and Shimon ben Zoma, with whom he entered the orchard (see Ĥagiga 14b), i.e., engaged in the study of esoteric elements of the Torah. Subsequently, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai, among others, became his students. He was a staunch supporter of bar Kokheva’s revolt against Rome, and even declared him the Messiah. During the period of Roman Emperor Hadrian’s decrees, Torah study was prohibited, but Rabbi Akiva continued convening assemblies and teaching Torah. Ultimately, he was apprehended and executed, and he is one of the ten martyrs whose execution is described in liturgy.

110 

Perek II . 23a . ‫גכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

Rabbi Akiva collected early rabbinic statements and began Temple until its destruction. Therefore, he strove to enhance the organizing the material of the Oral Torah. The Mishna, redacted prominence and central authority of the Sanhedrin and its Nasi. by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his disciples, is based on his work. His strict and vigorous leadership eventually led his colleagues to remove him from his post for a brief period, replacing him Rabban Gamliel – ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬:ַ Rabban Gamliel was Nasi of with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. However, since everyone realized the Sanhedrin and one of the most important tanna’im in the that his motives and actions were for the good of the people period following the destruction of the Second Temple. Rabban and were not based on personal ambition, they soon restored Gamliel’s father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder, had also him to his position. been Nasi of the Sanhedrin and one of the leaders of the nation There are not many halakhic rulings cited explicitly in the during the rebellion against Rome. Rabban Gamliel was taken name of Rabban Gamliel. However, in his time, and under his to Yavne by Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai after the destruction influence, some of the most important decisions in the history of the Temple, so that he became known as Rabban Gamliel of Jewish spiritual life were made. These included the deciof Yavne. After Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai’s death, Rabban sion to follow Beit Hillel, the rejection of the halakhic system Gamliel presided over the Sanhedrin. of Rabbi Eliezer, and the establishment of fixed formulas for Under Rabban Gamliel’s leadership, Yavne became an im- prayers. Those halakhic decisions attributed to Rabban Gamliel portant spiritual center. The greatest of the Sages gathered reflect an uncompromising approach to halakha; in reaching around him, including his brother-in-law Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi his conclusions, he was faithful to his principles. It is known that Yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabban two of his sons were Sages: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who Gamliel sought to create a spiritual center for the Jews that served as Nasi of the Sanhedrin after him, and Rabbi Ĥanina would unite the entire people, a role that had been filled by the ben Gamliel.

‫יאל וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ָ ּב ִאין‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ ָע ַמד ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא וְ ָע ָ ׂשה סו ָּּכה ְ ּבר‬,‫ַ ּב ְּס ִפינָ ה‬ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫נָש ָבה רו ַּח וַ ֲע ָק ַר ָּתה‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ְל ָמ ָחר‬.‫ַה ְּס ִפינָ ה‬ ? ָ‫יכן סו ָּּכ ְתך‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ ֲע ִק ָיבא‬:‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva, who were coming on a ship. Rabbi Akiva arose and established a sukka at the top of the ship. The next day the wind blew and uprooted it. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Akiva, where is your sukka? It was unfit from the start.

‫כֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫ ֵה ָיכא דְּ ֵאינָ ּה י‬,‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ,‫יַב ׁ ָשה – ל ֹא ְּכלוּם ִהיא‬ ּ ָ ְּ‫ַל ֲעמֹוד ְ ּברו ַּח ְמצוּיָ ה ד‬ ‫יַב ׁ ָשה – ּכו ֵּּלי‬ ּ ָ ְּ‫כֹולה ַל ֲעמֹוד ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְמצוּיָ ה ד‬ ָ ְ‫י‬ ‫יכֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ְ ּב ִד‬.‫ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דִּ ְכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫כֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ֵאינָ ּה י‬,‫יַב ׁ ָשה‬ ּ ָ ְּ‫ַל ֲעמֹוד ְ ּברו ַּח ְמצוּיָ ה ד‬ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן‬.)‫יַב ׁ ָשה‬ ּ ָ ְּ‫(ברו ַּח ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְמצוּיָ ה ד‬ ּ ְ ‫ַל ֲעמֹוד‬ ‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן‬,‫ סו ָּּכה דִּ ַירת ֶק ַבע ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬:‫יאל ָס ַבר‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫כֹולה ַל ֲעמֹוד ְ ּברו ַּח ְמצוּיָ ה דְּ יָ ם – ל ֹא‬ ָ ְ‫דְּ ֵאינָ ּה י‬ ‫ סו ָּּכה דִּ ַירת‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ָס ַבר‬.‫ְּכלוּם ִהיא‬ ‫יכֹולה ַל ֲעמֹוד ְ ּברו ַּח ְמצוּיָה‬ ָ ִּ‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן ד‬,‫ֲע ַראי ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬ .‫יַב ׁ ָשה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ּ ָ ְּ‫ד‬

Abaye said: Everyone agreesn that in a case where the sukka is unable to withstand a typical land wind, the sukka is of no consequence and it is not even a temporary residence. If it is able to withstand even an atypical land wind, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. Where they disagree is in a case where the sukka is able to withstand a typical land wind but is unable to withstand an atypical land wind, which is the equivalent of a typical sea wind. Rabban Gamliel holds: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a permanent residence, and since it is not able to withstand an atypical land wind, which is like a typical sea wind, it is of no consequence and is not a sukka at all. Rabbi Akiva holds: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a temporary residence, and since it is able to withstand a typical land wind, it is fit, although it is unable to withstand a typical sea wind.

‫נִיתין ַמ ּנִי – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬.‫״אֹו ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי גָ ָמל״ כו׳‬ ,‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ְב ֵה ָמה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָה‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ִהיא‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ּפ‬ ‫״חג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות‬ ַ :‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה – ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ּ ‫ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְלךָ ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים״ – סו ָּּכה ָה ְראוּיָ ה‬ ‫ סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה‬,‫ְל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה – ׁ ְש ָמ ּה סו ָּּכה‬ .‫ְל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה – ל ֹא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה סו ָּּכה‬

§ The mishna continues: Or if one establishes his sukka atop

a camel, the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka atop an animal, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers that it is as the verse states: “You shall prepare for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days” (Deuteronomy 16:13), from which Rabbi Yehuda derives: A sukka that is suitable for seven daysn is called a sukka, while a sukka that is not suitable for seven days is not called a sukka. It is prohibited to climb upon an animal on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, and therefore a sukka atop an animal is unfit, as it cannot be used all seven days.

halakha

An animal as a sukka wall – ‫דּ ֶֹופן ּסו ָּּכה ִמ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬: It is permitted to establish a sukka wall with an animal if the animal is tied in place, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in his dispute with Rabbi Meir (Beit Yosef; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:11). background

Covering for a grave – ‫גּ ֵֹולל ַל ֶ ּק ֶבר‬: Rashi holds that the Gemara is referring to the covering of a coffin. According to Tosafot and others, it is a large stone that seals the grave. In several burial caves, large stones were found that served as a door to the cave. Such stones were rolled into place to close the entrance and rolled away when necessary.

Stone used to seal a burial cave

,‫אֹוריְ ָיתא ֶמ ֱחזָ א ַחזְ יָ א‬ ַ ְּ‫ ָהא נַ ִמי ִמד‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬And Rabbi Meir, who holds that the sukka is fit, would say: By .‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן הוּא דְּ גָ זְ ר ּו ָ ּב ּה‬Torah law, this sukka is also suitable for use on a Festival and on Shabbat, as there is no Torah prohibition against using an animal on those days, and it is the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting it. The fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic decree does not render the sukka unfit. ‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ּפ‬.‫ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ִל ְב ֵה ָמה דּ ֶֹופן ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬.‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬ ‫עֹושין אֹותֹו‬ ׂ ִ ‫ָּכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו רו ַּח ַחּיִ ים ֵאין‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ּ ַפ ִּסין‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ֶל ִחי ַל ָּמבֹוי‬,‫ל ֹא דּ ֶֹופן ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ וְ ל ֹא גּ ֵֹולל ַל ֶ ּק ֶבר‬,‫ַל ֵ ּב ָיראֹות‬ ‫יטי‬ ֵּ ‫ֹות ִבין ָע ָליו ִ ּג‬ ְ ‫ ַאף ֵאין ּכ‬:‫ילי ָא ְמר ּו‬ ִ ‫ַה ְ ּג ִל‬ .‫נָשים‬ ִׁ

However, if one utilized his animal as a wall for a sukka and did not establish the entire sukka atop the animal, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit, as Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to any animate object, one may neither establish it as a wall for the sukka,h nor as a side post placed at the entrance to an alleyway to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway on Shabbat, nor as one of the upright boards placed around wells to render the area a private domain and permit one to draw water from the well on Shabbat, nor as the covering for a grave.b In the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili the Sages said: Nor may one write bills of divorce on it.n

notes

Abaye said everyone agrees – ‫א ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא‬:ָ One could contend that Abaye holds that the mishna need not be established only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel as well, provided that the sukka is sufficiently reinforced (Arukh LaNer; see Sefat Emet).

with regard to determining whether or not a sukka is suitable for all seven days, Rabbi Yehuda does not distinguish between rabbinic and Torah prohibitions. If the sukka is not suitable for residence for all seven days, in practice it is unfit (Ritva).

Nor may one write bills of divorce on it – ‫יטי‬ ֵּ ‫ַאף ֵאין ּכ ְֹות ִבין ָע ָליו ִ ּג‬ ‫נָשים‬: ִ ׁ Clearly, the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili A sukka that is suitable for seven days – ‫סו ָּּכה ָה ְראוּיָ ה ְל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬: with regard to bills of divorce is not the same as the rationale for Rabbi Yehuda certainly agrees that establishing a sukka on the the other halakhot mentioned. The halakha that bills of divorce back of an animal is a prohibited by rabbinic law. Nevertheless, written on a living being are invalid is derived from a verse.



‫גכ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 23a 

111

‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר? ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ָּתמוּת‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ – ‫ ְ ּב ִפיל ָק ׁשוּר‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִּת ְב ַרח‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי נַ ִמי‬,‫ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ‫ ִּכי‬.‫ָמיֵ ית – יֵ ׁש ְ ּבנִ ְב ָלתֹו ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ .‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ְ ּב ִפיל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָק ׁש ּור‬ ‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ֶש ָּמא ָּתמוּת – ָלא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫ישינַן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ָחי‬ .‫ישינַן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ִּת ְב ַרח – ָחי‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that an animal is unfit for use as a partition in areas of halakha where a partition is required? Abaye said: It is due to the concern lest the animal die, leaving the sukka without a wall. Rabbi Zeira said: It is due to the concern lest it flee. The Gemara explains the practical halakhic differences between the two opinions. In the case where one established a wall with a tied elephant, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit, as even if it dies and falls, its carcass still has a height of ten handbreadths and is fit for the wall of a sukka. Where they disagree is in the case of an elephant that is not tied. According to the one who said: It is due to the concern lest the animal die, we are not concerned in this case, as the carcass would remain a fit wall. According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, we remain concerned.

‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא ָּתמוּת‬ ‫ ְ ּב ִפיל‬,‫נֵיחו ּׁש ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִּת ְב ַרח! ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָק ׁש ּור – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא‬ ‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה‬.‫ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ‫ְק ׁש ּו ָרה; ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּגזֵ ָרה‬ ‫ ו ְּל ַמאן‬,‫ישינַ ן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ָּמא ָּתמוּת – ָחי‬ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִּת ְב ַרח – ָלא‬ ,‫ישינַן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ָחי‬

The Gemara asks: According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it die, let us also be concerned lest it flee, as that too is a reasonable concern. Rather, this is the explanation: In the case where one established a wall with an elephant that is not tied, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit lest it flee. Where they disagree is in the case of a tied animal. According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest the animal die, we are concerned, as although it cannot flee, it might die, and the carcass of a typical animal is not ten handbreadths high. And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, we are not concerned.

‫ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִּת ְב ַרח‬ ‫יתה‬ ָ ‫נֵ יח ּו ׁש ׁ ֶש ָּמא ָּתמ וּת? ִמ‬ ‫וחא‬ ָ ְ‫יכא ַרו‬ ָ ‫ָלא ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ָה ִא‬.‫יחא‬ ‫יה ְ ּבהוּצָ א‬ ּ ‫דְּ ֵבינֵי ֵ ּבינִי! דְּ ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ .‫וְ ַד ְפנָ א‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, let us also be concerned lest it die. The Gemara answers: That is not a concern because death is not common. The Sages do not issue decrees with regard to uncommon circumstances. The Gemara asks: But according to all opinions, isn’t there the space between its legs, which is like a breach in a wall? How can one establish a partition whose breached segment exceeds its standing segment? The Gemara answers: He establishes a partition for it by filling the gaps with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves, sealing the breach.

‫יחה ְ ּב ַא ׁ ְש ֵלי‬ ָ ‫וְ ִד ְל ָמא ָר ְב ָעה! דִּ ְמ ִת‬ ‫ ו ְּל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬.‫ִמ ְּל ֵעיל‬ ‫יחה ְ ּב ַא ׁ ְש ֵלי‬ ָ ‫ ָהא ְמ ִת‬,‫ָּתמוּת נַ ִמי‬ ‫מֹוקים ְ ּב ָפחֹות‬ ִ ְּ‫ִמ ְּל ֵעיל! זִ ְמנִין ד‬ , ְ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָסמוּךְ ַל ְּס ָכך‬

The Gemara asks further: And even though there is no concern lest the animal die, perhaps it will crouch, leaving a wall that is less than ten handbreadths? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where the animal is tied with ropes from above so that it cannot crouch. Based on that explanation, the Gemara asks: And according to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it die, there is also no concern since it is tied with ropes from above. Even if the animal died, it would remain in place as a fit partition. The Gemara answers: Sometimes the tenhandbreadth wall consists of the animal that is a bit higher than seven handbreadths established adjacent to the roofing, less than three handbreadths away.

Perek II Daf 23 Amud b notes

Concerned and not concerned about potential death – ‫חיֵ ׁיש וְ ָלא ָחיֵ ׁיש ְל ִמ ָיתה‬:ָ In the Jerusalem Talmud the distinction is between concern that one died and the concern about his potential death. There is no concern that he died. Since he was alive, his presumptive status remains that he is alive until evidence is produced to the contrary. However, with regard to the concern about potential death, since ultimately everyone dies, even though it is not known when he will die, there is constant concern.

‫ וְ ָלאו‬,‫יתא – ַּכוְ וצָ א‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ַמי‬And once it dies, it contracts to be more than three handbreadths from .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַאדַּ ְע ֵּת‬the roofing, and it does not enter his mind to fix it because it is not noticeable. In that case, the principle of lavud would not apply, and the result would be a wall that is less than the minimum requisite height. ‫ו ִּמי ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָחיֵ ׁיש‬ ?‫יתה וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָלא ָחיֵ ׁיש‬ ָ ‫ְל ִמ‬ ‫ִשאת‬ ׂ ֵ ּ ‫ ַ ּבת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ּנ‬:‫וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬ ‫ וְ ָה ַל ְך ַ ּב ְע ָל ּה ִל ְמ ִדינַ ת‬,‫ְלכ ֵֹהן‬ ‫אֹוכ ֶלת ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה ְ ּב ֶחזְ ַקת‬ ֶ – ‫ַהּיָ ם‬ .‫ׁ ֶשהוּא ַקּיָ ים‬

The Gemara asks: And did Abaye actually say that Rabbi Meir is concerned about potential death with regard to the sukka walls and that Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned?n Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma as the wife of a priest, as the presumptive status of her husband is that he is alive?h Apparently, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that one who is alive remains alive.

halakha

The wife of a priest whose husband departed – ‫ֵא ׁ ֶשת ּכ ֵֹהן‬ ‫ש ִה ְפ ִליג ַ ּב ְע ָל ּה‬: ֶ ׁ In the case of a daughter of an Israelite who

112 

Perek II . 23b . ‫גכ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

married a priest, even if her husband travels overseas she may continue to eat teruma based on the presumption that he is

alive until evidence is produced to the contrary (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 9:2).

‫יך ׁ ָש ָעה‬ ְ ‫יט‬ ֵּ ‫״ה ֵרי זֶ ה ִ ּג‬ ֲ :‫ ּו ְר ִמינַ ן ֲע ָל ּה‬And we raised a contradiction from a different mishna: If one is ‫ית ִתי״ – ֲאסו ָּרה ֶל ֱאכֹול‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ִמ‬ ֶ ‫ ַא ַחת‬leaving his place of residence, and in order to preclude a situation .‫ ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה ִמּיָ ד‬where his wife would have the status of a deserted wife he gives her a conditional bill of divorce and stipulates: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour prior to my death,hn it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma immediately due to the concern lest he die in the next hour. Apparently, there is concern lest one die at any point. ‫ ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬And Abaye said in resolving the contradiction: This is not dif‫ ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יתה‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ ִאיר דְּ ָלא ָחיֵ ׁיש ְל ִמ‬ficult. This mishna, where the presumption is that one who is .‫יתה‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָחיֵ ׁיש ְל ִמ‬,‫ יְ הו ָּדה‬alive remains alive, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is not concerned about potential death. That mishna, where there is concern lest one die at any point, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is concerned about potential death. ,‫ ַה ּל ֵֹוק ַח יַ יִ ן ִמ ֵ ּבין ַה ּכו ִּתים‬:‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ – ‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ל ּו ִ ּגין ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי ָע ִתיד ְל ַה ְפ ִר ׁיש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ִר‬,‫ֲה ֵרי ֵהן ְּתרו ָּמה‬ ,‫יחל וְ ׁש ֶֹותה ִמּיָ ד‬ ֵ ‫ ו ֵּמ‬,‫ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬ .‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬

The Gemara cites proof that these are the opinions of those tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritansn and there is reason to suspect that teruma and tithes were not taken, and he is not in a position to separate teruma, he acts as follows. If there are one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and a tenth of the remainder, which is nine log, are second tithe.b And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money,n and he may drink the wine immediately,n relying on the separation that he will perform later. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

halakha

This is your bill of divorce one hour prior to my death – ‫ֲה ֵרי‬ ‫קֹודם ִמ ָית ִתי‬ ֶ ‫יך ׁ ָש ָעה ַא ַחת‬ ְ ‫יט‬ ֵּ ‫זֶ ה ִ ּג‬: If a priest says to his wife, the daughter of an Israelite: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour prior to my death, then from that moment it is prohibited for his wife to eat teruma, as most tanna’im maintain that there is concern about potential death (Rabbi David ben Zimra; Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 9:1). background

Terumot and tithes – ‫תרוּמֹות ו ַּמ ַע ְ ׂשרֹות‬:ְּ The method of separating terumot and tithes from one hundred units, as in the illustration, is as follows: First one separates teruma, which is given to priests. The average measure mandated by the Sages is one-fiftieth of the produce, or two units in this case. Then he separates first tithe, which is given to a Levite. It is one-tenth of the remainder, or slightly less than ten units. He then separates second tithe, one-tenth of the remainder, or slightly less than nine units. The owners of the produce must take the second tithe to Jerusalem and eat it there. In the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, instead of second tithe one separates poor man’s tithe, which is distributed to the poor.

Amounts separated for terumot and tithes from one hundred units of produce

notes

This is your bill of divorce one hour prior to my death – ‫ֲה ֵרי‬ ‫קֹודם ִמ ָית ִתי‬ ֶ ‫יך ׁ ָש ָעה ַא ַחת‬ ְ ‫יט‬ ֵּ ‫זֶ ה ִ ּג‬: A man gives his wife a bill of divorce with this stipulation when, for example, they have no children and he seeks to prevent her from being subjected to ĥalitza or levirate marriage to his brother. Since he does not actually wish to divorce her, he seeks to prevent the divorce from taking effect for as long as possible. However, since one cannot divorce his wife after he dies, it must take effect while he is alive. Therefore, he stipulates that the divorce will take effect just before his death, as in this context hour means moment. The Samaritans – ‫ה ּכו ִּתים‬:ַ There is a tannaitic dispute pertaining to the Samaritans with regard to whether their legal status is that of Jews who do not observe rabbinic law or that of gentiles. Ultimately, the ruling is that they are considered gentiles. However, in tannaitic literature, mishnayot and baraitot, they were still considered suspect Jews. Due to that status, and due to the concern that they did not separate teruma and tithes



from their produce, one who purchases their produce must do so. The commentaries explain at length that the Gemara is referring to a case where it cannot be determined whether teruma and tithes were separated. Purchase of wine from Samaritans – ‫יחת יַ יִ ן ִמן ּכו ִּתים‬ ַ ‫ל ִק‬:ְ This halakha applies to one who purchases untithed wine from a Jew as well; however, since it is prohibited for a Jew to sell untithed produce this is uncommon. Therefore, the Gemara cites a more common case. He deconsecrates [meiĥel] and drinks – ‫יחל וְ ׁש ֶֹותה‬ ֵ ‫מ‬:ֵ Rashi explains that the word meiĥel means: Deconsecrates through redemption. Other commentaries explain that it means: Begins, and that this phrase means: One may begin to drink it immediately (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Tosafot; Rabbi Aaron HaLevi; Ritva). A variant reading cited in the name of Rav Hai Gaon is mohel, meaning dilutes. One dilutes the wine with water and drinks it. ‫גכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 23b 

113

Perek II Daf 24 Amud a background

Wineskin – ‫נֹוד‬: Wineskins were essentially jugs made from whole hides taken from different types of animals. Such skins were used for many purposes and were especially useful for carrying objects and food items. When used for liquids, such as water, wine, or oil, care was taken to remove the animal’s hide intact, and the hide of the legs was not separated. A hollow reed was inserted into the hide in place of one of the legs and served as a spout. However, some jugs had two spouts, with reeds inserted in the hide in place of two of the legs.

‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָחיֵ ׁיש ְל ִמ ָיתה‬: ְ‫ֵאיפוּך‬ :‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫יתה‬ ָ ‫יְ הו ָּדה ָלא ָחיֵ ׁיש ְל ִמ‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֹופן ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ֶ ּ‫ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ד‬ .‫ֹוסל וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬ ֵ ‫ֵמ ִאיר ּפ‬

The Gemara suggests: Reverse the attribution of the statements according to Abaye. Rabbi Meir is concerned about potential death, and Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about potential death, as it is taught in a baraita: If one utilized his animal as a wall for the sukka, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

!‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ,‫יחא‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ָיתה – ׁ ְש ִכ‬:‫ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫יחא‬ ָ ‫יעת ַהנּ ֹוד – ָלא ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ַ ‫ְ ּב ִק‬ .‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יה ַל ׁ ּש‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָמ ַסר ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to sukka, where he is concerned about potential death, and the other statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to separation of teruma and tithes, where he is not concerned lest the wineskin burst. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: Death is common, as every living being will eventually die; however, the bursting of the wineskinb is not commonn because it is possible that he gave the wineskin to a guardn for protection so that it does not burst until he has the opportunity to separate the required teruma and tithes.

!‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to sukka, where he is not concerned about potential death, and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to separation of teruma and tithes, where he is concerned lest the wineskin burst.

Jug made from a whole hide notes

Bursting of the wineskin is not common – ‫יעת ַהנּ ֹוד ָלא‬ ַ ‫ְ ּב ִק‬ ‫יחא‬ ָ ‫ש ִכ‬: ְ ׁ Although with regard to other matters, greater vitality and a greater capacity to avoid harm is attributed to a person than even to an animal, in this case a person is more susceptible to harm than a wineskin because a wineskin, as opposed to a person, can be safeguarded. Furthermore, the primary concern with regard to this wineskin is that one might eat produce that is teruma by rabbinic law, while with regard to a person, if the wife of a priest were to eat teruma within an hour of his death, she would violate a Torah prohibition (Mitzpe Eitan). It is possible that he gave the wineskin to a guard – ‫ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬ ‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יה ַל ׁ ּש‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָמ ַסר ֵל‬: The later authorities cite several sources that cast doubt on the reliability of a guard. Ostensibly, there is a distinction between a sentry and a guard. With regard to a sentry, whose responsibility is to identify impending threats and inform the people, there is concern that he will not be sufficiently vigilant. With regard to a guard, whose responsibility is to protect a specific object or to perform a specific task, he is expected to be vigilant (see Yad David, Arukh LaNer, and Emek Sukkot). Retroactive clarification – ‫ב ֵר ָירה‬: ּ ְ The issue of retroactive clarification appears in several areas of halakha and is linked to a number of related topics. The fundamental question is: To what extent can retroactive significance be attributed to actions? Can an action performed in the present take effect in the past? In the words of the Sages: The matter was revealed retroactively. The halakhic analysis indicates that opinions on this matter range from those who completely negate the principle of retroactive clarification to those who apply it in all cases. The ruling is that in matters of Torah law there is no retroactive clarification, while in matters of rabbinic law there is retroactive clarification.

114 

‫יֹוסי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit one from doing so due to the concern lest the wineskin burst and the !‫אֹוס ִרין‬ ְ contents spill before he has an opportunity to actually separate the teruma and tithes. In that case, when he drank the wine, retroactively, he is found to have drunk untithed produce. Rabbi Meir is not concerned about potential change in the status quo, and Rabbi Yehuda, who is concerned lest the wineskin burst, would all the more so be concerned about potential death.

Perek II . 24a . ‫דכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

‫ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּש ּום‬The Gemara answers: The rationale for the opinion of Rabbi ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫יעת נֹוד‬ ַ ‫ דְּ ָחיֵ ׁיש ִל ְב ִק‬Yehuda with regard to tithes is not due to the fact that he is con.‫יה ְ ּב ֵר ָירה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ֵלית ֵל‬cerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin; rather, he rules that one may not drink the wine because he is not of the opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification.n The procedure prescribed by Rabbi Meir is based on a fundamental assumption that when the separation is actually performed, the produce that he separates for teruma and tithes at that point is determined retroactively to have been teruma and tithes from the outset. Rabbi Yehuda does not accept this principle. Therefore, one’s subsequent actions do not retroactively determine the original status of the produce. !?‫יעת נֹוד‬ ַ ‫וְ ָלא ָחיֵ ׁיש ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִל ְב ִק‬ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ָהא ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬ ‫יִב ַקע‬ ּ ָ ‫מֹודה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬ ֶ ‫ ִאי ַא ָּתה‬:‫ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ֹותה ְט ָב ִלים‬ ֶ ‫ וְ נִ ְמצָ א זֶ ה ׁש‬,‫ַהנּ ֹוד‬ .‫ ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשּיִ ָ ּב ַקע‬:‫ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע? וְ ָא ַמר ְלה ּו‬ ‫יעת‬ ַ ‫ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ָחיֵ ׁיש ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִל ְב ִק‬ !‫ַהנּ ֹוד‬

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not concerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin? But isn’t there proof from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that the Sages said to Rabbi Meir with regard to tithes: Do you not concede that perhaps the wineskin will burst, and it will be determined retroactively that he is drinking untithed produce? And Rabbi Meir said to the Sages: That possibility is not a concern. When it actually bursts, I will be concerned. This indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees with Rabbi Meir, is concerned about the potential bursting of the wineskin.

‫ָה ָתם ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה הוּא דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ ְל ִד ִידי – ֵלית ִלי ְ ּב ֵר ָירה‬:‫ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫מֹודה‬ ֶ ‫ְל ִד ָידךְ דְּ יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ֵר ָירה – ִאי ַא ָּתה‬ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ָ ּב ַקע ַהנּ ֹוד? ָא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשּיִ ָ ּב ַקע‬

The Gemara answers that there, it is Rabbi Yehuda who is saying to Rabbi Meir: For me, I am not of the opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification, and therefore one cannot separate teruma and tithes after drinking the wine. However, according to your opinion that there is a principle of retroactive clarification, do you not concede that one may not drink wine before separating teruma and tithes due to the concern lest the wineskin burst? Rabbi Meir said to him: When it actually bursts, I will be concerned.

‫יתה? וְ ָהא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָלא ָחיֵ ׁיש ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה ְל ִמ‬ ‫ ַאף ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ְּתנַן‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ָּתמוּת ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו! ָהא‬,‫ַמ ְת ִקינִין לֹו‬ ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ְּ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫ית ַמר ֲע ָל ּה‬ .‫ ַמ ֲע ָלה ָע ׂש ּו ְ ּב ַכ ּ ָפ ָרה‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬

‫ ֵ ּבין ְל ַמאן‬,‫ֵ ּבין ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ֶש ָּמא ָּתמוּת‬ ‫יצה‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ִמד‬,‫דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִּת ְב ַרח‬ ּ ָ ‫יתא ְמ ִח‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן הוּא דְּ גָ זְ ר ּו ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ְמ ַע ְליָ א ִהיא‬ ?‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִּת ְט ָמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם גּ ֵֹולל‬,‫ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬ ,‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ְמ ַט ֵּמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּג ֵֹולל‬:‫ַא ָּל ָּמה ְּתנַן‬ !‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְמ ַט ֵהר‬

The Gemara asks further: And is Rabbi Yehuda not concerned about potential death? Didn’t we learn in a mishna in tractate Yoma (2a) that the Sages said with regard to the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and since the High Priest performing the Yom Kippur service must be married, Rabbi Yehuda says: They would even designate another wifen for him lest his wife die. Apparently, he is concerned about potential death. The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that this designation is unique to Yom Kippur, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: They established a higher standard with regard to atonement? Therefore, matters that are not a source of concern in other areas of halakha are significant with regard to Yom Kippur.

§ The Gemara asks: Both according to the one who said that an

animal is an unfit partition due to the concern lest it die, and according to the one who said that it is due to the concern lest it flee, apparently it is a full-fledged partition by Torah law, and it is the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting its use lest a problem arise. However, if that is so, according to Rabbi Meir an animal used as a covering for a grave should be impure due to the impurity of the covering of a grave.h Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (Eiruvin 15a–b) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a living creature imparts ritual impurity due to the impurity of the covering of a grave, but Rabbi Meir deems it pure? If according to Rabbi Meir an animal is unfit for use as a partition only due to the concern lest it die or flee, but essentially it is a fit partition, why does it not become impure when used as a covering of a grave?

‫ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ‫עֹומ ֶדת ָ ּברו ַּח ֵאינָ ּה‬ ֶ ‫יצה ׁ ֶש‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִאיר ָּכל ְמ ִח‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫יצה‬ ּ ָ ‫ְמ ִח‬ ‫יצה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָּכל ְמ ִח‬:‫יַ ֲעקֹב‬ .‫יצה‬ ּ ָ ‫ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם – ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ִח‬

Rather, Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said, contrary to that which was stated above: Rabbi Meir holds that any partition that stands by means of air,n i.e., by intangible means, like an animate being, which stands due to its life force, is not a partition. Some say a different version of that which Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: Rabbi Meir holds that any partition that is not established by a personn is not a partition.

‫אֹוק ָמ ּה‬ ְ ְּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו ד‬ ָּ ‫ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא‬ ‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ ֶ ‫יצה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְמ ִח‬.‫ְ ּבנֹוד ָּתפו ַּח‬ ,‫עֹומ ֶדת ָ ּברו ַּח‬ ֶ ‫יצה – ֲה ֵרי‬ ּ ָ ‫ָ ּברו ַּח ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ִח‬ – ‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֵאינָ ּה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם‬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two versions of Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov’s statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case where one establishes a partition with an inflated wineskin. According to the one who said that a partition that stands by means of air is not a partition, this partition also stands by means of air and is therefore unfit. According to the one who said that if it is not established by a person it is not a partition,

notes

Designate another wife – ‫א ׁ ּ ָשה ַא ֶח ֶרת ַמ ְת ִקינִין‬: ִ It is written with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And make atonement for himself, and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6). His house is understood to be referring to his wife. Therefore, the High Priest must be married when effecting atonement. Since there is concern lest his wife die, another wife is designated so that he will not remain without a wife. Partition that stands by means of air – ‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ ֶ ‫יצה ׁ ֶש‬ ּ ָ ‫ְמ ִח‬ ‫ברו ַּח‬‎ּ ָ : Apparently, the use of the term air in this context is in the negative sense. In other words, a partition must stand by actual and tangible means. Any factor that is not discernible through the senses, whether it is technically material or spiritual, falls within the rubric of air in this context. Partition established by a person – ‫יצה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה‬ ּ ָ ‫ְמ ִח‬ ‫ב ֵידי ָא ָדם‬: ּ ִ Tosafot in tractate Eiruvin explain that this excludes only objects that one is incapable of creating, e.g., animals. However, any object that one is capable of creating, even if it was actually formed naturally, e.g., partitions of stone or trees, is not unfit, even according to this opinion. halakha

If one used an animal as a covering of a grave – ‫ָע ָ ׂשה‬ ‫יצה ְל ֶק ֶבר‬ ּ ָ ‫ב ֵה ָמה ְמ ִח‬:ּ ְ An untethered animal is not considered a covering of a grave since it moves from place to place (Kesef Mishne). If it is tethered and used as a covering of a grave, one who comes into contact with it is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, like one who comes into contact with any other covering of a grave. After the animal is freed from the tether its legal status is like that of any other animal and it is pure, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 6:4).

Perek II Daf 24 Amud b .‫ ֲה ֵרי ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם‬this partition was established by a person and is therefore fit. ‫ ַאף‬:ּ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ָא ְמרו‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫יה‬ ִ ׁ ‫יטי‬ ֵּ ‫ֹות ִבין ָע ָליו ִ ּג‬ ְ ‫ֵאין ּכ‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬.‫נָשים‬ ‫״ס ֶפר״ ֵאין ִלי‬ ֵ :‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי? דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ַר ּבֹות ָּכל דָּ ָבר – ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ֵס ֶפר‬ .‫ ״וְ ָכ ַתב ָל ּה״ – ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ



§ The Master said in the baraita that in the name of Rabbi Yosei

HaGelili they said: Nor may one write bills of divorce on it.h The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When a man takes a wife, and marries her, and it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her a scroll [sefer]n of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:1); from the word scroll, I have derived only that a scroll is fit. From where do I derive to include all objects as fit materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? The verse states: “That he write her,” in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written.

halakha

Writing a bill of divorce on a live object – ‫ְּכ ִת ַיבת ֵ ּגט‬ ‫על ַחי‬:ַ A man may write a bill of divorce on the arm of a slave or on the horn of a cow, provided that he does not cut off that which he wrote and give it to his wife. Rather, he must give her the slave or the animal, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 124:2). notes

Scroll [sefer] – ‫ס ֶפר‬:ֵ By comparing verses in which the word sefer appears, the Sages proved that in the Bible, it is not referring to a collection of pages. Rather, the meaning of sefer is limited in the following ways: In terms of its material, it is written on parchment; in terms of its form, it is rolled like a scroll, not bound like a book; and in terms of its writing, it is written in ink. ‫דכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 24b 

115

halakha

Conditions of the bill of divorce – ‫תנָ ֵאי ַה ֵ ּגט‬:ְּ If a man stipulates a condition for divorce that permanently binds his wife to him, e.g., he divorces her on the condition that she will never drink wine, the divorce is not valid. However, if the stipulation binds his wife to him for a fixed period, it is a valid divorce, and she must fulfill the conditions. There are those who hold that even if the fixed period is longer than a typical lifetime, the divorce is valid (Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 143:20).

‫לֹומר‬ ַ – ‫״ס ֶפר״‬ ֵ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִאם ֵּכן ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ,‫ ַמה ֵּס ֶפר דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו רו ַּח ַחּיִ ים‬: ָ‫ְלך‬ ‫ ַאף ָּכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו רו ַּח‬,‫אֹוכל‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֵאינֹו‬ !‫אֹוכל‬ ֶ ‫ַחּיִ ים וְ ֵאינֹו‬

If so, what is the meaning of that which the verse states: Scroll? It is to tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor is it food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food. That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.

,‫״ב ֵס ֶפר״ – ִּכ ְד ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ ּ ְ ‫ ִאי ָּכ ַתב‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree and say that ‫״ס ֶפר״ – ִל ְס ִפ ַירת‬ ֵ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, .‫ דְּ ָב ִרים ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא‬interpret the verse? They contend: If the verse had written: That he write for her in the scroll [basefer], it would be as you said, that the bill of divorce may be written only on a scroll. Now that it is written simply: That he write her a sefer, it comes to teach that a mere account of the matters [sefirat devarim] is required. There are no restrictions with regard to the surface on which that account may be written. ?‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַהאי ״וְ ָכ ַתב״ ַמאי דָּ ְר ׁ ִשי ֵ ּב‬,‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ִ ּב ְכ ִת ָיבה ִמ ְת ָ ּג ֶר ׁ ֶשת‬:ּ‫יב ֵעי ְלהו‬ ּ ָ ‫ַההוּא ִמ‬ ְ‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתך‬.‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה ִמ ְת ָ ּג ֶר ׁ ֶשת ְ ּב ֶכ ֶסף‬ ,‫יאה ַל ֲהוָ יָה‬ ָ ִ‫הֹואיל וְ ִא ְּית ַק ׁש יְ צ‬ ִ :‫ָא ִמינָ א‬ ,‫יאה ְ ּב ֶכ ֶסף‬ ָ ִ‫ָמה ֲהוָ יָ ה ְ ּב ֶכ ֶסף – ַאף יְ צ‬ .‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

The Gemara continues: And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase: “That he write her”? The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since in the verse, leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, is juxtaposed to becoming married,n i.e., betrothal, then just as becoming married is effected with money, so too, leaving marriage may be effected with money. Therefore, the Torah teaches us: “That he write her,” indicating that divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.

‫ילי ַהאי ְס ָב ָרא ְמנָ א‬ ִ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he ‫ ֵס ֶפר‬:‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ּ ‫״ס ֶפר ְּכ ִריתוּת״ נָ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬derive this reasoning that a woman cannot be divorced with money? .‫ וְ ֵאין דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר ּכ ְֹור ָת ּה‬,‫ ּכ ְֹור ָת ּה‬The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: “A scroll of severance,” which teaches that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband, and nothing else severs her from him. ‫יה ְל ָד ָבר ַה ּכ ֵֹורת‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַההוּא ִמ‬: ְ‫וְ ִא ָידך‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ‫יטיךְ ַעל‬ ֵּ ‫ ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה ִ ּג‬:‫ ִּכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬.‫ֵ ּבינֹו ְל ֵבינָ ּה‬ ‫ְמנָ ת ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִּת ׁ ְש ִּתי יַ יִ ן וְ ַעל ְמנָ ת ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ ‫עֹולם – ֵאין זֶ ה‬ ָ ‫יך ְל‬ ְ ‫ֵּת ְל ִכי ְל ֵבית ָא ִב‬ ‫״כל ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים יֹום״ – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה‬ ָּ ,‫ְּכ ִריתוּת‬ .‫ְּכ ִריתוּת‬

The Gemara continues: And the other tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, requires that verse to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her. As it is taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the conditionh that you will never drink wine, or on the condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not severance; the divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition for the duration of thirty days, or any other limited period of time, that is severance, and the divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.

.‫״כ ִריתוּת״ נָ ְפ ָקא‬ ְּ ‫״כ ֵרת״‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ‬:‫ וְ ִא ָיד ְך‬The Gemara continues: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, .‫ ָּכ ֵרת ְּכ ִריתוּת ָלא דָּ ְר ׁ ִשי‬: ְ‫ וְ ִא ָידך‬derives that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce from the fact that instead of using the term karet, the verse uses the more expanded term keritut. Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance. And the other tanna, the Rabbis, does not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut,n because the Rabbis do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.

notes

Leaving marriage is juxtaposed to becoming married – ‫ִא ְּית ַק ׁש‬ ‫יאה ַל ֲהוָ יָ ה‬ ָ ִ‫יְ צ‬: This juxtaposition of leaving marriage to becoming married appears in the verse: “And she departs from his house and goes and becomes the wife of another man” (Deuteronomy 24:2). It serves as the basis for many important halakhot, as the relationship between the halakhot of divorce and the halakhot of marriage is derived from this juxtaposition.

116 

Perek II . 24b . ‫דכ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

The other tanna does not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut – ‫א ָיד ְך ָּכ ֵרת ְּכ ִריתוּת ָלא דָּ ְר ׁ ִשי‬:ִ Apparently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interprets keritut as the plural of karet and therefore derives two halakhot with regard to severance. On the other hand, the Rabbis interpret keritut as a singular abstract noun meaning severance. Therefore, they derive only one halakha from it.

mishna  ‫ גמ׳‬gemara 

‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ֵ ּבין ָה ִא ָילנֹות וְ ָה ִא ָילנֹות‬ ׂ ֶ ‫מתני׳ ָה‬ .‫דְּ ָפנֹות ָל ּה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬

In the case of one who establishes his sukka between the trees,n and the trees h serve as walls for it, the sukka is fit.

‫יצה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָּכל ְמ ִח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ .‫יצה‬ ָ ְ‫י‬ ּ ָ ‫כֹולה ַל ֲעמֹוד ְ ּברו ַּח ְמצוּיָ ה – ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ִח‬

Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: Any partition that is not able to stand in a typical wind,h but rather is blown to and fro, is not a partition.

‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ֵ ּבין ָה ִא ָילנֹות וְ ָה ִא ָילנֹות‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָה‬:‫ ְּתנַ ן‬The Gemara asks the following question based on that which we ‫ וְ ָהא ָק ָאזֵ יל וְ ָא ֵתי! ָה ָכא‬.‫ דְּ ָפנֹות ָל ּה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬learned in the mishna: In the case of one who establishes his .‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְ ּב ָק ׁ ִשין‬sukka between the trees, and the trees serve as walls for it, the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: But don’t the trees sway back and forth in the wind? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? The mishna is referring to older trees that are thick and hard and do not sway in the wind. ‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫יה ְ ּבהוּצָ א וְ ַד ְפנָ א‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָה ִא ָּיכא נֹופֹו! דְּ ָע ֵביד ֵל‬The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the issue of its foliage, which ‫ נִיגְ זַ ר דִּ ְל ָמא ָא ֵתי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ימ ָרא? ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ְ ‫ ַמאי ְל ֵמ‬certainly sways in the wind? If it constitutes part of the wall of .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ ְל ִא ׁ ְש ַּת ּמו ׁ ֵּשי ְ ּב ִא ָילן‬the sukka, the sukka should be unfit. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where it is a fit wall due to the fact that he established the wall by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves to tighten it to prevent it from swaying in the wind. And the Gemara says: If it is so that the tree is tied and cannot sway, what purpose is there to state this halakha? It is obvious that it is a fit wall. The Gemara answers: It is lest you say: Let us issue a decree prohibiting its use lest one come to use the treen on Shabbat. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not a concern. ‫יצת‬ ּ ַ ‫ ָהיָ ה ׁ ָשם ִא ָילן אֹו ָ ּג ֵדר אֹו ְמ ִח‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬Come and hear a different proof that a partition that is blown to ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫יֹומד! ָה ָתם נַ ִמי‬ ָ ְּ‫ ַה ָ ּקנִים – נִידּ ֹון ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ד‬and fro in the wind is a fit partition. The halakha is that double .‫יה ְ ּבהוּצָ א וְ ַד ְפנָ א‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָע ֵביד ֵל‬boards positioned in the four corners of an area surrounding a well render the area a private domain in which it is permitted to draw water from the well on Shabbat. If there was a tree there, one cubit thick on each side of one of the corners, or a square stone fence that measures one square cubit, or a partition of reeds, its legal status is assessed like that of a double boardn positioned at the corners of the area surrounding a well, and serve as a partition for two of the sides. Apparently, a partition that moves in the wind, like the partition of reeds, is considered a full-fledged partition. The Gemara refutes this proof: There, too, it is only considered a full-fledged partition due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves. ‫ ִאם ֵאין נֹופֹו‬,‫יסךְ ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ֵ ‫ ִא ָילן ַה ֵּמ‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫בֹוה ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים – ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין‬ ַּ ‫ָ ּג‬ ,‫ ַא ַּמאי? ָהא ָקא ָאזֵ יל וְ ָא ֵתי! ָה ָתם נַ ִמי‬,‫ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ .‫יה ְ ּבהוּצָ א וְ ַד ְפנָ א‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָע ֵביד ֵל‬

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a tree whose foliage is broad and its branches reach down and cover the ground,b if its foliage is not three handbreadths high off the ground it creates a space similar to a round room; therefore, one may carry beneath it, as it is a full-fledged private domain. Why is the foliage of the tree a fit partition? Doesn’t it sway back and forth in the wind? The Gemara answers: There, too, it is due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.

notes

One who establishes his sukka between the trees – ‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ֵ ּבין ָה ִא ָילנֹות‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ה‬:ָ Many of the commentaries and halakhic authorities hold that this is referring to a case where the roofing is not supported by the trees at all, not even from the side. The trees serve exclusively as walls (Me’iri; Magen Avraham). Some hold that even if the roofing is supported by the trees, the sukka is fit, as the issue of supporting roofing with material that is unfit roofing was discussed independently (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). Let us issue a decree prohibiting its use lest one come to use the tree – ‫נִיגְ זַ ר דִּ ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְל ִא ׁ ְש ַּת ּמו ׁ ֵּשי‬ ‫ב ִא ָילן‬:ּ ְ Sitting in a sukka whose walls are trees is not considered making use of the trees, as one using an object for the purpose of a mitzva is not considered to be deriving benefit from it. Double board – ‫יֹומד‬ ָ ְּ‫ד‬: In certain circumstances, the Sages permitted one to draw water from a well and carry it in the area surrounding a well based on the placement of upright boards around that area. The boards must be fixed at the four corners of the area at a right angle with each other, creating virtual walls on two sides of the area. The Sages said that if a column is thick enough for use as a double wall, it is effective although it is not shaped like a double post. background

A tree whose branches reach down and cover the ground – ‫יסךְ ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ֵ ‫א ָילן ַה ֵּמ‬:ִ The image below depicts a tree with branches reaching down. The Gemara is referring to a tree with branches that reach down to the ground on all sides.

Tree whose branches reach down

‫ ַא ָּל ָּמה ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫יה‬ ַּ ‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so that it is a case where one established ּ ‫נִיט ְל ֵטל ְ ּבכו ֵּּל‬ ‫ ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין ּבֹו‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ֵר‬the foliage as a complete partition, let him move objects in the entire area beneath the tree, since it is a private domain. Why, then, did Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, say: One may carry beneath this tree

halakha

Trees as walls of a sukka – ‫א ָילנֹות ִּכ ְד ָפנֹות סו ָּּכה‬:ִ If one establishes his sukka among trees such that the trees serve as the walls of the sukka, and the tree branches are sturdy or tied in a manner that prevents them from swaying to and fro in the wind, the sukka is fit. Therefore, one should not use fabric as



walls for the sukka, as even if it is tied tightly there is concern that it will nevertheless sway in the wind (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 630:10). A partition that is not able to stand in wind – ‫יצה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ּ ָ ‫ְמ ִח‬

‫כֹולה ַל ֲעמֹוד ְ ּברו ַּח‬ ָ ְ‫י‬‎: Any partition that cannot stand in a typical wind is not a partition. Therefore, if one seeks to use a tree as a partition for the purposes of the halakhot of Shabbat, he must tie its branches such that they will not sway to and fro in the wind (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 362:1). ‫דכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 24b 

117

Perek II Daf 25 Amud a notes

A residence whose uses are for the open air – ‫דִּ ָירה‬ ‫יה ָל ֲאוִ יר‬ ָ ‫יש‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ש ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ‬: ֶ ׁ Based on the Gemara, there are two criteria that typify a residence: (1) the existence of properly established partitions that are suitable for a residence; (2) the intended use of the site. Therefore, conceivably, a particular structure would not qualify as a residence if it was not intended for that purpose but rather to protect the surrounding area. In addition, if a structure is not used as a residence on a regular basis and its primary purpose is the use of its airspace, its halakhic status is not that of a residence (Ritva). There too he established the partition with hard palm leaves – ‫ה ָתם נַ ִמי דְּ ָע ֵביד ְ ּבהוּצָ א‬:ָ Some ask: What novel element is introduced by the additional sources cited in the Gemara? It is obvious that those proofs can be rejected in the same manner: It is referring to a case where the partition is reinforced with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves. One could answer that since this solution describes a circumstance that is atypical, the Gemara sought to determine whether that solution could be applied in each case (see Arukh LaNer). Those on the path to perform a mitzva – ‫שלו ֵּחי ִמצְ וָ ה‬: ְׁ There is a dispute among the halakhic authorities with regard to this halakha: Some hold that those engaged in performing a mitzva are exempt from performing a different mitzva only if doing so would interfere with performance of the first, e.g., in a case where searching for a sukka would lengthen their trip and delay performance of the mitzva they set out to perform. Others hold that they are exempt based on the principle: One engaged in performance of a mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva, even if both could be performed without particular exertion (Or Zarua). When you sit…and when you walk – ָ‫ב ׁ ִש ְב ְּתךָ …ו ְּב ֶל ְכ ְּתך‬:ּ ְ The question arises: Isn’t a groom also engaged in performance of a mitzva? Why, then, is a specific verse necessary to exempt him from reciting Shema? Isn’t the general exemption sufficient? One could answer that a groom is certainly exempt when actually engaged in performance of the mitzva or preparing to perform it. However, during the wedding, others are engaged in serving him while he is passive and one might think that he would then be obligated to recite Shema. Therefore, he requires an exemption due to his preoccupation. halakha

One who established his Shabbat residence on a mound…and similarly in a cavity – ‫ש ַבת ְ ּב ֵתל…וְ ֵכן ְ ּבנֶ ַקע‬: ָׁ If one established his Shabbat residence in an area up to two beit se’a enclosed by partitions that were not initially established for the purpose of residence, the halakhic status of that area is that of four cubits. Therefore, one may carry on Shabbat in the entire area of a mound ten handbreadths high, a cavity ten handbreadths deep, or a field of grain with stalks surrounding it (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 396:2). A groom and Shema – ‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ַ ‫ח ָתן ו ְּק ִר‬:ָ A groom who marries a virgin is exempt from reciting Shema, even for two or three days following the wedding, until he consummates the marriage, due to concern that as a result of his preoccupation, he might not have the proper intent when reciting Shema. That was the halakha in earlier generations; however, in later generations, when it is the norm to recite Shema without proper intent, a groom is obligated to recite Shema (Tosafot; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 70:3).

118 

Perek II . 25a . ‫הכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

!‫אתיִ ם‬ ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵ ּבית ָס‬only within an area of two beit se’a, the area necessary to grow two se’a of produce? Two beit se’a was the area of the Tabernacle courtyard; it is also the area within which the Sages permitted one to carry on Shabbat in a case where there are partitions but the area was not originally enclosed for the purpose of residence. If one tied the foliage to prevent its swaying in the wind, he clearly established the partition for residence, and there should be no limits on the area in which he may carry. ‫ וְ ָכל‬,‫יש ָיה ָל ֲאוִ יר‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָהוֵ י דִּ ָירה ׁ ֶש ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ‬The Gemara answers: The reason that it is permitted to carry only ‫יש ָיה ָל ֲאוִ יר ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין ּבֹו‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ דִּ ָירה ׁ ֶש ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ‬if the enclosed area is less than this size is because it is a residence n .‫אתיִ ם‬ ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָס‬whose uses are for the open air beyond it, i.e., it is used by guards who are watching the fields beyond it rather than as an independent residence. And the halakha with regard to any residence whose uses are for the open air beyond it is that one may carry in it only if its area is no larger than two beit se’a. ‫בֹוה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ַּ ‫ ׁ ָש ַבת ְ ּב ֵתל ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּג‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן‬,‫אתיִ ם‬ ַ ‫וְ הוּא ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַעד ֵ ּבית ָס‬ ‫ְ ּבנֶ ַקע ׁ ֶשהוּא ָעמֹוק ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה וְ הוּא ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן ָק ָמה ְקצו ָּרה‬,‫אתיִ ם‬ ַ ‫ַא ּמֹות ַעד ֵ ּבית ָס‬ ּ ‫אֹות ּה – ְמ ַה ֵל ְך ֶאת‬ ָ ‫וְ ׁ ִש ּבֹולֹות ַמ ִּקיפֹות‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל‬,‫ּכו ָּּל ּה וְ חוּצָ ּה ָל ּה ַא ְל ּ ַפיִ ם ַא ָּמה‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַ ּגב דְּ ָק ָאזֵ יל וְ ָא ֵתי! ָה ָתם נַ ִמי דְּ ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ .‫ְ ּבהוּצָ א וְ ַד ְפנָ א‬

Come and hear proof from another source: With regard to one who established his Shabbat residence on a mound that is ten handbreadths high and its area is anywhere from four cubits to two beit se’a; and similarly, with regard to one who established his Shabbat residence in a natural cavityh of a rock that is ten handbreadths deep and its area is anywhere from four cubits to two beit se’a; and similarly, with regard to one who established his Shabbat residence in a field of reaped grain, and rows of stalks ten handbreadths high that have not been reaped surround it, serving as a partition enclosing the reaped area, he may walk in the entire enclosed area and outside it an additional two thousand cubits. Apparently, the stalks are a fit partition although they sway back and forth in the wind. The Gemara refutes this proof: There, too, it is a fit partition due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leavesn and laurel leaves.

mishna 

Those on the path to perform a mitzvan .‫מתני׳ ׁ ְשלו ֵּחי ִמצְ וָ ה ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. The .‫יהן ּ ְפט ּו ִרין ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ ֶ ‫חֹולין ּו ְמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ֵש‬ ִ ill and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. .‫ֹותין ֲע ַראי חוּץ ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ִ ‫אֹוכ ִלין וְ ׁש‬ ְ One may eat and drink in the framework of a casual meal outside the sukka. ָ‫״ב ׁ ִש ְב ְּתך‬ ּ ְ :‫גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ‫ ״ו ְּב ֶל ְכ ְּתך‬,‫עֹוסק ְ ּב ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב ֵב ֶיתךָ ״ – ּ ְפ ָרט ְל‬ ‫ ַה ּכֹונֵס‬:ּ‫ ִמ ָּכאן ָא ְמרו‬.‫ַבדֶּ ֶרךְ ״ – ּ ְפ ָרט ְל ָח ָתן‬ – ‫ וְ ֶאת ָה ַא ְל ָמנָ ה‬,‫ֶאת ַה ְ ּבתו ָּלה – ּ ָפטוּר‬ .‫ַחּיָ יב‬

gemara 

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that one who is performing a mitzva is exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Sages taught in a baraita that it is written in the Torah that one recites Shema at the following times: “When you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). The Sages interpret: “When you sit in your house,” to the exclusion of one who is engaged in the performance of a mitzva, who is not sitting at home; “and when you walkn by the way,” to the exclusion of a groom, who is preoccupied with his mitzva of consummating the marriage and is not walking along the way. The baraita adds that from here the Sages stated: One who marries a virgin is exempt from reciting Shema on his wedding night, and one who marries a widow is obligated.h

‫ ַמה‬, ְ‫ ַּכדֶּ ֶרך‬:‫ ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע? ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred in this verse ‫ ְל ַא ּפו ֵּקי ַהאי‬,‫ דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר ׁשוּת – ַאף ּכֹל ְר ׁשוּת‬that a groom is exempt from the mitzva of Shema? Rav Huna said: .‫ דִּ ְב ִמצְ וָ ה ָעסוּק‬The circumstances when one is obligated to recite Shema are like the circumstances when one walks along the way: Just as the walking by the way described in the verse is voluntary and involves no mitzva, so too, all those obligated to recite Shema are similarly engaged in voluntary activities, to the exclusion of this groom, who is engaged in the performance of a mitzva.

,‫ִמי ָלא ָע ְס ִקינַן דְּ ָק ָאזֵ יל ִל ְד ַבר ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ‫יק ִרי! ִאם ֵּכן‬ ְ ‫וְ ָקא ֲא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִל‬ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫ּ״ב ֶל ֶכת״‬ ְ ‫״ב ׁ ֶש ֶבת״ ו‬ ּ ְ ‫ימא ְק ָרא‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ְ‫״ב ׁ ִש ְב ְּתךָ ״ ״ו ְּב ֶל ְכ ְּתךָ ״ – ְ ּב ֶל ֶכת דִּ ָידך‬ ְּ – ‫ ָהא ְ ּב ֶל ֶכת דְּ ִמצְ וָ ה‬,‫יחיְ ַיבת‬ ַ ‫הוּא דְּ ִמ‬ .‫ּ ְפ ִט ַירת‬

The Gemara asks: The verse does not specify the way along which one is walking. Are we not dealing with one who is walking along the way for a matter of a mitzva, and nevertheless, the Merciful One says to recite Shema? Apparently, one is obligated to do so even if he set out to perform a mitzva. The Gemara answers: If it is so that the intention was to obligate even those who are engaged in performance of a mitzva, let the verse state: When sitting and when walking. What is the meaning of: “When you sit…and when you walk”? It comes to underscore: It is in your walking, undertaken for personal reasons and of one’s own volition, that you are obligated to recite Shema; in walking with the objective of performing a mitzva, you are exempt from reciting Shema.

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, even one who marries a widow should also ‫יל ּו ּכֹונֵס ֶאת ָה ַא ְל ָמנָ ה‬ ‫ ּכֹונֵס‬,‫ נַ ִמי! ּכֹונֵס ֶאת ַה ְ ּבתו ָּלה – ְט ִריד‬be exempt, as he too is engaged in the performance of a mitzva. That, .‫ ַא ְל ָמנָ ה – ָלא ְט ִריד‬however, contradicts the baraita. The Gemara responds that there is a distinction between one marrying a virgin and one marrying a widow. One who marries a virgin is preoccupied by his concern lest he discover that his bride is not a virgin, while one who marries a widow is not preoccupied. ?‫יכא דִּ ְט ִריד ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דְּ ָפטוּר‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכל ֵה‬ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה ָט ְב ָעה ְס ִפינָ תֹו ַ ּבּיָ ם‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דְּ ָפטוּר?! וְ ִכי ֵּת‬,‫דִּ ְט ִריד‬ ‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי – וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ְזַב ָדא‬ ‫ ָא ֵבל ַחּיָ יב ְב ָכל ַה ִּמצְ ו‍ֹת‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ,‫ חוּץ ִמן ַה ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬,‫ָה ֲאמוּרֹות ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ !‫ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱא ַמר ָ ּב ֶהן ּ ְפ ֵאר‬

The Gemara asks: And wherever one is preoccupied is he indeed exempt? But if that is so, then one whose ship sank at sea, who is preoccupied, should also be exempt. The Gemara reinforces its question: And if you say that indeed, that is so, didn’t Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah, including reciting Shema, except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, from which he is exempt,h as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries?n If a mourner, who is clearly pained and preoccupied, is obligated to recite Shema, then certainly all others who are preoccupied, even one whose ship sank at sea, whose loss was merely monetary (Birkat Hashem), should be obligated. Why, then, is a groom exempted due to his preoccupation and one who lost his property is not?

halakha

A mourner is exempt from phylacteries – ‫ֲא ֵבל ּ ָפטוּר‬ ‫מ ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬:ִ It is prohibited for a mourner to don phylacteries on the first day of mourning, but he is obligated to do so thereafter (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 38:5). notes

As the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries – ‫ש ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱא ַמר ָ ּב ֶהן ּ ְפ ֵאר‬: ֶ ׁ There is a dispute among the commentaries: Some say that a mourner is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries based on the rationale that splendor, which is antithetical to mourning, is written with regard to phylacteries (Rosh; others). Others maintain that the mourner is exempt due to a Torah decree, proof of which is that Ezekiel was commanded to don phylacteries while in mourning, indicating that other mourners are exempt (see Tosafot). Those men who became impure, who were they – ‫נָשים ִמי ָהי ּו‬ ִ ׁ ‫אֹותם ֲא‬: ָ The early authorities ask: What is the point of this question? Clearly, in a group the size of the Jewish people in the desert, there are bound to be people who are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. Some explain that the reason for the attempt to identify these men is that their question was an intelligent one, as explained below. Therefore, an attempt was made to ascertain their identity (Rabbi Aaron HaLevi). The bearers of Joseph’s coffin – ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫נֹוש ֵאי ֲארֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬: ְׂ Although they are not mentioned by name, presumably those chosen to perform this significant mitzva were particularly worthy, and so it comes as no surprise that they asked a significant question (Rabbi Aaron HaLevi).

– ‫ ָה ָתם‬,‫ ָה ָכא ְט ִריד ִט ְירדָּ א דְּ ִמצְ וָ ה‬The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the .‫ ְט ִריד ִט ְירדָּ א דִּ ְר ׁשוּת‬cases. Here, in the case of a groom, he is preoccupied with the pre­ occupation of a mitzva that he must perform; there, in the case of a ship lost at sea, he is preoccupied with the preoccupation of a voluntary act that he chooses to perform. ‫עֹוסק ְ ּב ִמצְ וָ ה ּ ָפט ּור ִמן ַה ִּמצְ וָ ה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָה‬ :‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ֵמ ָה ָכא נָ ְפ ָקא? ֵמ ָה ָתם נָ ְפ ָקא‬ ‫נָשים ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָהי ּו ְט ֵמ ִאים ְלנֶ ֶפ ׁש‬ ִ ׁ ‫״וַ יְ ִהי ֲא‬ ?ּ‫נָשים ִמי ָהיו‬ ִ ׁ ‫אֹותם ֲא‬ ָ ‫ָא ָדם״ וגו׳‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫יֹוסף ָהי ּו‬ ֵ ‫נֹוש ֵאי ֲארֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ְׂ ,‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ

§ The Gemara asks: And is the halakhic principle that one who is

engaged in a mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva derived from here? It is derived from there, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “There were certain men who were impure by the corpse of a person and they could not observe the Pesaĥ on that day” (Numbers 9:6). Before proceeding with the discussion, the baraita seeks to clarify with regard to those men who became impure: Who were they?n The baraita answers: They were the bearers of Joseph’s coffin,n which the Jewish people brought with them in the desert. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Perek II Daf 25 Amud b ‫יש ֵאל וְ ֶא ְלצָ ָפן‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ .‫עֹוס ִקין ְ ּבנָ ָדב וַ ֲא ִביהוּא‬ ְ ‫ָהי ּו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬ ‫נֹוש ֵאי ֲארֹונֹו‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ִאם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ ,‫יט ֵהר‬ ָּ ‫כֹולין ִל‬ ִ ְ‫יֹוסף ָהי ּו – ְּכ ָבר ָהי ּו י‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫כֹולין ָהי ּו‬ ִ ְ‫יש ֵאל וְ ֶא ְלצָ ָפן ָהי ּו – י‬ ָ ׁ ‫ִאם ִמ‬ .‫יט ֵהר‬ ָּ ‫ִל‬



Rabbi Akiva says: They were Mishael and Elzaphan,n who were engaged in carrying the bodies of Nadav and Avihu after they were burned in the Holy of Holies (see Leviticus 10:4). Rabbi Yitzĥak says: These identifications are inaccurate, because if they were the bearers of Joseph’s coffin, they could have already been purified. They were camped at Sinai sufficient time to become purified in time to sacrifice the Paschal lamb. And if they were Mishael and Elzaphan they could have already been purified, as the Tabernacle was erected on the first of Nisan, which was the eighth day of the inauguration, when the sons of Aaron were burned. More than seven days remained until the eve of Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan.

notes

They were Mishael and Elzaphan – ‫יש ֵאל וְ ֶא ְלצָ ָפן ָהי ּו‬ ָ ׁ ‫מ‬:ִ Even according to the opinion that the inauguration of Aaron and his sons as priests began on the New Moon of Nisan, sufficient time remained for Mishael and Elzaphan to be purified before Passover, as in that case the day that the sons of Aaron were burned was seven days before Passover.

‫הכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 25b 

119

notes

Engaged in tending to a corpse whose burial is a mitzva – ‫עֹוס ִקין ְ ּב ֵמת ִמצְ וָ ה‬: ְ Everyone agrees that the people consulted with Moses before tending to the corpse. Moses instructed them to bury the corpse and subject themselves to impurity. That is why they approached him and claimed that they should not be excluded from partaking in the Paschal lamb. This is the source for the principle: One engaged in performing a mitzva is exempt from performing other mitzvot (see Rashi, Ritva, and Arukh LaNer).

‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָחל ׁ ְש ִב‬,ּ‫עֹוס ִקין ְ ּב ֵמת ִמצְ וָ ה ָהיו‬ ְ ‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ״וְ ל ֹא‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬.‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ ַ ּבּיֹום‬,‫יָ ְכל ּו ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַ ּבּיֹום ַההוּא״‬ – ‫ ָהא ְל ָמ ָחר‬,‫כֹולין ַל ֲע ׂשֹות‬ ִ ְ‫ַההוּא ֵאין י‬ .‫כֹולין ַל ֲע ׂשֹות‬ ִ ְ‫י‬

Rather, they were unnamed people who were engaged in tending to a corpse whose burial is a mitzva,n i.e., which has no one else available to bury it, and their seventh day of impurity occurred precisely on the eve of Passover,h as it is stated: “And they could not observe the Pesaĥ on that day” (Numbers 9:6). The Gemara infers: On that day they could not observe it; on the next day they could observe it. Although they would be purified at nightfall and would then be eligible to partake of the Paschal lamb, at the time of the slaughter and the sprinkling of the blood they were not yet pure. They asked whether the Paschal lamb could be slaughtered on their behalf. Apparently, they were obligated to perform the mitzva of burial of the corpse although it prevented them from fulfilling the mitzva of sacrificing the Paschal lamb, which is a stringent mitzva. This is the source for the principle that one engaged in the performance of a mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva.

‫ דְּ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַן ָה ָתם – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫צְ ִר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא דִּ ְמ ָטא‬,‫ְמ ָטא זְ ַמן ִחּיו ָּבא דְּ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫ צְ ִר ָיכא‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע – ֵא‬ ַ ‫זְ ַמן ְק ִר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַן ָה ָכא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֵל ָּיכא ָּכ ֵרת‬ .‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫יכא ָּכ ֵרת – ֵא‬ ָּ ‫ָה ָתם דְּ ִא‬

The Gemara answers: Both sources are necessary. As, if it had taught us there, in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse, the conclusion would have been that the exemption from sacrificing the Paschal lamb is due to the fact that the time of the obligation of the Pesaĥ had not yet arrived when they were obligated to bury the corpse, and therefore they proceeded to fulfill the mitzva that they encountered first. However, here, where the time to recite Shema had already arrived during the wedding, say no, that the groom is not exempt; therefore, it is necessary to teach that the groom is exempt. And if it had taught us here, with regard to Shema, the conclusion would have been that the exemption from Shema is due to the fact that it is not a stringent mitzva, as there is no karet administered to one who fails to fulfill it. However, there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karetn administered to one who fails to observe the Pesaĥ, say that one is not exempt from performing it. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.

:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר זַ ְב ָדא ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ ,‫ָא ֵבל ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ָכל ִמצְ �ֹות ָה ֲאמוּרֹות ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ ִּ ‫ח ּוץ ִמ ְּת ִפ‬ .‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱא ַמר ָ ּב ֶהן ּ ְפ ֵאר‬,‫ילין‬ ָ‫״פ ֵא ְרך‬ ְ ּ ‫יה ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִליְ ֶחזְ ֵקאל‬ ּ ‫ִמדַּ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ,‫יחּיְ ַיבת‬ ַ ‫בֹוש ָע ֶליךָ ״ וגו׳ – ַא ְּת הוּא דְּ ִמ‬ ׁ ‫ֲח‬ .‫ֲא ָבל ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא – ּ ְפ ִט ִירי‬

§ With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said

Where there is karet – ‫דְּ ִא ָּיכא ָּכ ֵרת‬: Even though there is no karet in this specific case, the mitzva of sacrificing the Paschal lamb is considered more stringent, as there are circumstances where one who fails to partake is liable to be punished with karet (Sefat Emet). Suffering that is caused by the sukka itself – ‫צַ ֲע ָרא‬ ‫דְּ ִמ ֵּמ ָילא‬: This suffering is caused by sitting in the sukka itself, while the suffering of a mourner is unrelated to the sukka. Indeed, there are early authorities who say that if remaining in the sukka causes the mourner to suffer to the extent that he feels that he cannot mourn appropriately, he is exempt from the mitzva of sukka. halakha

One impure with impurity imparted by a corpse on Passover – ‫ט ֵמא ֵמת ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬:ְ If one is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and his seventh day of impurity coincides with Passover eve, then although he immersed himself and was sprinkled with the waters of purification and is eligible to eat consecrated food in the evening, the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered on his behalf, since he is not eligible during the day. Rather, he defers observance of the Paschal lamb until the second Pesaĥ. The halakha is in accordance with this opinion because Rav supports it and the Gemara is based on his opinion (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:2). A mourner is obligated in the mitzva of sukka – ‫ָא ֵבל‬ ‫חּיָ יב ְ ּבסו ָּּכה‬:ַ A mourner is obligated to perform the mitzva of sukka as he is obligated in all other mitzvot (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:5).

that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, from which a mourner is exempt, as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries, and it is not proper for a mourner to adorn himself in this manner. This is derived from the fact that the Merciful One said to Ezekiel: “Sigh in silence; make no mourning for the dead, bind your splendor upon you, and put your shoes upon your feet” (Ezekiel 24:17). Ezekiel was commanded to refrain from mourning for his wife in the manner that others do. God said to Ezekiel: You are obligated to don phylacteries even while mourning; however, everyone else is exempt.

‫ ״וְ ַא ֲח ִר ָית ּה‬:‫אשֹון דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ׁ ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ְ ּביֹום ִר‬The Gemara comments: This exemption applies only on the first .‫ ְּכיֹום ָמר״‬day of mourning, as it is written: “And I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10). From this verse it is derived that the primary bitterness of a mourner lasts only one day. ‫ ָא ֵבל‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר זַ ְב ָדא ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫הֹואיל‬ ִ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫ַחּיָ יב ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ִמצְ ַט ֵער‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ְזַב ָדא ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ,‫ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה – ַהאי נַ ִמי ִמצְ ַט ֵער הוּא‬ ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ‬:‫ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ ,‫ילי – צַ ֲע ָרא דְּ ִמ ֵּמ ָילא‬ ‫ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא – ִאיה ּו הוּא דְּ ָקא ִמצְ ַט ֵער‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְליַ ּת ֵֹובי דַּ ֲע ֵת‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬

120 

Perek II . 25b . ‫הכ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

On a similar note, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in the mitzva of sukka.h The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why would he be exempt? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said that one who is suffering due to his presence in the sukka is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, one could have said that this mourner too is one who is suffering and should be exempt as well. Therefore, he teaches us that the mourner is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. These cases are not similar, since this exemption from sukka applies only with regard to suffering that is caused by the sukka itself,n e.g., when one is cold or hot or when the roofing has a foul odor. However, here, in the case of a mourner, where he is causing himself to suffer unrelated to his presence in the sukka, he is required to settle himself and fulfill the mitzva.

‫ ָח ָתן‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ְזַב ָדא ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ֹוש ִבינִין וְ ָכל ְ ּבנֵי ַהחו ּ ָּפה ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן‬ ְ ׁ ‫וְ ַה ׁש‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ַה ּסו ָּּכה ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫יחד ּו‬ ֱ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫יכל ּו ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ְ ‫יח ִדי – וְ ֵל‬ ֱ ‫דְּ ָבע ּו ְל ֵמ‬ .‫ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה! ֵאין ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ֶא ָּלא ַ ּבח ו ּ ָּפה‬ ‫יחד ּו ַ ּבחו ּ ָּפה! ֵאין‬ ֱ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫יכל ּו ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ְ ‫וְ ֵל‬ .‫ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְמקֹום ְסעוּדָּ ה‬

:‫יע ְבד ּו חו ּ ָּפה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה! ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֵל‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם צַ ַער‬:‫ וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יִ יחוּד‬ :‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו? ִא‬.‫ָח ָתן‬ .‫ינָשי דְּ נָ ְפ ִקי וְ ָעיְ ִילי ְל ָה ָתם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫יחי ֱא‬ ִ ‫דִּ ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּש ּום יִ יחוּד – ֵל‬ .‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם צַ ַער ָח ָתן – ִא ָּיכא‬

§ And Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: The groom

and the groomsmen and all members of the wedding party who participate in the wedding celebration are exempt from the mitzva of sukkah for all seven days of the wedding celebration.n The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they are exempt? It is because they wish to rejoice. The Gemara asks: And let them eat in the sukka and rejoice in the sukka. The Gemara answers: The celebration of a wedding is only in the wedding home where the newlyweds reside after the marriage ceremony. The Gemara asks: So let them eat in the sukka like everyone else and rejoice in the wedding home. The Gemara answers: There is joy only in the place where there is a meal. Therefore, since the celebration must be in the home of the newlyweds, the meal must also be there. b

The Gemara asks: And let them establish the wedding home in the sukka. Abaye said: This may not be done due to the prohibition against seclusion of the bride with a man other than her husband. As the sukka was often established on a rooftop, if the groom went downstairs at any point, the bride could find herself alone in the sukka with a man. And Rava said: The reason is due to the suffering of the groom. Since the sukka is not enclosed on all sides, he will be unable to enjoy privacy with his bride. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where people regularly enter and leave the sukka. According to the one who said that the reason is due to the prohibition against being alone together, there is no room for concern in that case. However, according to the one who said that the reason is due to the suffering of the groom, there is room for concern in that case as well.

background

The groom and the groomsmen – ‫ֹוש ִבינִין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ח ָתן וְ ַה ׁש‬:ָ A groomsman is the groom’s friend and companion. Unlike weddings today, in which the best man simply accompanies the groom to the wedding canopy, in the times of the Mishna and Gemara the best man tended to all the groom’s needs and even prepared a special banquet in his honor. The relationship between the groomsman and the groom was a particularly close one, and the term came to be used to describe friendship in general. There is a halakhic element to this relationship, as the groom is obligated to return the favor and serve as groomsman at the wedding of his groomsman. halakha

Groom and groomsmen with regard to the mitzva of sukka – ‫ֹוש ִבינִין ְ ּב ִמצְ וַ ת סו ָּּכה‬ ְ ׁ ‫ח ָתן וְ ַה ׁש‬:ָ A groom and his groomsmen are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. However, the halakhic authorities of recent generations (Eliya Rabba; Derekh HaĤayyim; and others) adopt the opinion of the Rosh and the Me’iri, who rule in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Zeira that the groom should fulfill the mitzva of sukka (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:6). Groom and groomsmen with regard to the mitzva of phylacteries – ‫ֹוש ִבינִין ִ ּב ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ח ָתן וְ ַה ׁש‬:ָ A groom and his groomsmen are exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries. However, nowadays, the custom is that they are obligated to don phylacteries, and they also recite Shema and pray (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 38:7, and in the comment of the Rema).

‫ ֲאנָ א ֲא ַכ ִלי ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה וַ ֲח ִדי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬Rabbi Zeira said: I married on the eve of the festival of Sukkot n ‫ דְּ ָקא‬,‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן דַּ ֲח ִדי ִל ָיב ִאי‬,‫ ַ ּבחו ּ ָּפה‬and I ate in the sukka and rejoiced in the wedding home, and .‫ ָע ֵב ְידנָ א ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬all the more so my heart rejoiced as I fulfilled two mitzvot: The mitzva of marriage and the accompanying celebration, and the mitzva of sukka. Nevertheless, he did not require others to do the same. ‫ֹוש ִבינִין וְ ָכל ְ ּבנֵי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ָח ָתן וְ ַה ׁש‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬The Sages taught: The groom and the groomsmen and all the ִּ ‫ חו ּ ָּפה ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ְּת ִפ ָלה ו ִּמן ַה ְּת ִפ‬members of the wedding party are exempt from the mitzva of ,‫ילין‬ n hn ,‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ִ ּב ְק ִר‬prayer and from the mitzva of phylacteries because they are unable to muster the requisite intent due to the excess of joy and levity; but they are obligated in the mitzva of reciting Shema.

notes

A groom with regard to the mitzva of sukka – ‫ח ָתן ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬:ָ Various reasons have been suggested to explain why a groom is exempt from the mitzva of sukka. According to Rashi, there is insufficient room in a sukka for the groom to be alone with his bride. Most commentaries explain that it is due to the fact that the groom wants his friends to share with him in the joy of the wedding and is distressed because there is generally insufficient room for them in a sukka (Me’iri and others). Others say the reason for the exemption is that at that moment he is technically engaged in performance of the mitzva to cheer his wife (Deuteronomy 24:5) and rejoice with her, exempting him from the mitzva of sukka (see Rosh and Ran). I ate in the sukka – ‫אנָ א ֲא ַכ ִלי ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬:ֲ Most halakhic authorities hold that Rabbi Zeira conducted himself in a pious manner but that others are not obligated to do so (ge’onim; Rabbi Yitzĥak ibn Giat; Rif; Beit Yosef ). However, from the Jerusalem Talmud it appears that in his opinion everyone is obligated to act in this manner. Others say that although the groom is exempt, the



groomsmen are obligated when they are not actually involved in celebrating the wedding (see Yefe Einayim and others). A groom is exempt from the mitzva of prayer – ‫ָח ָתן ּ ָפטוּר ִמן‬ ‫ה ְּת ִפ ָּלה‬:ַ Some explain that this is because prayer requires intent, and those involved in celebrating the wedding are not in an appropriate state of mind to pray. Alternatively, this is because prayer must be recited standing in one place, and doing so would interfere with the celebration (Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona) Possibly the exemption is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from Shema: If one is exempt from reciting Shema, which is a Torah obligation, all the more so is he exempt from prayer, which is required by rabbinic law (Rashi and others). A groom is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries – ‫ָח ָתן‬ ִּ ‫פטוּר ִמן ַה ְּת ִפ‬:ָ ּ Some say that he is exempt because he is ‫ילין‬ engaged in performance of a mitzva (Tosafot; Rosh; and others). Others explain that the reason is that a wedding is a place where intoxication and levity are the norm, and it is inappropriate to don phylacteries in that state (Rashi; see Rid the Younger and others). ‫הכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 25b 

121

Perek II Daf 26 Amud a halakha

Scribes of Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot – ‫ּכ ְֹות ֵבי‬ ִּ ‫ס ָפ ִרים ְּת ִפ‬:ְ Scribes of Torah scrolls, phylacteries ‫ילין ו ְּמזוּזֹות‬ and mezuzot, the merchants who purchase the scrolls from them, and all those who engage in the labor of Heaven are exempt from donning phylacteries all day except for when they recite Shema and pray (Beit Yosef ). The Rema holds that if they are actually engaged in their labor, they are exempt even from reciting Shema, prayer, and donning phylacteries, in accordance with the principle that those engaged in performing a mitzva are exempt from other mitzvot. However, if they can perform both without exertion, they should do so. The later authorities ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rema (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 38:8). Travelers with regard to the mitzva of sukka – ‫הֹול ֵכי ְד ָר ִכים‬ ְ ‫ב ִמצְ וַ ת סו ָּּכה‬: ּ ְ Travelers who travel during the day for their business are exempt from sukka during the day and obligated at night. Those who travel at night are exempt at night and obligated during the day. According to the Rema, citing Beit Yosef, they are not required to build their own sukka. Therefore, if they do not find a sukka, they may continue on their way without a sukka. Nevertheless, one who makes the effort to eat and sleep in a sukka is praiseworthy (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:8). Guardians of the city during the day with regard to the mitzva of sukka – ‫ֹומ ֵרי ָה ִעיר ַ ּבּיֹום ְ ּב ִמצְ וַ ת סו ָּּכה‬ ְ ‫ש‬:ׁ Guardians of the city during the day are exempt from the mitzva of sukka during the day. Guardians at night are exempt at night. Those who guard both by day and by night are exempt as long as they are on duty (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:9). Guardians of gardens and orchards with regard to the mitzva of sukka – ‫ֹומ ֵרי גַ נּ ֹות ו ַּפ ְר ֵד ִסים ְ ּב ִמצְ וַ ת סו ָּּכה‬ ְ ‫ש‬:ׁ Guardians of gardens and orchards are exempt from the mitzva of sukka both by day and by night because if the watchman establishes a fixed place to reside in the sukka, thieves will enter from elsewhere. Therefore, one who is guarding piles of grain and the like, which can be guarded in one place, is obligated to establish a sukka there (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:9). notes

They and the merchants who sell them – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫הן וְ ַת ָ ּג ֵר‬:ֵ The later authorities rule that merchants who sell items used for mitzvot are exempt from performing mitzvot only when their primary intention is to facilitate performance of mitzvot and not primarily to make a profit (see Magen Avraham and Shulĥan Arukh HaRav). Guardians of the city – ‫ֹומ ֵרי ָה ִעיר‬ ְ ‫ש‬:ׁ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained that these guardians of the city are a military force protecting the city from attack and are not merely safeguarding money. The legal status of the latter is that of guardians of gardens. And let them establish a sukka there, etc. – ‫יע ְב ִדי סו ָּּכה‬ ַ ‫וְ ִל‬ ‫ה ָתם וכו׳‬:ָ Some explain that since the men could not reside in the sukka there with their wives, as that would be immodest, they are unable to fulfill the Torah obligation of residence (Piskei Rid). Alternatively, they are exempt because residence outside the city is not the typical mode of residence (Ritva). Another explanation is that there is concern lest it rain there, rendering it impossible to reside there (Me’iri). Reside as you dwell – ‫ת ׁ ְשב ּו ְּכ ֵעין ָּתדוּר ּו‬:ֵּ Abaye was not the first to assert this principle; it was already taught in a baraita. The commentaries note that this principle is the basis for all halakhot permitting one to exit the sukka, as the sukka must be a dwelling. Therefore, under any circumstances where one would not dwell in his residence, he is not required to remain in the sukka or even to establish a sukka in the first place.

122 

Perek II . 26a . ‫וכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

,‫ ָח ָתן ּ ָפט ּור‬:‫ילא ָא ְמר ּו‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ֵש‬In the name of Rabbi Sheila they said: A groom is exempt from .‫ֹוש ִבינִין וְ ָכל ְ ּבנֵי ַהחו ּ ָּפה ַחּיָ ִיבין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ַה ׁש‬the mitzva of Shema, but the groomsmen and all the members of the wedding party are obligated. ‫ ּכ ְֹות ֵבי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנַ נְיָא ֶ ּבן ֲע ַק ְביָ א‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫יהן וְ ַת ָ ּג ֵרי‬ ֶ ‫ ֵהן וְ ַת ָ ּג ֵר‬,‫ְס ָפ ִרים ְּת ִפ ִּילין ו ְּמזוּזֹות‬ ,‫אכת ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ ֶ ‫עֹוס ִקין ִ ּב ְמ ֶל‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָכל ָה‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ַת ָ ּג ֵר‬ ‫יאת‬ ַ ‫מֹוכ ֵרי ְּת ֵכ ֶלת – ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמ ְק ִר‬ ְ ‫ְל ַא ּתוּיֵ י‬ ִּ ‫ ו ִּמן ַה ְּת ִפ‬,‫ ו ִּמן ַה ְּת ִפ ָּלה‬,‫ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ו ִּמ ָּכל‬,‫ילין‬ ‫ ְל ַקּיֵ ים דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ִמצְ �ֹות ָה ֲאמוּרֹות ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫עֹוסק ַ ּב ִּמצְ וָ ה ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ִּמצְ וָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ ָה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ

§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya said: With regard to scribes of Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot,h they themselves, and the merchants who sell them,n and the merchants who purchase them from the first merchants and sell them to others, and all who are engaged in the labor of Heaven, which comes to include the sellers of the sky-blue dyeb for ritual fringes, are all exempt from the mitzva of reciting Shema and from prayer and from donning phylacteries and from all mitzvot that are mentioned in the Torah while they are engaged in that labor. This statement comes to fulfill the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili would say: One who is engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva.

‫הֹול ֵכי ְד ָר ִכים ַ ּבּיֹום – ּ ְפטו ִּרין‬ ְ :‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫הֹול ֵכי‬ ְ .‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬,‫ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ‫ְד ָר ִכים ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה – ּ ְפט ּו ִרין ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫הֹול ֵכי ְד ָר ִכים‬ ְ .‫יבין ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ִ ָ‫ וְ ַחּי‬,‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ‫ַ ּבּיֹום ו ַּב ַּליְ ָלה – ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה ֵ ּבין‬ – ‫הֹול ִכין ִל ְד ַבר ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ְ .‫ַ ּבּיֹום ו ֵּבין ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ‫ ִּכי ָהא דְּ ַרב‬.‫ּ ְפטו ִּרין ֵ ּבין ַ ּבּיֹום ו ֵּבין ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ‫ ִּכי ָהו ּו ָעיְ ִילי‬,‫ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא דְּ ִרגְ ָלא ְל ֵבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא – ָהו ּו‬ ‫ ֲאנַ ן ׁ ְשלו ֵּחי‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫ָ ּגנ ּו ַא ַר ְק ָתא דְּ סו ָּרא‬ .‫ ו ְּפטו ִּרין‬,‫ִמצְ וָ ה ֲאנַן‬

The Sages taught in a baraita: Travelers who travel during the day are exempt from the mitzva of sukkah during the day and are obligated at night. Travelers by night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka at night and obligated during the day. Travelers both during the day and at night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka both during the day and at night. Those who travel for a matter of mitzva are exempt both during the day and at night, because they are preoccupied with the mitzva, even if they are not traveling at night, as in this recurring incident involving Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna. The Gemara relates: When they would enter the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festivalb to hear his Festival homily, they would sleep on the bank of the Sura River and not in a sukka. They said in explanation: We are ones on the path to perform a mitzva and are exempt from the mitzva of sukka.

‫ֹומ ֵרי ָה ִעיר ַ ּבּיֹום – ּ ְפטו ִּרין‬ ְ ‫ ׁש‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ֹומ ֵרי‬ ְ ‫ ׁש‬.‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬,‫ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ,‫ָה ִעיר ַ ּב ַליְ ָלה – ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ‫ֹומ ֵרי ָה ִעיר ֵ ּבין ַ ּבּיֹום ו ֵּבין‬ ְ ‫ ׁש‬.‫וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה – ּ ְפטו ִּרים ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה ֵ ּבין ַ ּבּיֹום‬ .‫ו ֵּבין ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬

The Sages taught in a baraita: Guardians of the cityn who guard during the day are exempt from the mitzva of sukkah during the day and are obligated at night. Guardians of the city at night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka at night and are obligated during the day. Those who guard the city both during the day and at night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka both during the day and at night.

‫ֹומ ֵרי גַ נּ ֹות ו ַּפ ְר ֵד ִסים – ּ ְפטו ִּרין ֵ ּבין ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ְ ‫ ׁש‬Guardians of gardens and orchards are exempt from sukkah !ּ‫יע ְב ִדי סו ָּּכה ָה ָתם וְ ֵל ְיתבו‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִל‬.‫ ו ֵּבין ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬both during the day and at night. The Gemara asks: And let n .ּ‫״ת ׁ ְשבוּ״ ְּכ ֵעין ָּתדוּרו‬ ֵּ :‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬them establish a sukka there in the garden and reside there. Why are they exempt from the mitzva of sukka? Abaye said: The reason for the exemption is the verse: “In sukkot shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42), which the Sages interpreted to mean: Reside as you dwelln in your permanent home. Since preparing a sukka that is a fully equipped dwelling in the orchard far from his house would involve considerable exertion, the mitzva does not apply to him. background

Sky-blue dye – ‫ת ֵכ ֶלת‬:ְּ This is referring to a special dye produced from a species of snail. In talmudic times this dye was already quite rare, and the means of preparing it, including the species of snail used, were eventually forgotten. In recent generations efforts have been made to identify the snail and to resume use of the dye. In the Torah (Numbers 15:38) there is a positive mitzva to use wool dyed this color for ritual fringes. One of the four threads of the fringes must be dyed with this blue dye, and it is wound around the other threads. However, fulfillment of the mitzva to wear fringes is not contingent on one of the threads being dyed, and today virtually all ritual fringes are made without the dyed thread. In addition, wool dyed this color

was used in the priestly vestments. Some of these, such as the sash, the ephod, and the breastplate, have elements that consist of wool dyed with this dye, and the robe is woven entirely with wool dyed sky-blue. On the Shabbat of the Festival – ‫ב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא דְּ ִרגְ ָלא‬:ּ ְ This was apparently a festive occasion in which many Torah scholars from various locales participated. They came to honor the Exilarch by greeting him on the Festival. On that occasion, either the Exilarch or a member of his family would deliver a homily before all those gathered there. This ritual was considered a mitzva, both due to all the Sages gathered there and due to the deference shown to the Exilarch, a descendant of the royal house of David.

‫ ַמאי‬.‫קֹור ָאה ַל ַ ּג ָּנב‬ ְ ‫ ּ ִפ ְרצָ ה‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬Rava said: A breach summons the thief. If the guardian builds ‫נְטר ַּכ ְריָא‬ ַ ‫ ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא ָּיכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו דְּ ָקא ַמ‬a sukka, thieves will know where the guardian is located in the .‫ דְּ ֵפ ֵירי‬field and they will enter the field elsewhere. The exemption of the watchman from the mitzva of sukka prevents that situation. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two reasons given? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where he is guarding a pile of fruit, which can be guarded from inside the sukka; therefore, according to Rava, in that case the guard would be obligated in the mitzva of sukka. However, since the sukka in the orchard is not like a fully equipped home, in Abaye’s opinion he would still be exempt in that case. ‫חֹולה‬ ֶ :‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫יהם״‬ ֶ ‫‘׳חֹולים ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ֵש‬ ִ ,‫חֹולה ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו ַס ָּכנָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו – ל ֹא‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֲא ִפ‬ ,‫חֹולה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ַס ָּכנָ ה‬ ֶ ‫יל ּו‬ .‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָח ׁש ְ ּבר‬,‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָח ׁש ְ ּב ֵעינָיו‬ ‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬:‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִה ִּתיר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יס ִרי‬ ָ ‫ַח ׁ ְש ִּתי ְ ּב ֵעינַי ְ ּב ֵק‬ .‫יבי ִל ׁישֹן ֲאנִי ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ִשי חוּץ ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ּ ִ ‫ְ ּב ִר‬

§ It is stated in the mishna: The ill and their caretakers are

‫ַרב ׁ ְש ָרא ְל ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּב ְרדְּ ָלא ְל ִמגְ נָ א‬ ‫ ָר ָבא ׁ ְש ָרא‬.‫ְ ּב ִכ ְיל ָּתא ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָ ּב ִקי‬ ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַאדָּ א ְל ִמגְ נָ א ַ ּבר‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ?‫יש ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ ִ‫ִמ ִּמ ַט ַּל ְל ָתא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִס ְיר ָחא דְּ גַ ְרג‬

The Gemara relates a similar tale: Rav permitted Rav Aĥa Bardela to sleep beneath a canopy in the sukka due to the biting flies [baki].l He permitted this although the canopy was more than ten handbreadths high and in sleeping beneath it he did not fulfill his obligation. Rava permitted Rabbi Aĥa bar Adda to sleep outside the sukka due to the foul odor of the earth [gargishta]l floor of the sukka.

‫ ִמצְ ַט ֵער‬:‫יה דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ָר ָבא ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫חֹולין‬ ִ :‫ וְ ָהא ֲאנַ ן ְּתנַ ן‬.‫ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ – ‫חֹולה‬ ֶ .‫ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ֵש ֶיהם ּ ְפטו ִּרים ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫חֹולה – הוּא‬ ֶ :‫ ִמצְ ַט ֵער – ָלא! ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ִאין‬ ,‫ ִמצְ ַט ֵער – הוּא ּ ָפטוּר‬,‫ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ָשיו ּ ְפטו ִּרים‬ .‫ְמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ָשיו ל ֹא‬

The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava said: One who suffers in the sukka is exempt from the mitzva of sukka.h The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the ill and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? By inference, with regard to an ill person, yes, he is exempt; with regard to one who suffers, no, he is not exempt. The Sages say: With regard to an ill person, he and his caretakers are exempt; however, with regard to one who merely suffers in the sukka, he is exempt but his caretakers are not.

exempt from the mitzva of sukka.h The Sages taught in a baraita: The ill person that they said is exempt from sukka is not only an ill person whose condition is critical, but even an ill person whose condition is not critical, and even one who feels pain in his eyes, and even one who feels pain in his head. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One time I felt pain in my eyes in Caesarea,b and the esteemed Rabbi Yosei ben Ĥalafta permitted me and my attendant to sleep outside the sukka.

background

Caesarea – ‫יס ִרי‬ ָ ‫ק‬:ֵ This was a coastal settlement originally founded in the fourth century BCE. In 30 BCE King Herod developed the site and called it Caesarea. At the beginning of the Common Era (6 CE) the Romans established Caesarea as the administrative capital of Eretz Yisrael. Originally most of Caesarea’s residents were non-Jewish, and even later, when the Jewish community there expanded and became more established, the town remained essentially non-Jewish. Nevertheless, particularly after the bar Kokheva revolt, it was home to prominent Torah scholars and had its own yeshiva. Among the prominent tanna’im who lived in Caesarea were bar Kappara and Rabbi Oshaya Rabba, disciples of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Prominent amora’im also lived there, including Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina; Rabbi Abbahu and his sons; Rabbi Ĥanina bar Pappa; Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Elazar; and Rabbi Ĥizkiya. Sections of the Jerusalem Talmud were apparently redacted in Caesarea. language

Biting flies [baki]– ‫ב ִקי‬:ּ ָ Similar to the Arabic ‫بقة‬, baqqah, meaning bug or biting insect. Earth [gargishta] – ‫יש ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ ִ‫ג ְּרג‬:ַ The origin of this word is Semitic. It is similar to the Arabic ‫جرجس‬, jirjis. It means a type of soft earth used to seal packages and similar items.

halakha

The ill and their caretakers with regard to the mitzva of sukka – ‫יהם ְ ּב ִמצְ וַ ת סו ָּּכה‬ ֶ ‫חֹולים ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ֵש‬: ִ The ill people and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. This is applicable not only to one who is critically ill but even to one suffering from a headache or from pain in his eyes. Some say that the caretakers are exempt only when the ill person needs their help. Later authorities wrote (see Sha’arei Teshuva) that if the caretaker can excuse himself without exertion from tending to the ill person, e.g., in a case where there are two attendants, he is obligated to perform the mitzva of sukka (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:3).

to eat an olive-bulk of food in the sukka. The definition of one who suffers is one who is unable to sleep in the sukka due to the wind, odor, flies, and the like. However, this exemption applies only if he did not originally establish the sukka in a place where he knew that he would suffer. If one established a sukka in a place of that kind, he does not fulfill his obligation, even if he resides there (Mordekhai). Furthermore, the fact that one is unable to sleep in the sukka comfortably is not sufficient to exempt him from the mitzva (Terumat HaDeshen). In general, a person is considered to be one who suffers only if the cause of his suffering typically causes people to suffer. In addition, One who suffers with regard to the mitzva of sukka – a person is not in the category of one who suffers unless it is ‫ה ִּמצְ ַט ֵער ְ ּב ִמצְ וַ ת סו ָּּכה‬:ַ One who suffers in the sukka, but whose the actual residence in the sukka that causes the suffering and attendants do not, is exempt from the mitzva of sukka for the there would be no suffering were he to eat outside the sukka entire Festival except for the first night, when he is obligated (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:4).



‫וכ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 26a 

123

notes

Two or three egg-bulks – ‫יעי‬ ֵ ‫ת ְר ֵּתי אֹו ְּת ָלת ֵ ּב‬:ַּ This formulation of Rav Yosef is apparently related to the tannaitic dispute with regard to the measure of two meals. Therefore, he established the measure of less than a meal at two or three egg-bulks (Rav Ya’akov Emden; Zera Yitzĥak). There is no concept of substantial duration with regard to sleep – ‫אין ֶק ַבע ַל ׁ ּ ֵשינָ ה‬:ֵ A similar idea was cited in the Jerusalem Talmud. Since one sometimes suffices with a brief nap, any sleep can be considered substantial.

.‫״אֹוכ ִלים ֲא ִכ ַילת ֲע ַראי חוּץ ַל ּסו ָּּכה״‬ ְ ‫ ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַכ ָּמה ֲא ִכ ַילת ֲע ַראי? ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ימנִין‬ ְ ִ‫ וְ ָהא ז‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ֵ ‫אֹו ְּת ָלת ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יעי‬ ‫יה‬ ׁ ‫יה ְל ִא‬ ִ ‫ַס ִ ּג‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ינִיש ְ ּב ָה ִכי‬ ּ ‫יאין ַס ֵ ּגי ֵל‬ ‫ ִּכ ְד ָט ֵעים‬:‫ְסעו ַּדת ֶק ַבע! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ .‫ַ ּבר ֵ ּבי ַרב וְ ָעיֵ יל ַל ַּכ ָּלה‬

§ The mishna continues: One may eat and drink in the framework of

‫ילת ֲע ַראי ח ּוץ‬ ַ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ֲא ִכ‬ ְ :‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין יְ ׁ ֵשנִים ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי ח ּוץ‬,‫ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ :‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬.‫ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ .‫ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יֵ ָר ֵדם‬

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may eat a casual meal outside the sukka, but one may not take even a brief nap outside the sukka.h The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this distinction? After all, sleeping in the sukka is an obligation just as eating in the sukka is an obligation. Rav Ashi said: It is prohibited to nap outside the sukka due to a decree lest he fall into a deep sleep.

‫ יָ ׁ ֵשן‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָ א‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ִּ ‫ָא ָדם ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי ַ ּב ְּת ִפ‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא‬,‫ילין‬ ‫ ֵליחו ּׁש ׁ ֶש ָּמא יֵ ָר ֵדם! ָא ַמר‬,‫ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֶק ַבע‬ ‫מֹוסר ׁ ֵשינָ תֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִע ַּילאי‬ ֵ ‫ַרב‬ ּ ‫יֹוסף ְ ּב ֵר‬ .‫ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים‬

Abaye said to him: But with regard to that halakha which is taught in a baraita: A person may take a brief nap while donning phylacteriesh but substantial sleep is not permitted. Let us be concerned in that case as well lest he fall into a deep sleep. Rav Yosef, son of Rav Illai, said: There is no concern with regard to phylacteries, as it is a case where one assigns responsibility for ensuring that his sleep will not be prolonged to others.

‫ ַע ְר ִביךְ ָע ְר ָבא‬:‫יה ַרב ְמ ׁ ַש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א‬ ּ ‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ֵל‬ ‫צָ ִריךְ ! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר‬ ‫ֹאשֹו ֵ ּבין ִ ּב ְר ָּכיו‬ ׁ ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ּנ ִַיח ר‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ ֵאין ֶק ַבע ַל ׁ ּ ֵשינָ ה‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫ָע ְס ִקינַן‬

Rav Mesharshiyya strongly objects to Abaye’s statement: Your guarantor, who ensures that you do not sleep too long, requires a guarantor to ensure that he does not do the same. Rather, Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: We are dealing with a case where he places his head between his knees, a position that does not lend itself to deep sleep. Rava said: Neither with regard to sukka nor with regard to phylacteries is there concern lest he fall into a deep sleep. Taking a brief nap outside the sukka is prohibited because there is no concept of substantial duration with regard to sleep,n i.e., there is no halakhic difference between a brief nap and a longer-lasting sleep. Depending on circumstances, sleep of any duration can be considered substantial and is therefore prohibited outside a sukka.

‫ יָ ׁ ֵשן ָא ָדם ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ִּילין ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי‬:‫ְּתנֵי ֲח ָדא‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין‬: ְ‫ וְ ַתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬,‫ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֶק ַבע‬ ‫ ל ֹא ֶק ַבע‬:‫ וְ ַתנְיָא ִא ָיד ְך‬,‫ֶק ַבע ֵ ּבין ֲע ַראי‬ ‫ ָהא – דְּ נָ ֵקיט ְלה ּו‬:‫וְ ל ֹא ֲע ַראי! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ – ‫ ָהא‬,‫יה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ַמנְ ִחי ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יש‬ ּ ‫ִ ּב ֵיד‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫דְּ ָפ ֵריס סו ְּד ָרא ִע ָּלו‬

The Gemara comments that it is taught in one baraita: A person may take a brief nap with phylacteries, but substantial sleep is not permitted. And it was taught in another baraita: Both substantial sleep and a brief nap are permitted. And it was taught in another baraita: Neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap is permitted. The Gemara explains that this is not difficult: This baraita, where it is taught that even a brief nap is prohibited, is in a case where one holds the phylacteries in his hands. It is prohibited to sleep at all lest he drop them. That baraita, where it was taught that a brief nap is permitted, is in a case where the phylacteries are placed on his head. There is no concern during a brief nap lest he break wind or experience a seminal emission. During deep sleep, that is a concern. That third baraita, where it was taught that even substantial sleep is permitted with phylacteries, is in a case where he removes the phylacteries and spreads a cloth over them and sleeps alongside them.

:‫וְ ַכ ָּמה ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי? ָּתנֵי ָר ִמי ַ ּבר יְ ֶחזְ ֵקאל‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ֵדי ִה‬ :‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬,‫ילו ְּך ֵמ ָאה ַא ָּמה‬ ִּ ‫ַהיָ ׁ ֵשן ַ ּב ְּת ִפ‬ ‫אֹוחז‬ ֵ – ‫רֹואה ֶק ִרי‬ ֶ ְ‫ילין ו‬ ‫ָ ּב ְרצו ָּעה‬

The Gemara asks: And how much is the duration of a brief nap? Rami bar Yeĥezkel taught: It is equivalent to the time required for walking one hundred cubits. The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: One who sleeps with phylacteries and experiences a seminal emissionh grips the strap of the phylacteries to remove them

a casual meal outside the sukka.h The Gemara asks: And how much food is considered a casual meal? Rav Yosef said: It is two or three egg-bulksn of bread. Abaye said to him: But often, doesn’t a person suffice with that measure of food, and then its legal status is that of a formal meal? Rather, Abaye said: A casual meal is like the measure that a student of the academy of Rav tastes and then enters the study hall to hear the lecture.

halakha

Eating in the framework of a casual meal outside the sukka – ‫א ִכ ַילת ֲע ַראי חוּץ ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬:ֲ The basic halakha is that it is permitted to eat a casual meal outside the sukka. A casual meal is defined as an egg-bulk of bread, wine, or fruit. With regard to food made from the five grains, if one based his meal upon it, it is considered a formal meal, in accordance with the mishna as explained by Abaye (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:2). A brief nap outside the sukka – ‫שינַ ת ֲע ַראי ִמחוּץ ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬: ֵ ׁ Even a brief nap is prohibited outside the sukka, even if one merely rests his head between his knees, since there is no concept of

124 

Perek II . 26a . ‫וכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

substantial duration with regard to sleep, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. In recent generations many are not vigilant about sleeping in the sukka. The justification is due either to the severe cold in many countries (Mordekhai) or because sleeping there with one’s wife is immodest (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:2, and in the comment of the Rema).

If the phylacteries are tied and resting on his arm he may even sleep a substantial sleep; all the more so is that true if they are in their case (Beit Yosef, citing Ittur; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 44:1).

One who sleeps with phylacteries and experiences a seminal ִּ ‫היָ ׁ ֵשן ַ ּב ְּת ִפ‬:ַ If one falls asleep while emission – ‫רֹואה ֶק ִרי‬ ֶ ְ‫ילין ו‬ A brief nap with phylacteries – ‫שינַ ת ֲע ַראי ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬: ֵ ׁ It is pro- donning phylacteries and experiences a seminal emission, he hibited for one donning phylacteries to take even a brief nap. must remove them immediately. He may remove them only However, if he covers them with a cloth and his wife is not by their straps and then ritually wash his hands (Shulĥan Arukh, with him, he may doze by placing his head between his knees. Oraĥ Ĥayyim 40:7).

Perek II Daf 26 Amud b .‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬,‫אֹוחז ַ ּב ְּקצִ יצָ ה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵאינֹו‬ ‫ יָ ׁ ֵשן ָא ָדם ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ .‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֶק ַבע‬,‫ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי‬ ‫וְ ַכ ָּמה ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי – ְּכ ֵדי ִהילּ וּךְ ֵמ ָאה‬ .‫ַא ָּמה‬

and does not grip the box of the phylacteries, which he may not touch while impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. And the Rabbis say: A person may take a brief nap with his phylacteries, but substantial sleep is not permitted, and he will thereby avoid a seminal emission while donning phylacteries. And how long is the duration of a brief nap? It is equivalent to the time required for walking one hundred cubits.

‫יֹותר‬ ֵ ‫ ָאסוּר ָל ָא ָדם ִל ׁישֹן ַ ּבּיֹום‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬Apropos the duration of a brief nap, the Gemara cites that Rav said: It nh – ‫ וְ ַכ ָּמה ׁ ֵשינַ ת ַה ּסוּס‬.‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֵשינַ ת ַה ּסוּס‬is prohibited for a person to sleep during the day longer than the .‫נִש ֵמי‬ ְ ׁ ‫יתין‬ ִּ ‫ ׁ ִש‬duration of the sleep of a horse. One who sleeps for longer is derelict in the study of Torah. And how long is the duration of the sleep of a horse? It is sixty breathsn long. ,‫יה דְּ ָמר ִּכ ְד ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ִשנְ ֵת‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye said: The sleep of the Master, Rabba, is like that of Rav, and ‫ ו ְּד ָדוִ ד‬,‫ ו ְּד ַר ִ ּבי ִּכ ְד ָדוִ ד‬,‫ ו ְּד ַרב ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי‬that of Rav is like the sleep of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And that of .‫נִש ֵמי‬ ְ ׁ ‫יתין‬ ִּ ‫ ו ְּדסו ְּסיָ א ׁ ִש‬,‫ ִּכ ְדסו ְּסיָ א‬Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is like that of King David, and that of King David is like that of a horse. And that of a horse is sixty breaths. ‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲהוָ ה נָ יֵים ְּכ ִד ְמ ַעיֵ יל ִמ ּפו ְּמ ַ ּבדִּ ָיתא‬The Gemara relates: Abaye would sleep during the day for a period ‫״עד ָמ ַתי‬ ַ :‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫יה ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ָק ֵרי ֲע ֵל‬,‫ ְל ֵבי כו ֵּבי‬equivalent to the time it takes to enter from Pumbedita to Bei Kuvei. .‫ ָעצֵ ל ִּת ׁ ְש ָּכב ָמ ַתי ָּתקוּם ִמ ׁ ּ ְשנָ ֶתךָ ״‬Rav Yosef read the following verse as pertaining to Abaye: “How long will you sleep, sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep?” (Proverbs 6:9). Rav Yosef considered this dereliction in the study of Torah. – ‫ ָרצָ ה‬,‫ ַה ִּנ ְכנָס ִל ׁישֹן ַ ּבּיֹום‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫חֹולץ‬ ֵ – ‫ ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬.‫ ָרצָ ה – ַמ ּנ ִַיח‬,‫חֹולץ‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬,‫וְ ֵאינֹו ַמ ּנ ִַיח‬ ‫חֹולצִ ין וְ ֵאינָן‬ ְ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ַהיְ ָל ִדים ְל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ְרגִ ִילין ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬,‫ִיחין‬ ִ ‫ַמ ּנ‬

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters his bed to sleep during the day, if he wishes, he may remove his phylacteries, and if he wishes, he may leave them in place. One who enters to sleep at night removes his phylacteries and may not leave them in place. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yosei says: The young men must always remove them and not leave them in place while sleeping because they are accustomed to impurity, as they are more likely to experience a seminal emission.

‫יֹוסי ַ ּב ַעל ֶק ִרי ָאסוּר‬ ֵ ‫ימא ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ִּ ‫ְל ַה ּנ ִַיח ְּת ִפ‬ ‫ ִ ּב ָיל ִדים‬:‫ילין? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא יָבֹוא ּו‬,‫יהן ִע ָּמ ֶהן ָע ְס ִקינַן‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ‫ּנְש‬ ׁ ‫ו‬ .‫ִל ֵידי ֶה ְר ֵ ּגל דָּ ָבר‬

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is prohibited for one who experienced a seminal emission to don phylacteries. Abaye said: This is not so; rather, we are dealing with young men whose wives are with them, and the concern is lest they overlook the fact that they are donning phylacteries and inadvertently come to engage in matters to which they are accustomed, i.e., relations with their wives, which is certainly demeaning to the phylacteries.

‫ ׁ ָש ַכח וְ ׁ ִש ֵּמ ׁש ִמ ָּט תֹו‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ִּ ‫ַ ּב ְּת ִפ‬ ‫אֹוחז ל ֹא ָ ּב ְרצו ָּעה‬ ֵ ‫ילין – ֵאינֹו‬ ,‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ּטֹול יָ ָדיו וְ יִ ְּט ֵלם‬,‫וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ְּקצִ יצָ ה‬ .‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם ַע ְס ָקנִּיֹות ֵהן‬

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one forgot that he was donning phylacteries and engaged in relations with his phylacteries in place,h he may grip neither the strap nor the box until he washes his hands, and only then may he remove the phylacteries. This is because the hands are active and tend to inadvertently touch parts of the body that are unclean.

mishna 

Apropos eating in the sukka, which is discussed ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה וְ ֵה ִביא ּו לֹו ְל ַר ָ ּבן‬ in the previous mishna, this mishna relates: An ‫ ו ְּל ַר ָ ּבן‬,‫ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי ִל ְטעֹום ֶאת ַה ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל‬ incident occurred where they brought a cooked dish to Rabban ,‫כֹותבֹות ו ְּד ִלי ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם‬ ָ ‫יאל ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬Yoĥanan ben Zakkai for him to taste, and to Rabban Gamliel they .‫ ַה ֲעלוּם ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬:ּ‫ וְ ָא ְמרו‬brought two dates and a bucket of water. And they each said: Take them up to the sukka and we will eat them there. ‫אֹוכל ּ ָפחֹות‬ ֶ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְתנ ּו לֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬In contrast, the mishna relates: And when they gave Rabbi Tzadoknp n ‫ נְ ָטלֹו ַ ּב ַּמ ּ ָפה וַ ֲא ָכלֹו ח ּוץ‬,‫ ִמ ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬less than an egg-bulk of food, he took the food in a cloth for cleanli.‫ וְ ל ֹא ֵ ּב ַירךְ ַא ֲח ָריו‬,‫ ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ness; he did not wash his hands because in his opinion, one is not required to wash his hands before eating less than an egg-bulk. And he ate it outside the sukka and did not recite a blessing after eating it. He holds that one is not required to recite a blessing after eating less than an egg-bulk, as it is not satisfying, and it is written: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10). The Gemara will explain the halakhic rationale for each of these actions described. 

notes

To sleep during the day – ‫ל ׁישֹן ַ ּבּיֹום‬:ִ There are two reasons that it is prohibited to sleep during the day. One is that it will result in dereliction of Torah study (Rashi), or, more generally, that one should utilize the hours of the day constructively (Me’iri). The second is that sleep approximates the experience of death, as the Sages said that sleep is one-sixtieth of death, and one should avoid that experience to whatever degree possible (see Taz and others). Sixty breaths – ‫נִש ֵמי‬ ְ ׁ ‫יתין‬ ִּ ‫ש‬: ִ ׁ This measure of sixty breaths is not clearly defined, and the incident involving Abaye and Rav Yosef does not shed light on it, as the commentaries were not able to ascertain the actual distance from Pumbedita to Bei Kuvei. Many hold that Rashi’s version of the text that established the distance between them as six parasangs is mistaken (see Arukh LaNer, Sefat Emet, and others). An incident involving Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai and Rabbi Tzadok – ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן‬ ‫צָ דֹוק‬: These incidents are cited together to teach that although adopting a stringency is praiseworthy, adopting a leniency is legitimate as well, as the greatest Sages conducted themselves in both manners (Me’iri). He took the food in a cloth – ‫נְטלֹו ַ ּב ַּמ ּ ָפה‬: ָ Various explanations were provided to explain this course of action. Some explain that he did so for cleanliness; although he was not required to wash his hands ritually, he did not want to touch the food with his hands (Rashi). Others suggest that he was accustomed to maintaining the state of purity required for teruma when eating all foods, and the cloth precluded the need for ritual washing of the hands (Tosafot; see Rabbi Aharon HaLevi and Ritva). Yet others explain that the food was actual teruma, as Rabbi Tzadok was a priest (Me’iri). halakha

Sleep during the day – ‫שינָ ה ַ ּבּיֹום‬: ֵ ׁ It is not fitting for one to sleep during the day. If one sleeps to facilitate Torah study, he should sleep no more than sixty breaths. There are radically different opinions among the halakhic authorities with regard to the duration of sixty breaths. Some say it is approximately three minutes (Rabbi Menaĥem Azaria of Pano). Others hold that it is half an hour. Yet others hold that it is three hours, and still others say it is six hours (Rashi). If one forgot and engaged in relations with his phylacteries in place – ‫ש ַכח וְ ׁ ִש ֵּמ ׁש ִמ ָּטתֹו ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬: ָ ׁ One who forgets that he is donning phylacteries and engages in relations while donning them should wash his hands immediately and only then remove the phylacteries (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 40:6). Personalities

Rabbi Tzadok – ‫ר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬:ַ This is apparently Rabbi Tzadok the priest, one of the Sages at the time of the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara relates that he fasted for forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple in an attempt to avert that calamity. The leader of the generation, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai, held him in such high regard that he asked the Roman emperor Vespasian for a special doctor to cure him. Several sources attest to his expertise in engineering and mathematics. His son, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, was one of the great scholars of the subsequent generation, held in high esteem in the house of the Nasi. He often cited statements of his father and the Nasi when teaching halakha. ‫וכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 26b 

125

halakha

Imposing a stringency upon oneself with regard to eating a casual meal outside the sukka – ‫ה ְח ָמ ָרה ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ַילת ֲע ַראי חוּץ ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬:ַ One who wishes to adopt a stringency and refrain from eating or drinking in the framework of a casual meal outside the sukka is praiseworthy (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:2). notes

There is no presumptuousness in adopting that stringency – ‫ֵלית‬ ‫יה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יו ֲּה ָרא‬ ּ ‫ב‬:ּ ֵ It also does not violate the assertion cited in the Jerusalem Talmud that anyone who adopts a stringency and performs an action that he is not obligated to perform is considered a simpleton. It is not considered presumptuousness, because the mere fact that he does not eat outside the sukka does not indicate why he is not eating; perhaps he is simply not hungry. In addition, perhaps he is eating in the sukka because one who eats a small amount in the sukka may wish to eat more, which would require him to eat in the sukka (Yefe Einayim). Furthermore, there are those who refrain from eating and drinking outside all year, and perhaps that is the reason that he eats the small measure of food in the sukka.

‫גמ׳ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ִל ְס ּתֹור?! ַח ּס ּו ֵרי‬ ‫ ִא ם ָ ּבא‬:‫ְמ ַח ְּס ָרא וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫ וְ ֵלית‬,‫ְל ַה ְח ִמיר ַעל ַעצְ מֹו – ַמ ְח ִמיר‬ ,‫ ו ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה נַ ִמי‬.‫יה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יו ֲּה ָרא‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵה ִביא ּו לֹו ְל ַר ָ ּבן‬ ‫ ּו ְל ַר ָ ּבן‬,‫ִל ְט עֹום ֶאת ַה ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל‬ ‫כֹותבֹות ו ְּד ִלי ׁ ֶשל‬ ָ ‫יאל ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ,‫ַמיִ ם‬

gemara 

The Gemara wonders: Is the mishna citing an incident to contradict the halakha cited in the previous mishna that one may eat or drink in the context of a casual meal outside the sukka? The incident involving Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel indi­ cates that one may eat nothing outside the sukka. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, as it is lacking a significant element, and it teaches the following: If one seeks to impose a stringency upon himself and eat nothing outside the sukka, he may be stringent,h and there is no element of presumptuousness in adopting that stringency.n And there was also an incident supporting that ruling: They brought a cooked dish to Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai for him to taste, and to Rabban Gamliel they brought two dates and a bucket of water,

Perek II Daf 27 Amud a halakha

Obligation of eating in a sukka – ‫חֹובת ֲא ִכ ָילה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬: ַ One is obligated to eat in a sukka on the first night of the festival of Sukkot. On the other days of Sukkot, if one eats a meal, he must do so in the sukka. However, he may instead opt to eat and drink items that need not be eaten in the sukka, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:3). notes

One during the day and one at night – ‫א ַחת ַ ּבּיֹום וְ ַא ַחת ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬: ַ Some ask: Why is this halakha not stated chronologically, as the meal at night precedes the daytime meal? They answer that the order is precise, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that one is required to eat fourteen meals in addition to the meal on the first evening, which everyone agrees is mandatory. The first of the fourteen meals is eaten during the day. This answers several questions raised by the early commentaries (see Me’iri and others) with regard to the Shabbat meal during the Festival (Shoshanim LeDavid; Mikhtav LeĤizkiyahu; Ĥeshek Shlomo). Should compensate with a meal on the evening of the last day of the Festival – ‫יַש ִלים ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון‬: ְ ׁ According to the Ritva, one may eat the compensatory meal on the eve of the Eighth Day of Assembly, and all the more so on previous nights. Many question how it is possible to compensate for the missed meal on the Eighth Day of Assembly, as meals are not eaten in the sukka then. Rashi explains that one eats the additional meal outside the sukka to avoid violating the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot. Others hold that it is permitted to eat in the sukka because his intention is to fulfill the mitzva of compensating for the missed meal (Rid). Alternatively, he can compensate for the missed meal by eating delicacies that need not be eaten in the sukka and in that way refrain from violating that prohibition (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). Some resolve all of the problems by explaining that the meal should be eaten on the evening of the seventh day of Sukkot, which is also considered a Festival of sorts (Rabbi Yehonatan).

,‫ ַה ֲעלוּם ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬:ּ‫ וְ ָא ְמרו‬and they each said: Take them up to the sukka. ‫אֹוכל‬ ֶ ‫ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְתנ ּו לֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬ ,‫ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה – נְ ָטלֹו ַ ּב ַּמ ּ ָפה‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ֵ ּב ַיר ְך‬,‫וַ ֲא ָכלֹו ח ּוץ ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ָה א ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה – ָ ּב ֵעי‬.‫ַא ֲח ָר יו‬ ‫יה‬ ֱ ‫ימא ֶּת‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬.‫סו ָּּכה‬ ּ ‫יה וֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ֵּת‬ ‫ ּ ָפחֹות‬:‫יֹוסף וְ ַא ַ ּביֵ י! דִּ ְיל ָמא‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ַרב‬ ,‫נְט ָילה ו ְּב ָר ָכה ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי‬ ִ – ‫ִמ ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬ .‫נְט ָילה ו ְּב ָר ָכה‬ ִ ‫ָהא ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה – ָ ּב ֵעי‬

‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫מתני׳ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ְסעוּדֹות ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם ֶל ֱאכֹול‬ .‫ ַא ַחת ַ ּבּיֹום וְ ַא ַחת ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬,‫ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ֵא ין ַל דָּ ָבר‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ חוּץ ִמ ֵּל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ִר‬,‫ִקצְ ָ ּבה‬ .‫ׁ ֶשל ַחג ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫וְ עֹוד ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫[ל ֵילי] יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַכל‬ ‫יַ ׁ ְש ִלים ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫ ֵאין ַלדָּ ָבר‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ַחג‬ ‫״מ ֻע ָּות‬ ְ :‫ וְ ַעל זֶ ה נֶ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין‬ ‫ל ֹא יו ַּכל ִל ְתקֹון וְ ֶח ְסרֹון ל ֹא יו ַּכל‬ .‫ְל ִה ָּמנֹות״‬

?‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫גמ׳ ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמיה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ַמ ה‬, ‫״ת ׁ ְשב ּו ״ ְּכ ֵעין ָּת ד ּו ר ּו‬ ֵּ ,‫דִּ ָירה – ַא ַחת ַ ּבּיֹום וְ ַא ַחת ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ‫ַאף סו ָּּכה – ַא ַחת ַ ּבּיֹום וְ ַא ַחת‬ .‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬

126 

Perek II . 27a . ‫זכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

And when they gave Rabbi Tzadok less than an egg-bulk of food, he took the food in a cloth and he ate it outside the sukka and did not recite a blessing after eating it. The Gemara infers: Had they given him an egg-bulk of food, he would have been required to eat it in a sukka. Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yosef and Abaye, who said that one is permitted to eat that measure in the context of a casual meal outside the sukka. The Gemara answers: No proof can be cited from here, because perhaps the reason the mishna emphasizes that Rabbi Tzadok ate less than an egg-bulk of food is that eating less than an egg-bulk does not require washing hands and reciting a blessing after eating it; however, eating an eggbulk requires washing and reciting a blessing.

mishna 

Rabbi Eliezer says: A person is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah over the course of the seven days of the festival of Sukkot, one during the day each day and one at night each night.n And the Rabbis say: There is no quota for the number of meals, and one may choose whether or not to eat any of the meals except for the meal on the evening of the first Festival day of Sukkot, which one is required to eat in the sukka.

And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer said: One who did not eat a meal on the evening of the first day of the Festival should compensate with a meal on the evening of the last day of the Festival,n on the Eighth Day of Assembly, despite the fact that he will not eat it in the sukka. And the Rabbis say: There is no compensation for this matter, and with regard to similar cases where it is impossible to rectify failure to fulfill a positive mitzva, it is stated: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

gemara 

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who mandates eating fourteen meals in the sukka? The Gemara answers that he derives his opinion from the verse: “In sukkot shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42), which the Sages interpreted to mean: Reside as you dwell in your permanent home. Therefore, just as in one’s dwelling one typically eats one meal during the day and one meal at night, so too, in a sukka one eats one meal during the day and one meal at night.

‫ ַמה דִּ ָירה – ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי ָא ֵכיל‬,‫ ַּכדִּ ָירה‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis interpret that verse? ‫ ַאף סו ָּּכה נַ ִמי – ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי‬,‫ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי ָלא ָא ֵכיל‬The Gemara answers: They explain that a sukka is like a perma.‫ ָא ֵכיל ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי ָלא ָא ֵכיל‬nent dwelling. Just as in one’s dwelling, if one desires to eat, he eats, and if one does not desire to do so, he does not eat, so too, in the sukka, if one desires to eat, he eats, and if one does not desire to do so, he does not eat. !‫אשֹון נַ ִמי‬ ׁ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ִר‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, then according to the Rabbis, even on the first Festival evening as well one should not be required to eat in the sukka. ‫יֹוחנָ ן ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫״ח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר״ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ֲ ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר ָּכאן‬:‫יְ הֹוצָ ָדק‬ – ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן‬,‫״ח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר״ ְ ּב ַחג ַה ַּמ ּצֹות‬ ֲ ,‫ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ ְר ׁשוּת‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ַליְ ָלה ָה ִר‬ ‫ ִמ ָּכאן‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ַאף ָּכאן – ַליְ ָלה ָה ִר‬ .‫וְ ֵא ָילךְ ְר ׁשוּת‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yeho­ tzadak: There is a verbal analogy between the festivals of Passover and Sukkot. It is stated here, with regard to Sukkot: “On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot for seven days unto the Lord” (Leviticus 23:34). And it is stated: “And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the festival of matzot unto the Lord” (Leviticus 23:6) with regard to the festival of Passover. Just as there, with regard to Passover, on the first night there is an obligation to eat matza and from that point onward it is optional, as from that point onward the only obligation is to refrain from eating leaven, so too here, with regard to Sukkot, on the first night there is an obligation to eat in the sukka and from that point onward it is optional.

notes

But didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָהא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬: Some explain that the problem is that on the Eighth Day of Assembly one no longer eats in the sukka (Rashi). Others explain that the crux of the question stems from the fact that there seems to be a particular obligation to eat a meal in the sukka on the first night of the Festival, while Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion does not distinguish between the first night and the others. According to Rabbi Eliezer, there is no difference between the first night and the others in terms of the obligation to eat a meal (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva). The steward’s question – ‫רֹופֹוס‬ ְ ‫ש ֵא ַלת ָה ַא ּפ‬: ְ ׁ The question ּ ‫ֹוט‬ is: Based on the principle that one should reside in the sukka as he dwells in his permanent home, is it permitted for someone like the steward, who typically eats only one meal per day and goes from house to house, to do the same on Sukkot (Arukh LaNer). language

Delicacies [targima] – ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ת ְר ִ ּג‬:ַּ From the Greek τράγημα, tragema, meaning dessert, food eaten for pleasure after a meal. Steward [apotropos] – ‫רֹופֹוס‬ ְ ‫א ּפ‬: ַ From the Greek ּ ‫ֹוט‬

ἐπίτροπος, epitropos, meaning one appointed by the monarchy to govern a district or state.

‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ְ ‫״ב ֶע ֶרב ּת‬ ּ ָ :‫ וְ ָה ָתם ְמ ַנָלן? ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to Passover, from .‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ּצֹות״ – ַה ָּכתוּב ְק ָבעֹו‬where do we derive that there is an obligation to eat matza on the first night? The Gemara answers that the verse says: “In the evening you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:18). The verse established it as an obligation. ‫ וְ ָהא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יעזֶ ר״‬ ֶ ‫״וְ עֹוד ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ְסעוּדּ ֹות ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ !‫ ַא ַחת ַ ּבּיֹום וְ ַא ַחת ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬,‫ֶל ֱאכֹול ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ָחזַ ר ּבֹו ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ָא ַמר ֵ ּב ָירא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ .‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬

§ The mishna continues: And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer said

‫ימא ְ ּב ִר ְיפ ָּתא – ְסעוּדָּ ה‬ ָ ‫ַמ ׁ ְש ִלים ְ ּב ַמאי? ִא ֵיל‬ – ‫ ַמאי יַ ׁ ְש ִלים‬,‫יה ָקא ָא ֵכיל! ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ְּ‫ד‬ ּ ‫יֹומ‬ ‫ ִאם‬:‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬.‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יַ ׁ ְש ִלים ְ ּב ִמינֵי ַת ְר ִ ּג‬ .‫ימא – יָ צָ א‬ ָ ‫ִה ׁ ְש ִלים ְ ּב ִמינֵי ַת ְר ִ ּג‬

The Gemara asks: With what will he compensate for his failure to eat the Festival meal? If we say that he compensates with bread, he is thereby eating the festive meal of that Eighth Day of Assembly; how is it obvious that it is compensation for a different meal? Rather, what is the meaning of: He should compensate? It means that he should compensate by adding types of delicacies [targima].l That is taught in a baraita as well: If he compensated by adding types of delicacies, he fulfilled his obligation.

‫רֹופֹוס ׁ ֶשל ַאגְ ִר ּ ַיפס ַה ֶּמ ֶלךְ ֶאת‬ ְ ‫ׁ ָש ַאל ַא ּפ‬ ּ ‫ֹוט‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאינִי ָרגִ יל ֶל ֱאכֹול‬,‫ ְּכגֹון ֲאנִי‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫אֹוכל‬ ַ ‫ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְסעוּדָּ ה ַא ַחת ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָכל יֹום‬:‫ְסעוּדָּ ה ַא ַחת וְ ֶא ּ ָפ ֵטר? ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫וָ יֹום ַא ָּתה ַמ ְמ ׁ ִשיךְ ַּכ ָּמה ּ ַפ ְר ּ ְפ ָראֹות ִל ְכבֹוד‬ ‫יך ּ ַפ ְר ּ ֶפ ֶרת‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו ִאי ַא ָּתה ַמ ְמ ׁ ִש‬, ָ‫ַעצְ ְמך‬ ? ָ‫ַא ַחת ִל ְכבֹוד קֹונְ ך‬

The steward [apotropos]l of King Agrippasp asked Rabbi Eliezer: For someone like me, who is accustomed to eat only one meal a day, what is the halakha? Is it sufficient that I eat one meal and exempt myself from the obligation to eat any more that day?n Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Each day you continue eating and taste various kinds of appetizers in deference to your own desires, and now you do not continue eating even one appetizer in deference to your Maker?

that one who did not eat a meal on the evening of the first day of the Festival should compensate with a meal on the evening of the last day of the Festival. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Eliezer sayn that a person is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukka, one during the day and one at night? However, the compensatory meal on the evening of the Eighth Day of Assembly is not eaten in the sukka. Beira said that Rabbi Ami said: Rabbi Eliezer retracted his previous statement and agrees with the Rabbis that there is no quota for the meals that one must eat in the sukka, and it is only the meal on the first evening of the Festival that one must eat in the sukka. Their dispute is with regard to compensation if one failed to eat the meal on the first evening.

Personalities

Agrippas – ‫אגְ ִר ּ ַיפס‬:ַ Based on the historical context, the Gemara is apparently referring to Agrippas II, Marcus Julius Agrippas, son of Agrippas I. A section of the Galilee, including Tiberias and its environs, was under his reign at the time of the destruction of



the Second Temple and thereafter. Since his realm was to the north and he was not popular among the Jews, he apparently appointed a steward to serve in his place as governor of the Galilee. ‫זכ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 27a 

127

‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ְּכגֹון ֲאנִי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ִלי ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬:‫וְ עֹוד ׁ ְש ָאלֹו‬ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬,‫ַא ַחת ְ ּב ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א וְ ַא ַחת ְ ּבצִ ּיפ ִֹורי‬ ‫ִלי ׁ ְש ֵּתי סו ּּכֹות ַא ַחת ְ ּב ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א וְ ַא ַחת‬ ‫ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש ֵאצֵ א ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ְלסו ָּּכה‬,‫ְ ּבצִ ּיפ ִֹורי‬ ‫ ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי‬,‫ ל ֹא‬:‫וְ ֶא ּ ָפ ֵטר? ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ְלסו ָּּכה ִ ּב ֵּטל ִמצְ וָ ָת ּה ׁ ֶשל‬ .‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬

And the steward further asked Rabbi Eliezer: For someone like me, who has two wives, one in Tiberiasb and one in Tzippori, and has two sukkot, one in Tiberias and one in Tzippori, what is the halakha? Can I depart from one sukka to another sukka and exempt myself from the obligation? In other words, is it permitted to fulfill the mitzva in one sukka for part of Sukkot and in another for the rest of the Festival? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: No, as I say that anyone who departs from one sukka to another sukka has negated the mitzva of the first. The obligation is to reside in the same sukka for all seven days.

:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ ַּתנְיָא‬It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: background

Tiberias – ‫ט ֶ ּב ְריָ א‬:ִ Tiberias is a town on the shore of the Sea of Galilee founded by Herod Antipas (c. 18 CE). It was apparently founded on the site of earlier settlements; according to some opinions in the Talmud (Megilla 6a), it was on the site of the biblical city of Rakkat. Originally, Tiberias was a town of mixed Jewish and gentile population. The Jewish population was not distinguished for its Torah scholarship. However, after the destruction of the Temple, prominent Torah scholars, including ben Azzai and Rabbi Meir, lived there. Its golden age during the period that the Sanhedrin moved there (c. 235 CE) and it served as the seat of the Great Council, presided over by Rabbi Yehuda Nesia I. Rabbi Yoĥanan succeeded him as the leading spiritual figure in Tiberias and headed the yeshiva

there. Tiberias then became the Torah center of Eretz Yisrael. Most of the disciples of Rabbi Yoĥanan, particularly those who emigrated from Babylonia, lived and studied there, including Reish Lakish, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, Rabbi Ami, Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yona. Apparently, most of the Jerusalem Talmud was redacted there. Even after the amoraic period, Tiberias remained a significant creative religious center, and many of the works of aggadic midrash were composed there, as were numerous liturgical poems. During the post-amoraic era, the inhabitants of Tiberias were renowned as experts in Hebrew grammar. Indeed, the system of Hebrew vocalization used today is called Tiberian vocalization because it was formulated and established there.

Perek II Daf 27 Amud b notes

One may not depart from one sukka to another sukka – ‫ֵאין‬ ‫יֹוצְ ִאין ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ְלסו ָּּכה‬: Some add a reason: One who departs from one sukka to another displays contempt for the first sukka (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh on the Rif; Me’iri). One may not establish a sukka during the intermediate days of the Festival – ‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫עֹושין סו ָּּכה ְ ּבחוּלּ ֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ׂ ִ ‫אין‬:ֵ In the Jerusalem Talmud, the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is that the Sages penalize one for failure to construct a sukka at the proper time and prohibit him from constructing a sukka later (see the commentaries on the Rambam). A sukka must be suitable for seven days, i.e., according to R. Eliezer one should establish it before the Festival begins, and one should not build a sukka that is not sturdy and may collapse during the seven days of the Festival.

‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ְלסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫סו ָּּכה ְ ּבח ּו ּל ֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ְ‫ יֹוצְ ִאין ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ְלסו ָּּכה ו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִאם‬,‫ וְ ׁ ָשוִ ין‬.‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫סו ָּּכה ְ ּבחו ּּלֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ .‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫נָ ְפ ָלה – ׁ ֶשחֹוזֵ ר וּבֹונֶ ה ְ ּבחוּלּ ֹו ׁ ֶשל‬

One may not depart from one sukka to another sukka;n he must reside in the same sukka for the entire Festival. And one may not establish a sukka during the intermediate days of the Festivaln if he failed to do so before the Festival. And the Rabbis say: One may depart from one sukka to another sukka, and one may establish a sukka on the intermediate days of the Festival.h And they all, even Rabbi Eliezer, agree that if a sukka that one constructed before the Festival collapsed, he may rebuild it during the intermediate days of the Festival.

:‫יעזֶ ר? ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ֶ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ – ‫״חג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְלךָ ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים״‬ ַ :‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫ֲע ֵ ׂשה סו ָּּכה ָה ְראוּיָ ה ְל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ .‫ ֲע ֵ ׂשה סו ָּּכה ְ ּב ַחג‬:‫ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that it is prohibited to move from one sukka to another during the Festival? The Gemara explains it is as the verse says: “You shall prepare for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days” (Deuteronomy 16:13); this is interpreted to mean: Establish a sukka that is suitable for seven days. It is considered a sukka suitable for the mitzva only if it is established for seven days. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, this is what the Merciful One is saying: If one did not establish a sukka on the eve of the Festival, he should establish a sukka during the Festival. The obligation to establish a sukka is in effect all seven days of the Festival.

‫אֹות ּה‬ ָ ‫וְ ׁ ָשוִ ין ׁ ֶש ִאם נָ ְפ ָלה ׁ ֶשחֹוזֵ ר וּבֹונֶ ה‬ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּבחוּלּ ֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ,‫ וְ ֵאינָ ּה ְל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬,‫יתי ִהיא‬ ִ ‫ַהאי – ַא ֲח ִר‬ .‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

It is taught in the baraita: And they agree that if a sukka that one constructed before the Festival collapsed, he may rebuild it during the intermediate days of the Festival. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why would it be prohibited? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that according to Rabbi Eliezer this rebuilt sukka is considered a different one and is not a sukka established for seven days, therefore, the baraita teaches us that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that it is considered to be the same sukka.

halakha

One may establish a sukka on the intermediate days of the Festival – ‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫עֹושין סו ָּּכה ְ ּבחו ּּלֹו ׁ ֶשל‬: ִׂ One who did not establish a sukka, intentionally or otherwise, by Sukkot eve may do so during the intermediate days and may even do so on the seventh day of the Festival. It is also permitted to move one’s residence from one sukka to another during the Festival, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 637:1).

128 

Perek II . 27b . ‫זכ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָא ָדם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל‬ ׁ ‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ָ ‫יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬ ‫ ״ו ְּל ַק ְח ֶּתם‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ַחג ְ ּבלו ָּלבֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ‫אשֹון ּ ְפ ִרי ֵעץ ָה ָדר ַּכ ּפֹות‬ ׁ ‫ָל ֶכם ַ ּבּיֹום ָה ִר‬ ‫ ָּכ ְך ֵאין ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א‬,‫ְּת ָמ ִרים״ – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם‬ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּבסו ָּּכתֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ָ ‫יְ ֵדי‬ – ‫״חג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְלךָ ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים״‬ ַ . ָ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ְּלך‬

It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Just as a person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another, as it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm” (Leviticus 23:40), and the Sages derive from the phrase: Shall take for yourselves, that it must be taken from your own and not from that of someone else, so too, a person does not fulfill his obligation with the sukka of another, as it is written: “You shall prepare for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and the Sages derive from the term “for yourself ” that it must be taken from your own.

‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ֵאין‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ָ ‫ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬ ‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬,‫ְ ּבלו ָּלבֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ‫״כל ָה ֶאזְ ָרח‬ ָּ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ְ ּבסו ָּּכתֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ‫ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל יֵ ׁ ְשב ּו ַ ּב ּסו ּּכֹות״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ָּכל‬ .‫ישב ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ׁ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְראוּיִ ם ֵל‬

And the Rabbis say: Although they said that a person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another, he fulfills his obligation with the sukka of another,h as it is written: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot” (Leviticus 23:42). This teaches that all of the Jewish people are fit to reside in one sukka.n If the value of one sukka were divided among all the Jewish people, no individual would have a peruta stake in it; therefore, no individual could be considered even a part-owner of the sukka. The only way the entire Jewish people could fulfill the mitzva in one sukka is by residing in a communal sukka that does not belong to any of them. Apparently, there is no obligation to reside specifically in one’s own sukka.

halakha

Residing in a sukka that is not his – ‫יְ ׁ ִש ָיבה ְ ּבסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ש ֵאינָ ּה ׁ ֶש ּלֹו‬: ֶ ׁ One fulfills his obligation by residing in a borrowed sukka and in a jointly owned sukka (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 637:2). notes

Fit to reside in one sukka – ‫ישב ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ראוּיִ ם ֵל‬:ְ The word basukkot in the verse: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]” is traditionally spelled without the second vav. This spelling is identical to the spelling of the singular form of the word, and it is interpreted as an indication that one sukka may serve for the entire Jewish people (Me’iri; Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh; Or Zarua). Others explain that it means there is no sukka that is not suitable for the entire Jewish people, as, if it is suitable for one person, then it is suitable for all (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz).

‫יב ֵעי‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ְ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who do not derive that one is obּ ‫״לךָ ״ ַמאי דָּ ְר ׁ ִשי ֵ ּב‬ :‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ְשאו ָּלה – ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫יה ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ְ ּגזו ָּלה‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬ligated to reside in his own sukka, what do they derive from this term .‫״כל ָה ֶאזְ ָרח״‬ ָּ “for yourself ”? The Gemara answers: They require that term to exclude a stolen sukka. One does not fulfill his obligation with a stolen sukka. However, with regard to a borrowed sukka, it is written: “All the homeborn,” to teach that every Jew can fulfill the mitzva in a sukka borrowed from the community. ‫״כל ָה ֶאזְ ָרח״ ַמאי ָע ֵביד‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ָּ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ,‫יה ְלגֵ ר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫וְ ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגדֵּ ל ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם‬ ‫מֹועד – ָלא‬ ֵ ‫עֹושין סו ָּּכה ְ ּבח ו ּּלֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ִׂ .‫ִאצְ ְט ִריךְ ְק ָרא‬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this term: “All the homeborn”? The Gemara answers: He requires that term to derive that a convert who converted in the interim, during Sukkot, and a minor who reached majority in the interim, whose obligation began during the Festival, are obligated to fulfill the mitzva of residing in a sukka. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, from where are these halakhot derived? The Gemara answers: Once the Sages said that one may establish a sukka during the intermediate days of the Festival, an additional verse is not necessary to derive the obligation of the convert and the minor who reached majority.

‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי ׁ ֶש ָה ַל ְך‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ,‫יעזֶ ר ַר ּבֹו ְ ּבלֹוד ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬ ֶ ‫ְל ַה ְק ִ ּביל ּ ְפנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫ ֵאינְ ךָ ִמ ׁ ּש ְֹוב ֵתי ָה ֶרגֶ ל‬,‫ ֶא ְל ַעאי‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ ְמ ׁ ַש ֵ ּב ַח ֲאנִי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ,‫יהן ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬ ֶ ‫ֶאת ָה ַעצְ ָלנִין ׁ ֶש ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ִמ ָ ּב ֵת‬ .‫יתךָ ״‬ ֶ ‫ ״וְ ָ ׂש ַמ ְח ָּת ַא ָּתה ו ֵּב‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬

§ The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Elai,

p

who went on Sukkot eve to greet his teacher Rabbi Eliezer in Lod on the first day of the Festival. He said to him: Elai, you are not among those who stay home on the Festival and therefore you have not fulfilled the mitzva of the Festival, as Rabbi Eliezer would say: I praise the lazy, who, although they act no differently than they do the entire year, are praiseworthy because they do not leave their houses on the Festival, as it is written: “You shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26). The term “your household” is interpreted as referring to one’s wife. One who is not home cannot rejoice with his wife. p

Personalities

Rabbi Elai – ‫ר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬:ַ Rabbi Elai was a tanna during the period when the seat of the Sanhedrin was in Yavne, one generation after the destruction of the Temple. He is often mentioned in the Talmud as studying with Rabban Gamliel; however, his primary teacher was Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. Numerous stories are related illustrating his close relationship with Rabbi Eliezer, and even after the latter’s death Rabbi Elai sought out Rabbi Eliezer’s halakhic decisions and attempted to cite proof of their legitimacy. His name, which is a variation of Eliezer, was apparently given to him in order to distinguish between him and his teacher, who is known as Rabbi Eliezer the Great, while he is known as Elai, Eliezer the Younger. Several halakhic and aggadic passages are attributed to him in the Talmud. His son, Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, was one of the most prominent tanna’im. He is referred to in the Talmud simply as Rabbi Yehuda.



Rabbi Eliezer – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:ַ This refers to the tanna Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who is also known as Rabbi Eliezer the Great. He lived during the period of the destruction of the Temple and thereafter. He was the scion of a wealthy family that traced its ancestry back to Moses. Nevertheless, he did not study Torah until he was over twenty years old. At that point, he went to Jerusalem and studied with Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai in miserable conditions. Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai considered Rabbi Eliezer the greatest of his students, to the extent that he said that Rabbi Eliezer was the equivalent of all the Sages. He was a great Torah scholar and taught the masses before the destruction of the Temple; he was also one of the Sages who joined Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai in founding the yeshiva in Yavne after the destruction.

Rabbi Eliezer married Imma Shalom, the sister of the Nasi, Rabban Gamliel of Yavne. Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai’s students were his colleagues, and Rabbi Eliezer had many significant halakhic exchanges with his close friend Rabbi Yehoshua. However, after a serious fundamental dispute developed between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages, Rabban Gamliel was compelled to ostra­cize him. Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai described him as a plastered well reinforced that never loses a drop, as his Torah was based primarily on traditions that he received from his teachers. Unlike his primary teacher and most of his colleagues, he tended toward the stringent approach of Beit Shammai. Rabbi Eliezer’s greatest student was Rabbi Akiva, although other Sages of that generation were his students as well. His son Hyrcanus was also counted among the Sages. ‫זכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 27b 

129

notes

A person is obligated to greet his teacher on the Festival – ‫חּיָ יב ָא ָדם ְל ַה ְק ִ ּביל ּ ְפנֵי ַר ּבֹו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬:ַ The early authorities ask how the obligation to greet a teacher on a Festival is derived from a verse that mentions the New Moon and Shabbat. Rabbeinu Ĥananel in tractate Rosh HaShana answers that if one’s teacher lives nearby, one is obligated to greet him every Shabbat and New Moon. If he lives far away, he is obligated to greet him at least on each Festival (Ritva). Others explain that the word Shabbat here is referring not to Shabbat but rather, as it appears elsewhere, to a Festival (Turei Even). Others note that from the conduct of the Shunamite woman one would derive the obligation to greet one’s teacher on a daily basis. However, because she adopted a stringency, that cannot serve as the basis for a halakha. Anyone else, for whom daily visits are a significant exertion, is required to greet his teacher only on Festivals. This can also be derived a fortiori: If one is obligated to greet the Divine Presence in the Temple only on the Festivals, all the more so it should be the case that one is not obligated to greet his teacher more frequently (Arukh LaNer). There is no tribe, etc. – ‫אין ְלךָ ָּכל ׁ ֵש ֶבט וכו׳‬:ֵ Although clearly Rabbi Eliezer sought to avoid answering the question and therefore addressed another topic, there are those who see his response as an allusion to the resolution of Yoĥanan’s dilemma whether one may spread a sheet over the sukka, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, or whether he may not do so, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer himself. Yoĥanan could not decide whether or not the ruling was in accordance with the opinion of the majority. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer said to him that great men emerged from every tribe and that one follows the opinion of the majority, as all members of the community are sacred. He then said that, based on the fact that prophets arose from each tribe, the Torah does not belong to any one individual or leader (Arukh LaNer; see Iyyun Ya’akov).

‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ין ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יב‬:‫ִאינִי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ :‫ְל ַה ְק ִ ּביל ּ ְפנֵי ַר ּבֹו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫הֹול ֶכ ת ֵא ָל יו ַה ּיֹום‬ ֶ ‫״מ דּ ּו ַע ַא ְּת‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא ח ֶֹד ׁש וְ ל ֹא ׁ ַש ָ ּבת״ – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דִּ ְבח ֶֹד ׁש‬ ‫ינִיש ְל ַא ְק ּב ֵֹולי ַא ּ ֵפי‬ ׁ ‫יחּיֵ יב ִא‬ ַ ‫וְ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִמ‬ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ָאזֵ יל וְ ָא ֵתי‬,‫יה! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ּ ‫ַר ֵ ּב‬ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ָאזֵ יל וְ ָלא ָא ֵתי‬, ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬ ּ ‫יֹומ‬ .‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬ ּ ‫יֹומ‬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Yitzĥak say: From where is it derived that one is obligated to greet his teacher on the Festival?n It is as it is stated that the husband of the Shunamite woman asked his wife: “Why are you going to him today? It is neither the New Moon nor Shabbat” (II Kings 4:23). This proves by inference that on the New Moon and Shabbat a person is obligated to greet his teacher.h The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This statement of Rabbi Yitzĥak that one is obligated to go and greet his teacher is referring to a case where he goes and returns on the same day and can rejoice with his wife at night; and this statement of Rabbi Eliezer that one should stay home is referring to a case where he goes and does not return on the same day and cannot rejoice with his wife at night.

‫יעזֶ ר ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַבת‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫יֹוחנָן ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ַ ּב ָ ּג ִליל ָה ֶע ְליֹון ְ ּבסו ָּּכתֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ,‫יס ְריֹון‬ ַ ‫יס ִרי וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְ ּב ֵק‬ ָ ‫ֶא ְל ַעאי ְ ּב ֵק‬ ‫ ַמה ּו‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫וְ ִה ִ ּג ַיע ַח ָּמה ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫יה ָס ִדין? ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ָ ‫רֹוש ָע ֶל‬ ׂ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ‬ ‫ְלךָ ָּכל ׁ ֵש ֶבט וְ ׁ ֵש ֶבט ִמּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ .‫ֶה ֱע ִמיד ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ׁש ֵֹופט‬

§ The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi

halakha

Obligation to greet one’s teacher on the Festival – ‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫ל ַה ְק ִ ּביל ּ ְפנֵי ַר ּבֹו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬:ְ One is obligated to greet his teacher on the Festival, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzĥak (Kesef Mishne). Some hold that this obligation was applicable only during the Temple period (Noda Bihuda), although others questioned that ruling (Arukh LaNer; Responsa Shevet Sefer; Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 5:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 554:12 and Magen Avraham there).

background

Caesarea…Caesarion – ‫יס ְריֹון‬ ַ ‫י…ק‬ ֵ ‫יס ִר‬ ָ ‫ק‬:ֵ Caesarea is a city on the coast of Eretz Yisrael that was the capital of the province of Judea at the time of the incident related in the Gemara. It was a large city that included a sizable Jewish population. Caesarion is Banias, which is adjacent to the sources of the Jordan River. Philippus, the son of Herod, named it Caesarea as well in honor of Julius Caesar. In order to distinguish it from the larger coastal city of Caesarea, it was referred to as Caesarion.

Left: Archaeological remains of the Herodian city in Banias Center: Respective locations of Caesarea and Caesarion Right: Roman hippodrome in Caesarea

130 

Perek II . 27b . ‫זכ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

Eliezer, who stayed in the Upper Galilee in the sukka of Yoĥanan, son of Rabbi Elai, in Caesarea; and some say that it did not occur in Caesarea but in Caesarion.b And the sun reached a point over the roofing of the sukka, rendering it uncomfortable to remain in the sukka. Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: What is the halakha; may I spread a sheet over the roofing? Is it permitted, since it is only adding to a temporary tent or is it prohibited? Rabbi Eliezer evaded the question and said to him: There is no triben of Israel from which a judge did not emerge.

‫ ַמה ּו‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬,‫ִה ִ ּג ַיע ַח ָּמה ַל ֲחצִ י ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ ָ‫ ֵאין ְלך‬:‫יה ָס ִדין? ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ָ ‫רֹוש ָע ֶל‬ ׂ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ‬ ‫ָּכל ׁ ֵש ֶבט וְ ׁ ֵש ֶבט ִמּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יָ צְ א ּו‬ ‫ ׁ ֵש ֶבט יְ ה ּו ָדה ו ִּבנְ יָ ִמין‬,‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו נְ ִב‬ ‫ ִה ִ ּג ַיע ַח ָּמה‬.‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ֶה ֱע ִמיד ּו ְמ ָל ִכים ַעל ּ ִפי נְ ִב‬ ‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ נָ ַטל‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫לֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ָ ‫ְל ַמ ְר ְ ּג‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ִה ְפ ׁ ִשיל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫ָס ִדין ו ֵּפ ַיר ׂש ָע ֶל‬ ‫ ל ֹא ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ִה ְפ ִליגֹו‬.‫חֹוריו וְ יָ צָ א‬ ָ ‫ַט ִּליתֹו ַל ֲא‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָא ַמר דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫ִ ּב ְד ָב ִרים‬ .‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ָש ַמע ִמ ּ ִפי ַר ּבֹו ְל‬

In the meantime, the sun reached directly over the midpoint of the roofing of the sukka. Once again, Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: What is the halakha; may I spread a sheet over it? Rabbi Eliezer again evaded the question and said to him: There is no tribe of Israel from which prophets did not emerge.n And the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were unique because they established kingsn according to prophets, as Saul and David were anointed by the prophet Samuel. At that point, the light of the sun reached the feet of Rabbi Eliezer. Yoĥanan took a sheet and spread it over the sukka. Rabbi Eliezer slung his cloak over his shoulder behind him and emerged from the sukka because he did not want to permit doing so. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Eliezer conducted himself in that manner not because he was seeking to avoid answering by diverting his attention with his words, but because Rabbi Eliezer never said a matter that he did not hear from his teacher.

‫ ֵאין‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יכי ָע ֵביד ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬The Gemara asks: How did Rabbi Eliezer do so? How did he stay .‫ יֹוצְ ִאין ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ְלסו ָּּכה! ֶרגֶ ל ַא ֵחר ֲהוַ אי‬in a sukka in the Upper Galilee on the festival of Sukkot? Didn’t Rabbi Eliezer himself say: One may not depart from one sukka to another sukka? The Gemara answers: The incident was on a different Festival and not the festival of Sukkot, and they were in the sukka merely for the fresh air. ‫ ְמ ׁ ַש ֵ ּב ַח ֲאנִי ֶאת‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬The Gemara asks from a different perspective: But didn’t Rabbi !‫יהן ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬ ֶ ‫ ָה ַעצְ ָלנִין ׁ ֶש ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ִמ ָ ּב ֵת‬Eliezer say: I praise the lazy, who do not leave their houses on .‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ֲהוַ אי‬the Festival? That apparently applies to all Festivals. The Gemara answers: The incident did not take place on a Festival at all. It was on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yoĥanan’s question was with regard to the prohibited labor of building on Shabbat. ,‫ ּ ְפ ָקק ַה ַחלּ ֹון‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ִמדִּ ֵיד‬ ּ ‫וְ ִת ְיפ ׁשֹוט ֵל‬ – ‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ׁשוּר וְ ָתלוּי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫ֹוק ִקין ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – ֵאין ּפ‬,‫ֹוק ִקין ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫ּפ‬ !‫ ֵ ּבין ָּכךְ ו ֵּבין ָּכךְ ּפ ְֹוק ִקין‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬

The Gemara asks: If so, resolve the matter and conclude that it is not permitted from his own opinion, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a window shutter on Shabbat,hb Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, because that is not considered building; and if not, i.e., if it is touching the ground, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it. From the fact that if it is not hanging from the window, Rabbi Eliezer prohibits shuttering the window, he also prohibits adding to a temporary tent.

notes

From which prophets did not emerge – ‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יָ צְ א ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬ ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫נְ ִב‬: Rabbi Aharon HaLevi has a different version: From which kings and prophets did not emerge, including the kings who ruled over the kingdom of Israel. Judges, prophets, kings – ‫ ְמ ָל ִכים‬,‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ נְ ִב‬,‫ש ְֹופ ִטים‬:ׁ Rashi lists the known prophets and their tribes, and there are in fact tribes missing. Rabbi Eliezer taught this statement based on tradition that the judges and prophets whose tribal affiliation is not mentioned were from other tribes not listed. Therefore, prominent leaders emerged from each tribe. halakha

A window shutter on Shabbat – ‫פ ָקק ַה ַחלּ ֹון ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ְ ּ A shutter or anything else used to seal a window may be used on Shabbat even if it is not tied to the window, provided that one intended to do so before Shabbat. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 313:1). background

Window shutter – ‫פ ָקק ַה ַח ּלֹון‬:ְ ּ In talmudic times, a window shutter was typically tied to and suspended from the window. At times, wood that was not attached to the window was placed in the window in place of a shutter. When not in use, the wood was placed alongside the window and utilized for other purposes as well.

Illustration of window shutters used in talmudic times

Perek II Daf 28 Amud a ‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא דְּ ל ֹא‬,‫ ָה ָתם הוּא דִּ ְמ ַב ֵּטל‬The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the case of the .‫ ְמ ַב ֵּטל – ל ֹא‬shutter and the case of the sheet. There, in the case of the shutter, where he negates it by shuttering the window, it is considered part of the building and it is therefore prohibited. However, here, in the case of the sheet, where he does not negate it, as he plans on removing it, no, it is not necessarily prohibited. ‫יעזֶ ר ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַבת‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ֵאלוּה ּו ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים ֲה ָלכֹות‬,‫ַ ּב ָ ּג ִליל ָה ֶע ְליֹון‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתים ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬,‫ְ ּב ִה ְלכֹות סו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה ָע ָ ׂשר ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם ״ל ֹא‬,‫״ש ַמ ְע ִּתי״‬ ָׁ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי״‬ ‫ ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה ָע ָ ׂשר ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬,‫ִחילּ וּף ַהדְּ ָב ִרים‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתים ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם ״ל ֹא‬,‫״ש ַמ ְע ִּתי״‬ ָׁ .‫ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי״‬ 

The Gemara relates a similar incident. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who stayed in the Upper Galilee, and the people there asked him thirty halakhot in the halakhot of sukka. In response to twelve, he said to them: I heard an answer from my teachers, and he related what he heard. In response to the other eighteen, he said to them: I did not hear an answer. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It was the reverse of these matters. In response to eighteen he said to them: I heard an answer; in response to the other twelve he said to them: I did not hear an answer. ‫חכ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 28a 

131

notes

You forced me – ‫הזְ ַק ְק ּתוּנִי‬:ִ Rabbi Eliezer felt the need to explain why he did not answer the questions, lest someone suspect that his failure to answer stemmed from a lack of knowledge caused by a lack of Torah study (Iyyun Ya’akov). Although his teachers never directly instructed him to observe these practices, he certainly observed them conducting themselves in this manner, as the Gemara explains below (Maharsha). I never said anything that I did not hear – ‫ל ֹא ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ ‫ש ַמ ְע ִּתי‬: ָ ׁ Apparently Rabbi Eliezer meant that he did not issue a halakhic ruling in public unless he heard it from his teacher. In the study hall he would discuss issues with his colleagues and innovate in matters of halakhic thought when the need arose. Worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them – ‫יהן ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ראוּיִ ם ׁ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ֶרה ֲע ֵל‬:ְ Rabbi Aharon HaLevi explains that the Gemara is not saying that they were as great as Moses but that they were worthy of having the Divine Presence rest upon them like Moses.

‫ ָּכל דְּ ָב ֶריךָ ֵאינָ ן ֶא ָּלא ִמ ּ ִפי‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ִהזְ ַק ְק ּתוּנִי‬:‫ַה ׁ ְשמו ָּעה?! ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬ ‫ ִמּיָ ַמי‬.‫ֹותי‬ ַ ‫דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי ִמ ּ ִפי ַר ּב‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ל ֹא ְק ָד ַמנִי ָא ָדם ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬ ‫יָ ׁ ַשנְ ִּתי ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש ל ֹא ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֶק ַבע‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ִה ַּנ ְח ִּתי ָא ָדם‬,‫וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ַ ׂש ְח ִּתי‬,‫אתי‬ ִ ָ‫ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש וְ יָ צ‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬,‫יחת חו ִּּלין‬ ַ ‫ִ ׂש‬ .‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי ִמ ּ ִפי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ‬

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

‫ ִמּיָ ָמיו‬:‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי‬ ָ ‫ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ַר ָ ּבן‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָה ַלךְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬,‫יחת חו ִּּלין‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא ָ ׂשח ִ ׂש‬ ִּ ‫ַא ּמֹות ְ ּבל ֹא ּת ָֹורה ו ְּבל ֹא ְּת ִפ‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ילין‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא יָ ׁ ַשן‬,‫ְק ָדמֹו ָא ָדם ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬ ‫ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש ל ֹא ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֶק ַבע וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ִה ְר ֵהר ַ ּב ְּמ בֹואֹות‬,‫ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ִה ּנ ִַיח ָא ָדם ְ ּב ֵבית‬,‫ַה ְמט ּו ָּנפֹות‬ ‫יֹושב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ְמצָ אֹו ָא ָדם‬,‫ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש וְ יָ צָ א‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ַתח‬,‫יֹושב וְ ׁשֹונֶ ה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫דֹומם ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ,‫ָא ָדם דֶּ ֶלת ְל ַת ְל ִמ ָידיו ֶא ָּלא הוּא ְ ּב ַעצְ מֹו‬ ‫וְ ל ֹא ָא ַמר דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ׁ ָש ַמע ִמ ּ ִפי ַר ּבֹו‬ ‫״ה ִ ּג ַיע ֵעת ַל ֲעמֹוד‬ ִ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָא ַמר‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ִמ ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש״ ח ּוץ ְמ ַע ְר ֵבי ְפ ָס ִחים‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫וְ ַע ְר ֵבי יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפ ּו ִרים‬ .‫נֹוהג ַא ֲח ָריו‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ַּת ְל ִמידֹו‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬

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

‫ ׁ ְשמֹונִים ַּת ְל ִמ ִידים ָהי ּו לֹו‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים ֵמ ֶהן ְרא ּו יִ ם‬,‫ְל ִה ֵּלל ַהּזָ ֵקן‬ ,ּ‫יהן ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה ְּכמ ׁ ֶֹשה ַר ֵ ּבינו‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ֶרה ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ו ׁ ְּשל ׁ ִֹשים ֵמ ֶהן ְראוּיִ ם ׁ ֶש ַּת ֲעמֹוד ָל ֶהם‬ .‫ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ֵ ּבינֹונִים‬,‫יהֹוש ַע ִ ּבן נוּן‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ַח ָּמה ִּכ‬ ‫ ָק ָטן‬,‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫ָ ּגדֹול ׁ ֶש ְ ּבכו ָּּלן – יֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן עוּּז‬ .‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּבכו ָּּלן – ַר ָ ּבן‬

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

halakha

Conduct in the study hall – ‫ה ְתנַ ֲהגוּת ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬:ִ One may not sleep in the study hall, and one may discuss only Torah there. It is prohibited to engage in mundane conversation in the study hall (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 246:16, 17, 25, and in the comment of the Rema). ִּ ‫ת ָֹורה ו ְּת ִפ‬:ּ A common praise Torah and phylacteries – ‫ילין‬ of Torah scholars is that they are always engaged in Torah study, donning phylacteries, and wearing ritual fringes. It was said of the great Torah scholars that they were never seen walking four cubits without Torah, phylacteries, and ritual fringes (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 4:24).

Torah in alleyways filthy with human excrement – ‫ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫ב ְּמבֹואֹות ַה ְמטו ָּּנפֹות‬:ּ ַ It is prohibited to engage in Torah discussions in places filthy with human excrement. Therefore, a Torah scholar should avoid standing in those places so that he will not inadvertently contemplate matters of Torah there (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 246:26, and in the comment of the Rema). Torah study on Passover eves – ‫ימוּד ּת ָֹורה ְ ּב ַע ְר ֵבי ְפ ָס ִחים‬ ּ ‫ל‬:ִ One must prepare his table so that he can begin the seder at nightfall. Even if he is engaged in Torah study, he must interrupt his study to prepare, because it is a mitzva to hurry and eat so that the children will not fall asleep (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:1).

Personalities

Yonatan ben Uzziel – ‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫יֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן עוּּז‬: Very little is known of Yonatan ben Uzziel, who, according to the Gemara here, was the most prominent of the students of Hillel. His great undertaking, for which he is remembered, was the translation of the biblical books of the Prophets into Aramaic. It is unclear whether the translation attributed to him is the original or whether it is merely an adaptation. In any case, it is not a literal translation,

132 

Perek II . 28a . ‫חכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

and it includes interpretation and elaboration. Although there were earlier translations of the Bible into Greek, Yonatan ben Uzziel’s was the first translation of the Bible that was a type of commentary based on the approach of the Sages. He was so preeminent in his generation that Shammai the Elder, the president of the court, would seek his company to discuss halakha with him.

‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ַר ָ ּבן‬ ‫ ֲה ָלכֹות‬,‫ ְ ּג ָמ ָרא‬,‫ִה ִּנ ַיח ִמ ְק ָרא ּו ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה‬ ,‫סֹופ ִרים‬ ְ ‫תֹורה וְ ִד ְקדּ ו ֵּקי‬ ָ ‫ דִּ ְקדּ ו ֵּקי‬,‫וְ ַא ָ ּגדֹות‬ ‫ ְּתקוּפֹות‬,‫ַק ִּלים וַ ֲחמ ּו ִרים וּגְ זֵ רֹות ׁ ָשוֹות‬ ‫יחת‬ ַ ‫יחת ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת וְ ִ ׂש‬ ַ ‫ ִ ׂש‬,‫ימ ְט ְריָאֹות‬ ַּ ִ‫וְ ג‬ ,‫ ִמ ׁ ְשלֹות ּכ ְֹוב ִסין‬,‫יחת דְּ ָק ִלים‬ ַ ‫ׁ ֵש ִדים וְ ִ ׂש‬ .‫ דָּ ָבר ָ ּגדֹול וְ ָד ָבר ָק ָטן‬,‫ִמ ׁ ְשלֹות ׁשו ָּע ִלים‬

– ‫ דָּ ָבר ָק ָטן‬,‫דָּ ָבר ָ ּגדֹול – ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ֶמ ְר ָּכ ָבה‬ :‫ ְל ַקּיֵ ים ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬.‫ֲהוָ יֹות דְּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ָר ָבא‬ .‫יהם ֲא ַמ ֵּלא״‬ ֶ ‫רֹות‬ ֵ ְ‫אֹוה ַבי יֵ ׁש וְ אֹוצ‬ ֲ ‫״ל ַהנְ ִחיל‬ ְ ‫ ָ ּגדֹול‬,‫וְ ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ָטן ׁ ֶש ְ ּבכ ּו ָּל ן ָּכ ְך‬ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו‬.‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּבכו ָּּלן – ַעל ַא ַחת ַּכ ָּמה וְ ַכ ָּמה‬ ‫עֹוסק‬ ֵ ְ‫ּיֹושב ו‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש‬,‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫ַעל יֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן עוּּז‬ .‫נִש ָרף‬ ׂ ְ ‫ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה – ָּכל עֹוף ׁ ֶש ּפ ֵֹור ַח ָע ָליו ִמּיָ ד‬

The Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible; Mishna; Gemara; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences and verbal analogies; the calculation of the calendrical seasons; and numerology [gimmatreyaot].l In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of ministering angels;n the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees;n parables of launderers, which are folk tales that can be used to explain the Torah; parables of foxes; and more generally, a great matter and a small matter.n The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot, the conduct of the transcendent universe. A small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the disputes of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines so as to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoĥanan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom. And if the youngest of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he sat and was engaged in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated.

mishna 

‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ׁ ‫מתני׳ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ר‬ ‫ֹוס ִלין‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ּפ‬,‫וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָל ֶהם ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָה ְלכ ּו‬,‫ ל ֹא ָּכךְ ָהיָ ה ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬:‫ְל ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫זִ ְקנֵי ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי וְ זִ ְקנֵי ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל ְל ַב ֵ ּקר ֶאת‬ ‫ ו ְּמצָ אוּה ּו ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬,‫חֹורנִית‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן ַה‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ְ ּבתֹוך‬ ׁ ‫יֹושב ר‬ ֵׁ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו לֹו דָּ ָבר? ָא ְמר ּו ָל ֶהם‬,‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם ְר ָאיָ ה?! ַאף ֵהם ָא ְמר ּו‬:‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫ימ ָּת ִמצְ וַ ת‬ ְ ַ‫נֹוהג – ל ֹא ִקּי‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ָ ִ‫ ִאם ֵּכן ָהי‬:‫לֹו‬ . ָ‫סו ָּּכה ִמּיָ ֶמיך‬

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

.‫נָשים וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ו ְּק ַט ּנִים ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה‬ ִׁ .‫יך ְל ִא ּמֹו – ַחּיָ יב ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ְ ‫ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו צָ ִר‬ ,‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה וְ יָ ְל ָדה ַּכ ָּלתֹו ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַּמאי ַהּזָ ֵקן‬ ‫יכךְ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ ֵ ‫ו ִּפ‬ ֵּ ‫יחת ֶאת ַה ַּמ ֲעזֵ ָיבה וְ ִס‬ .‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ָק ָטן‬

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

language

Numerology [gimmatreyaot] – ‫ימ ְט ְריָ אֹות‬ ַּ ‫ג‬:ּ ִ From the Greek γεωμετρία, geometria, literally, land measurement. However, the Greeks used it as a term in mathematics in general and in engineering in particular. Measurements and calculations were also referred to as gimmatreyaot by the Sages. The meaning of the word was interpreted homiletically as based on numerology, as the Greek γεωμετρία, geometria, consists of the third letter in the Greek alphabet, γ, gamma, and the number τρεῖς, trei, three, indicating that gamma equals three. notes

The conversation of ministering angels, etc. – ‫יחת ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי‬ ַ ‫ִ ׂש‬ ‫ה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת וכו׳‬:ַ Apparently this means that Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai was well versed in esoterica, associated with both angels and demons, and that he knew how to employ those abilities when necessary (see Rashbam on tractate Bava Batra). And the conversation of palm trees – ‫יחת דְּ ָק ִלים‬ ַ ‫וְ ִ ׂש‬: The Rashbam explains that he knew the nature of trees, as it was said of Solomon: “And he spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springs out of the wall” (I Kings 5:13). That is the meaning of the conversation of palm trees. According to the Me’iri, the reference to the conversation of ministering angels and demons means that he was proficient in the nature of all matters: The knowledge of nature and of that which transcends nature. The ge’onim explain that traditionally there was a manner to divine esoterica from the motion of palm leaves, which appear to be speaking with each other (see Rabbeinu Meir HaLevi). A great matter and a small matter – ‫דָּ ָבר ָ ּגדֹול וְ ָד ָבר ָק ָטן‬: The early authorities explained this statement at length, particularly why the Gemara refers to the disputes between Abaye and Rava as a small matter. Some suggested that since these disputes are over matters that were not elucidated, the Gemara calls them a small matter (Ritva). Others explained that this is not a value judgment; rather, it simply refers to the subject under discussion. The Design of the Divine Chariot, which deals with the essence of the entire world, is considered a great matter. The disputes between Abaye and Rava deal with mundane matters and are therefore considered a small matter (Maharsha in Ĥiddushei Aggadot). And roofed with them over the bed for the newborn minor – ‫יכ ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמ ָּטה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ָק ָטן‬ ֵּ ‫וְ ִס‬: Some commentaries explain that Shammai did not do so for the newborn baby but rather for another small child who was there and who needed his mother, as he disagrees with the opinion of the first tanna and holds that even a child who needs his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. Since his mother was close to the child’s bed, the baby was there with his mother (Maharshal in tractate Yevamot). halakha

One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house – ‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ׁ ‫ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ר‬ ‫וְ ׁשו ְּל ָחנֹו ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬: If one’s head and most of his body are in the sukka and his table is inside the house, he has not fulfilled his obligation to reside in the sukka. The ruling in the Gemara is explicitly in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai in this case (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 634:4). Women, slaves, and minors with regard to the mitzva of sukka – ‫נָשים וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ו ְּק ַט ּנִים ְ ּב ִמצְ וַ ת סו ָּּכה‬: ִ ׁ Women, slaves, and small children, as explained later in the discussion, are exempt from the mitzva of sukka (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:1).

Personalities

Shammai the Elder – ‫ש ַּמאי ַהּזָ ֵקן‬: ַ ׁ Shammai, occasionally referred to as Shammai the Elder, was the counterpart of Hillel the Elder, as they constituted the last of the pairs of the early tannaitic period, approximately one hundred years prior to the destruction of the Temple, at the beginning of Herod’s reign. Hillel was the Nasi and Shammai served as president of the court. Despite the fact that they founded two schools, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, whose disputes continued for many years after their passing, they disagreed with regard to only three or four issues. The difference between Hillel and



Shammai themselves was mainly a difference in character. Hillel related to himself and to others in an easygoing manner, avoiding conflict whenever possible. Shammai, in contrast, took a more exacting approach, closely scrutinizing people’s motivation and conduct. Nevertheless, it was Shammai who coined the phrase: And greet every person with a pleasant countenance (Avot 1:15). Little is known about his personal life; however, he was apparently an architect or builder by trade, as he is depicted on several occasions as standing with a builder’s cubit, which was a common measuring stick, in his hand. ‫חכ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 28a 

133

notes

Isn’t it taught in a baraita, the homeborn – ‫ הָ אֶ זְ ָרח‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬: Some explain that the use of the definite article is difficult, as at times it is interpreted as inclusionary and at times it is interpreted as exclusionary (Rashi; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). However, others note that this is not difficult, since the definite article is neither inclusionary nor exclusionary; rather, it comes for emphasis and is interpreted based on its context (Ritva).

gemara 

With regard to the halakha that women, – ‫״אזְ ָרח״‬ ֶ :‫גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ slaves, and minors are exempt from the .‫״ה ֶאזְ ָרח״ – ְלהֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַה ּנ ׁ ִָשים‬ ָ ,‫זֶ ה ֶאזְ ָרח‬ mitzva of sukka, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters .‫״כל״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ְּק ַט ּנִים‬ ָּ derived? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita that it is stated: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot” (Leviticus 23:42). Had the verse stated only: Homeborn, it would have been derived that any homeborn member of the Jewish people is obligated to observe this mitzva. However, the term with the addition of the definite article: “The homeborn,” indicates that only certain homeborn members are obligated, i.e., men, to the exclusion of the women. The word “all” in the phrase: “All the homeborn,” comes to include the minors capable of performing this mitzva. .‫״ה ֶאזְ ָרח״ – ְלהֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַה ּנ ׁ ִָשים‬ ָ :‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫נָשים ֵ ּבין ַ ּג ְב ֵרי‬ ִ ׁ ‫״אזְ ָרח״ ֵ ּבין‬ ֶ ְּ‫ימ ָרא ד‬ ְ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ ‫״ה ֶאזְ ָרח״ ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת‬ ָ :‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע? וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬ ,‫ַה ּנ ׁ ִָשים ָה ֶאזְ ָר ִחּיֹות ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יבֹות ְ ּב ִעינּ ּוי‬ :‫ַא ְל ָמא ֶאזְ ָרח ַ ּג ְב ֵרי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע! ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ .‫ וְ ַא ְס ְמ ִכינְ ה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ַא ְּק ָר ֵאי‬,ּ‫ִה ְל ְכ ָתא נִינְ הו‬

§  The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: “The

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

,‫ ְק ָרא ָל ָּמה ִלי‬,ּ‫ֵהי ְק ָרא וְ ֵהי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא? וְ תו‬ ‫ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ָל ָּמה ִלי? ָהא סו ָּּכה ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ֵ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ַהּזְ ַמן‬,‫ׁ ֶש ַהּזְ ַמן ְ ּג ָר ָמא‬ !‫נָשים ּ ְפטוּרֹות‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְ ּג ָר ָמא‬

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

‫יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים – ִמדְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן ָּתנָ א‬,‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫נָ ְפ ָקא‬ ‫״א ׁיש אֹו‬ ִ ‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬:‫דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ – ‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה״‬

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

‫עֹונָשין‬ ִ ׁ ‫ִה ׁ ְשוָ ה ַה ָּכתוּב ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְל ִא ׁיש ְל ָכל‬ ‫עֹולם סו ָּּכה‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬: ְ‫ וְ ִאיצְ ְט ִריך‬,‫ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬ ‫ ַמה דִּ ָירה – ִא ׁיש‬,ּ‫״ת ׁ ְשבוּ״ ְּכ ֵעין ָּתדוּרו‬ ֵּ ‫ ָקא‬,‫ ַאף סו ָּּכה – ִא ׁיש וְ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬,‫וְ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬ .‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

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

Perek II Daf 28 Amud b notes

Reside [teshvu] as you dwell – ‫ת ׁ ְשב ּו ְּכ ֵעין ָּתדוּר ּו‬:ֵּ The basis of this exposition is that the term teshvu in the context of sukka is not used in the typical sense, i.e., sit. Rather, its meaning here is like its meaning in the verse (Genesis 37:1): “And Israel dwelt [vayeshev] in the land of his father’s sojourning” (Ritva).

134 

Perek II . 28b . ‫חכ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך‬,‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬:‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ‫״ח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ֲ ‫״ח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר״‬ ֲ ‫ָא ִמינָ א יָ ֵליף‬ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן‬,‫ָע ָ ׂשר״ ֵמ ַח ג ַה ַּמ ּצֹות‬ ‫ ָקא‬,‫נָשים ַחּיָ יבֹות‬ ִ ׁ ‫ַחּיָ יבֹות – ַאף ָּכאן‬ .‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

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

‫ ְק ָרא‬,‫וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת סו ָּּכה ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬ ‫ ָס ְל ָקא‬.‫ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ֵ ּג ִרים‬ ‫״ה ֶאזְ ָרח ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ ָא ַמר‬ ָ :‫דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א וְ ל ֹא ֶאת ַה ֵ ּג ִרים‬

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

‫יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים ִמדְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ .‫תֹוס ֶפת ִעינּ וּי‬ ֶ ‫נָ ְפ ָקא! ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְל‬ ‫יעט‬ ֵ ‫הֹואיל ו ִּמ‬ ִ :‫ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ָא ִמינָ א‬ ,‫עֹונֶש ו ֵּמ ַאזְ ָה ָרה‬ ׁ ‫תֹוס ֶפת ִעינּ וּי ֵמ‬ ֶ ‫ַר ֲח ָמנָא ְל‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫נָשים ְּכ ָלל‬ ִ ׁ ‫ל ֹא נִ ְת ַחּיְ יב ּו‬

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

.‫״כל״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ְּק ַט ּנִים‬ ָּ :‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫נָשים וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ו ְּק ַט ּנִים ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן‬ ִ ׁ :‫וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּב ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ִה ִ ּג ַיע‬:‫ַה ּסו ָּּכה! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ . ְ‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּב ָק ָטן ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִה ִ ּג ַיע ְל ִחינּ וּך‬, ְ‫ְל ִחינּ וּך‬ !‫ָק ָט ן ׁ ֶש ִה ִ ּג ַיע ְל ִח ינּ ּו ְך ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ה ּוא‬ .‫ ו ְּק ָרא ַא ְס ַמ ְכ ָּתא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬,‫ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

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

‫יכי דָּ ֵמי‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫״ק ָטן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו צָ ִריךְ ְל ִא ּמֹו״ כו׳‬ ָ ‫ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו צָ ִריךְ ְל ִא ּמֹו? ָא ְמ ִרי דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפנֶ ה וְ ֵאין ִא ּמֹו ְמ ַק ַּנ ְח ּתֹו‬:‫יַ ַּנאי‬ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ּנֵעֹור ִמ ׁ ּ ְשנָ תֹו וְ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ )‫(ש ְמעֹון‬ ִׁ !ּ‫דֹולים נַ ִמי ָקרו‬ ִ ‫[א ָּמא] – ְ ּג‬ ִ ‫קֹורא ִא ָּמא‬ ֵ ‫קֹורא‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ּנֵעֹור וְ ֵאינֹו‬:)‫ימא‬ ָ ‫(א‬ ֵ ‫ֶא ָּלא‬ .‫ִא ָּמא ִא ָּמא‬

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



notes

The homeborn in Israel – ‫ה ֶאזְ ָרח ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬:ָ It has already been noted that the derivation in the halakhic midrash is similar in content, but it is based on the phrase “in Israel.” Apparently, both terms, “the homeborn” and “in Israel,” are exclusionary. However, the principle is that an exclusion followed by another exclusion comes to include. Therefore, converts are also included. This derivation also appears in tractate Yevamot in the Jerusalem Talmud (see Arukh LaNer and Sefat Emet). halakha

Which minor is obligated in the mitzva of sukka – ‫ֵאיזֶ ה‬ ‫ק ָטן ַחּיָ יב ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬:ָ A child who does not need his mother, i.e., a five- or six-year-old, is obligated to reside in the sukka by rabbinic law so that he is trained in the observance of mitzvot, in accordance with the mishna and the opinion of Rav Asi in Eiruvin 82a (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 640:2).

‫חכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 28b 

135

notes

From the point that the congealed dish will spoil [tisraĥ] – ‫מ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ְס ַרח ַה ִּמ ְק ּ ָפה‬:ִ The term tisraĥ does not mean that one remains in the sukka until the dish becomes rancid [siraĥon], as food will not spoil to that extent so quickly. Rather, in this context it means until the food becomes slightly spoiled (Rambam). This is with regard to extensive study, that is with regard to intensive study – ‫ וְ ָהא ְ ּב ִעּיוּנֵי‬,‫הא ְ ּב ִמגְ ָרס‬:ָ Rashi and other commentaries hold that extensive Torah study may be undertaken in the sukka while in-depth analysis should be undertaken outside the sukka. Others maintain the opposite: Extensive Torah study may be accomplished anywhere, while in-depth analysis requires a quiet, comfortable, and airy place like a sukka.

language

Jug [kiton] – ‫קיתֹון‬:ִ From the Greek κώθων, kothon, a drinking vessel. halakha

The manner of residence in the sukka – ‫דֶּ ֶרךְ דִּ ָירה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬: The mitzva to reside in a sukka involves eating, sleeping, and living in the sukka both day and night, just as one resides in his home throughout the rest of the year. One should have beautiful vessels and bedding in the sukka just as he does at home (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:1). Studying Torah in the sukka – ‫ימוּד ּת ָֹורה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ּ ‫ל‬:ִ One should study Torah in the sukka during the seven days of the Festival. If one seeks to analyze a matter in depth, he may leave the sukka and move to a place where he is better able to concentrate, in accordance with the opinion of Rava as interpreted by Rashi, the Rif, and the Rambam (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:4).

‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬.‫״מ ֲע ֶ ׂשה וְ יָ ְל ָדה ַּכ ָלתֹו״ כו׳‬ ַ :‫ִל ְס ּתֹור?! ַח ּסו ֵּרי ְמ ַח ְּס ָרא וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫ ו ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה נַ ִמי וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬,‫וְ ׁ ַש ַּמאי ַמ ְח ִמיר‬ ‫ַּכ ָּלתֹו ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַּמאי ַהּזָ ֵקן ו ִּפ ֵחת ֶאת‬ ‫יכ ְך ַעל ַה ִּמ ָּטה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל‬ ֵּ ‫ַה ַּמ ֲעזֵ ָיבה וְ ִס‬ .‫ַה ָ ּק ָטן‬

‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫מתני׳ ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ַעת ַהּיָ ִמים ָא ָדם‬ ,‫ יָ ְרד ּו ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים‬.‫סו ָּּכתֹו ֶק ַבע ו ֵּביתֹו ֲע ַראי‬ ‫ימ ַתי מו ָּּתר ְל ַפנּ ֹות – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ְס ַרח‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ֵא‬ ‫ ְל ָמה ַהדָּ ָבר‬:‫ ָמ ׁ ְשל ּו ָמ ׁ ָשל‬.‫ַה ִּמ ְק ּ ָפה‬ ,‫ֹומה – ְל ֶע ֶבד ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ִל ְמזֹוג ּכֹוס ְל ַר ּבֹו‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬ .‫וְ ׁ ָש ַפךְ לֹו ִקיתֹון ַעל ּ ָפנָיו‬

‫ ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ַעת ַהּיָ ִמים ָא ָדם‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ?‫ ֵּכיצַ ד‬.‫עֹושה סו ָּּכתֹו ֶק ַבע ו ֵּביתֹו ֲע ַראי‬ ֶׂ ,‫ָהי ּו לֹו ֵּכ ִלים נָ ִאים – ַמ ֲע ָלן ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ .‫ַמ ָ ּצעֹות נָ אֹות – ַמ ֲע ָלן ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ?‫ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬.‫וְ ׁש ֶֹותה ו ְּמ ַטּיֵ יל ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ ִמ ָּכאן‬.ּ‫״ת ׁ ְשבוּ״ ְּכ ֵעין ָּתדוּרו‬ ֵּ :‫דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫עֹושה ָא ָדם‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ַעת ַהּיָ ִמים‬:ּ‫ָא ְמרו‬ ‫ ֵּכיצַ ד? ָהי ּו‬.‫סו ָּּכתֹו ֶק ַבע ו ֵּביתֹו ֲע ַראי‬ ‫ ַמ ָ ּצעֹות‬,‫לֹו ֵּכ ִלים נָ ִאים – ַמ ֲע ָלן ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ‫ֹותה‬ ֶ ‫אֹוכל וְ ׁש‬ ֵ ,‫נָ אֹות – ַמ ֲע ָלן ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ .‫ ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ּנֵן ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬,‫ו ְּמ ַטּיֵ יל ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬

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

mishna 

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

gemara 

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

– ‫ ִמ ְק ָרא ו ִּמ ְתנָ א‬:‫ ִאינִי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬With regard to studying Torah in the sukka, the Gemara asks: Is ‫ וְ ַתנֹויֵ ַ ּבר ִמ ְּמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא! ָלא‬,‫ ִ ּב ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬that so? Didn’t Rava say: Studying Bible and studying Mishna .‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ִעּיוּנֵי‬,‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ִמגְ ָרס‬:‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬are undertaken in the sukka; however, analyzing the Mishna must be undertaken outside the sukka. This indicates that one should not analyze Torah in the sukka. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that one studies in the sukka, is with regard to extensive study, i.e., broad study and memorization. That statement of Rava that one should study outside the sukka is with regard to intensive study;n such study requires an environment where one can concentrate properly in order to engage in analysis of the Mishna.

Perek II Daf 29 Amud a ‫ימי‬ ִ ְ‫ ִּכי ָהא (דְּ ַר ָ ּבה) ַ ּבר ָח ָמא ִּכי ָהו ּו ָקי‬As in that situation involving Rava and Rami bar Ĥama, when ‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ְמ ַר ֲה ֵטי ִ ּבגְ ָמ ָרא‬ ּ ‫ ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמ‬they would stand before Rav Ĥisda, after he taught them a .‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ְמ ַעּיְ ינֵי ִ ּב ְס ָב ָרא‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי‬halakha they would quickly review the tradition that they heard from him together and only then analyze the rationale of the tradition that they had received. Apparently, in the study of Mishna and the amoraic commentary on the Mishna there is a distinction between extensive and intensive study.

136 

Perek II . 29a . ‫טכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

‫ ָמאנֵי‬,‫ ָמאנֵי ִמ ׁ ְש ְּתיָ א ִ ּב ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ – ‫ ַחצְ ָבא וְ ׁ ָש ִחיל‬.‫יכ ָלא – ַ ּבר ִמ ְּמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬ ְ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַר ָ ּגא ִ ּב ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬,‫ַ ּבר ִמ ְּמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬ ‫ ָהא – ְ ּבסו ָּּכה‬:‫ וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬.‫ ַ ּבר ִמ ְּמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬:‫ָל ּה‬ .‫ ָהא – ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה‬,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּג‬

With regard to residence in the sukka, Rava said: Drinking vessels such as cups, which are usually clean, remain in the sukka.n Eating vesselsn are taken out of the sukka after use.h An earthenware jug and a wicker basket [shaĥil ]b that are used for drawing water are taken outside the sukka. And a lamp remains inside the sukka,n and some say it is taken outside the sukka. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. Rather, this opinion, that a lamp remains inside the sukka, is referring to a large sukka, where the lamp and its odor do not disturb those residing in the sukka. And that opinion, that the lamp is taken outside the sukka, is referring to a small sukka, where the lamp’s odor is offensive.h

‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ְס ַרח ַה ִּמ ְק ּ ָפה‬:‫ ָּתנָ א‬.‫  § ״יָ ְרד ּו ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים״‬The mishna stated: If rain fell, it is permitted to leave the .‫יסין‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶשל ְ ּג ִר‬sukka from the point that it is raining so hard that the congealed dish will spoil. It was taught in the Tosefta: The measure is from when a congealed dish of pounded grain, a dish ruined by even slight rainfall, will spoil.h ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲהוָ ה ָקא יָ ֵתיב ַק ֵּמ‬ ּ ָ ִ‫נְשב ז‬ .‫יתי צִ יבו ָּתא‬ ִ ְ‫יקא וְ ָקא ַמי‬ ַ ׁ ‫ִ ּב ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ּ ַפנּ ּו ִלי ָמאנַי ֵמ ָה ָכא‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ְּתנַן ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ְס ַרח ַה ִּמ ְק ּ ָפה! ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דַּ ֲאנִינָ א דַּ ֲע ַתאי – ְּכ ִמי‬,‫ ְל ִד ִידי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ִּת ְס ַרח ַה ִּמ ְק ּ ָפה דָּ ֵמי ִלי‬

Abaye was sitting before Rav Yosef in the sukka. The wind blew and brought with it splinters from the roofing, and they fell onto the food. Rav Yosef said to him: Vacate my vessels from here, and I will eat in the house. Abaye said to him: Didn’t we learn in the mishna that one remains in the sukka until the congealed dish will spoil? That is not yet the case. He said to him: For me, since I am delicate, this situation is as if the congealed dish will spoil.

‫אֹוכל ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה וְ יָ ְרד ּו ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים‬ ֵ ‫ ָהיָ ה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫יחין אֹותֹו ַל ֲעלֹות ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִגְ מֹור‬ ִ ‫וְ יָ ַרד – ֵאין ַמ ְט ִר‬ ‫ ָהיָ ה יָ ׁ ֵשן ַּת ַחת ַה ּסו ָּּכה וְ יָ ְרד ּו‬.‫ְסע ּו ָדתֹו‬ ‫יחין אֹותֹו ַל ֲעלֹות‬ ִ ‫ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים וְ יָ ַרד – ֵאין ַמ ְט ִר‬ .‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיֵ אֹור‬

The Sages taught: If one was eating in the sukka, and rain fell, and he descended from the sukka on the roof to eat in his house, one does not burden him to ascend back to the sukka once the rain ceases until after he finishes his meal. Similarly, if one was sleeping under the roofing of the sukka, and rain fell, and he descended to sleep in the house, one does not burden him to ascend back to the sukka once the rain ceases; rather, he may sleep in the house until it becomes light.h

‫ אֹו ַעד ׁ ֶשּיֵ אֹור‬,‫? ַעד ׁ ֶשּיֵ עֹור‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ .‫ וְ יַ ֲע ֶלה ַע ּמוּד ַה ׁ ּ ַש ַחר‬,‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיֵ אֹור‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ימא ַעד ׁ ֶשּיֵ עֹור וְ יַ ֲע ֶלה ַע ּמוּד‬ ָ ‫ַּת ְר ֵּתי?! ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ :‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ַחר‬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the correct reading of the baraita: Until one awakens [sheyeor], spelled with an ayin, and once he awakens he returns to the sukka even in the middle of the night? Or is the correct reading: Until it becomes light [sheyeor],n spelled with an alef, and he need not return to the sukka until morning? Come and hear a proof that will resolve the matter from a related baraita: One need not return to the sukka until it becomes light [sheyeor], spelled with an alef, and dawn arrives. The Gemara asks: Why did the baraita repeat the arrival of light two times (Ritva)? Rather, say instead: Until he awakens [sheyeor], spelled with an ayin, and the dawn arrives. Both of the readings are accurate, as until one awakens and it becomes light he may remain in the house.

halakha

Eating and drinking vessels in the sukka – ‫ְּכ ֵלי ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ‫ו ׁ ְּש ִתּיָ ה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬: Beautiful vessels, including cups, should be brought into the sukka. However, eating utensils (Tur), e.g., pots and dishes, should be removed after use. It is customary not to bring pots into the sukka at all, even if one typically eats from them (Ĥayyei Adam; Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:1). Lamp in the sukka – ‫נֵ ר ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬: A lamp may be placed in a large sukka. If the sukka is small, it must be placed outside (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:1). Leaving the sukka due to rain – ‫יאה ִמן ַה ּסו ָּּכה ִ ּבגְ ַלל‬ ָ ִ‫יְ צ‬ ‫ה ֶ ּג ׁ ֶשם‬:ַ If rain falls, it is permitted to leave the sukka from the point that the rain is capable of ruining even a cooked bean dish. That is the halakha even if there is no food present (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and others; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:5 and the comment of the Rema). When does one return to sleep in the sukka – ‫ָמ ַתי חֹוזֵ ר‬ ‫ל ׁישֹן ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬:ִ If one was sleeping in the sukka and exited due to rain, he is not required to return immediately; rather, he may sleep in his house until dawn. Even then, there is no obligation to wake him; he may remain sleeping until he awakens (Rema; Tur). The Rema writes that anyone who is exempt from the mitzva of sukka due to inclement weather and does not exit is acting foolishly. However, in the Jerusalem Talmud one who does so is praised, and many pious men conducted themselves stringently and remained in the sukka (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:7). background

Wicker basket – ‫ש ִחיל‬: ָ ׁ The geonim understand that a shaĥil is referring to the Egyptian wicker basket. Some maintain that it was used to filter fluids poured from a jug.

Wicker baskets

notes

Drinking vessels in the sukka – ‫מאנֵי ִמ ׁ ְש ְּתיָ א ִ ּב ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬:ָ Some commentaries explain that it is merely permitted to keep these items in the sukka (Rashi; Me’iri; Ran), while others explain that it is preferable to bring them into the sukka, just as one resides with his vessels in his home (Rav Yehuda ben Berekhya on the Rif; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav). Eating vessels – ‫יכ ָלא‬ ְ ‫מאנֵי ֵמ‬:ָ Some commentaries explain that the reference is to used plates and bowls. They must be removed from the sukka because they are dirty and it would be a display of contempt for the mitzva of sukka to keep them there (Rashi; Rosh; Me’iri). Others say that the reference is to cooking utensils, e.g., pots and skewers. Since one does not keep them alongside him in the house, there is no need to do so in the sukka (Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot; Tosafot; Ritva). Yet others explain that since there is no set time for drinking, drinking vessels remain in the



sukka at all times. However, since meals are held at set times, eating vessels remain outside (Ittur). A lamp inside the sukka – ‫ש ַר ָ ּגא ִ ּב ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬: ְ ׁ According to Rashi (cited in Maggid Mishne and others), the reference is to a lamp whose light was extinguished. It must be removed, because an earthenware lamp becomes disgusting after use. However, others hold that it is referring to a lit lamp, which must be removed due to concern lest it cause a fire (Tosafot; Rosh). Alternatively, because the lamp is burning, one is forced to distance himself from it, thereby diminishing the area of the sukka that can be used (Me’iri; Ritva). Until one awakens or until it becomes light – ‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיֵ עֹור אֹו ַעד‬ ‫שּיֵ אֹור‬: ֶ ׁ Although the version according to most authorities and commentaries is: Until one awakens, the version of the ge’onim is: Until it becomes light. In their opinion, one is exempt only until dawn (see Ritva). ‫טכ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 29a 

137

notes

Who poured the water in whose face – ‫מי ׁ ָש ַפךְ ְל ִמי‬:ִ According to the understanding that it is the servant who poured the water on his master, the parable is interpreted as follows: Although it was legitimate for one to leave the sukka, the fact that once he left he does not return is a display of contempt for the mitzva and for God. The sun…the heavenly lights – ‫ה…מאֹורֹות‬ ְ ‫ח ָּמ‬:ַ The commentaries note that eclipses are predictable and their occurrences can be calculated precisely. However, the Sages said that the times of the eclipses are periods with calamitous potential and are considered a bad omen (Iyyun Ya’akov; Arukh LaNer; etc.). Others understand that heavenly lights refers to sun spots that appear occasionally (Ye’arot Devash). The heavenly lights are eclipsed – ‫לֹוקין‬ ִ ‫מאֹורֹות‬:ְ This refers primarily to a lunar eclipse. Most of the issues mentioned in this context are forms of actions performed clandestinely. This is represented by the moon, which shines at night. The Gemara (Shabbat 156a) says that people born under the influence of the moon are particularly adept at theft (Maharsha). language

Lantern [panas] – ‫פנָס‬:ָ ּ From the Greek φανός, fanos, meaning torch or glass cover. In the language of the Sages its usage is similar to the modern usage, a portable lamp whose flame is shielded and shines through one or more openings.

:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִא‬.‫ֹומה״‬ ֶ ּ‫״מ ׁ ָשל ְל ָמה ַהדָּ ָבר ד‬ ָ § The mishna continues: The Sages told a parable: To what is ‫ ׁ ָש ַפךְ לֹו‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ ִמי ׁ ָש ַפךְ ְל ִמי? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬this matter comparable? It is comparable to a servant who comes ‫ ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ִשי‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר לֹו‬,‫ ַר ּבֹו ִקיתֹון ַעל ּ ָפנָיו‬to pour wine for his master, and he pours a jug of water in his face. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Who poured the water . ָ‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש ּמו ׁ ְּשך‬ in whose face?n Come and hear a proof, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita: His master poured a jug of water on his face and said to him: I do not want your service. ‫ימן‬ ָ ‫לֹוקה – ִס‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ַה ַח ָּמה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ָמ ׁ ָשל ְל ָמה ַהדָּ ָבר‬.‫עֹולם ּכו ּּלֹו‬ ָ ‫ַרע ְל ָכל ָה‬ ‫ֹומה – ְל ֶמ ֶלךְ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם ׁ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ְסעוּדָּ ה‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ָּכ ַעס ֲע ֵל‬,‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ִה ּנ ִַיח ּ ָפנָס ִל ְפ‬,‫ַל ֲע ָב ָדיו‬ ‫הֹוש ֵיבם‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫נֵיהם ו‬ ֶ ‫ טֹול ּ ָפנָס ִמ ּ ְפ‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ְל ַע ְבדּ ֹו‬ . ְ‫חֹושך‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ַ ּב‬

Apropos the fact that rain on Sukkot is an indication of divine rebuke, the Gemara cites several related topics. The Sages taught: When the sun is eclipsed it is a bad omen for the entire world. The Gemara tells a parable. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who prepared a feast for his servants and placed a lantern [panas]l before them to illuminate the hall. He became angry at them and said to his servant: Take the lantern from before them and seat them in darkness.

‫ ָּכל זְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ְּמאֹורֹות‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ,‫יהם ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫ימן ַרע ְל ׂשֹונְ ֵא‬ ָ ‫לֹוקין – ִס‬ ִ ‫סֹופר‬ ֵ ‫ ָמ ׁ ָשל ְל‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ְּמלו ָּּמ ִדין ְ ּב ַמ ּכ‬ ‫ ִמי‬,‫ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ְל ֵבית ַה ֵּס ֶפר ּו ְרצ ּו ָעה ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ‫ֹואג – ִמי ׁ ֶש ָרגִ יל ִל ְלקֹות ְ ּב ָכל יֹום וָ יֹום‬ ֵ ּ‫ד‬ .‫ֹואג‬ ֵ ּ‫הוּא ד‬

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: When the heaven­ ly lights,n i.e., the sun and the moon, are eclipsed,n it is a bad omen for the enemies of the Jewish people, which is a euphemism for the Jewish people, because they are experienced in their beatings. Based on past experience, they assume that any calamity that afflicts the world is directed at them. The Gemara suggests a parable: This is similar to a teacher who comes to the school with a strap in his hand. Who worries? The child who is accustomed to be beaten each and every day is the one who worries.

‫ימן ַרע‬ ָ ‫לֹוקה – ִס‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ַה ַח ָּמה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ימן ַרע ְל ׂשֹונְ ֵא‬ ָ ‫לֹוקה – ִס‬ ָ ‫ ְל ָבנָ ה‬,‫ַל ּגֹויִ ם‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל מֹונִין ַל ְּל ָבנָ ה‬,‫ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ימן ַרע‬ ָ ‫לֹוקה ַ ּב ִּמזְ ָרח – ִס‬ ָ .‫וְ גֹויִ ם ַל ַח ָּמה‬ ‫יֹוש ֵבי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ימן ַרע ְל‬ ָ ‫ ַ ּב ַּמ ֲע ָרב – ִס‬,‫יֹוש ֵבי ִמזְ ָרח‬ ְ ׁ ‫ְל‬ ‫ימן ַרע ְל ָכל‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ָה ָר ִק ַיע – ִס‬,‫ַמ ֲע ָרב‬ .‫עֹולם ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ָ ‫ָה‬

The Sages taught in another baraita: When the sun is eclipsed, it is a bad omen for the other nations. When the moon is eclipsed, it is a bad omen for the enemies of the Jewish people. This is due to the fact that the Jewish people calculate their calendar primarily based on the moon, and the other nations calculate based on the sun. When the sun is eclipsed in the east, it is a bad omen for the residents of the lands of the east. When it is eclipsed in the west, it is a bad omen for the residents of the lands of the west. When it is eclipsed in the middle of the sky, it is a bad omen for the entire world.

– ‫ ְל ַ ׂשק‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ֹומין ְל ָדם – ֶח ֶרב ָ ּבא ָל‬ ִ ּ‫ּ ָפנָיו ד‬ ‫ ָלזֹו וְ ָלזֹו – ֶח ֶרב‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫יצי ָר ָעב ָ ּב ִאין ָל‬ ּ ֵ ‫ִח‬ – ‫נִיסתֹו‬ ָ ‫ ָל ָקה ִ ּב ְכ‬.‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫יצי ָר ָעב ָ ּב ִאין ָל‬ ּ ֵ ‫וְ ִח‬ ‫יאתֹו – ְמ ַמ ֶה ֶרת‬ ָ ִ‫ ִ ּביצ‬,‫ֹוהה ָלבֹא‬ ָ ‫ּפו ְּר ָענוּת ׁש‬ .‫אֹומ ִרים ִחילּ וּף ַהדְּ ָב ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬.‫ָלבֹא‬

If, during an eclipse, the visage of the sun is red like blood, it is an omen that sword, i.e., war, is coming to the world. If the sun is black like sackclothb made of dark goat hair, it is an omen that arrows of hunger are coming to the world, because hunger darkens people’s faces. When it is similar both to this, to blood, and to that, to sackcloth, it is a sign that both sword and arrows of hunger are coming to the world. If it was eclipsed upon its entry, soon after rising, it is an omen that calamity is tarrying to come. If the sun is eclipsed upon its departure at the end of the day, it is an omen that calamity is hastening to come. And some say the matters are reversed: An eclipse in the early morning is an omen that calamity is hastening, while an eclipse in the late afternoon is an omen that calamity is tarrying.

‫וְ ֵאין ְלךָ ָּכל או ָּּמה וְ או ָּּמה ׁ ֶשלּ ָֹוקה ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ‫ ״ו ְּב ָכל ֱאל ֵֹהי‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫לֹוקה ִע ָּמ ּה‬ ֶ ‫ֱאל ֶֹה ָיה‬ ‫ ו ִּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶשּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬.‫ִמצְ ַריִ ם ֶא ֱע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ְש ָפ ִטים״‬ ‫עֹושין ְרצֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל ָמקֹום ֵאין ִמ ְתיָ ְר ִאין ִמ ָּכל‬ ִׂ ּ‫ֵאל‬ ‫״כֹה ָא ַמר ה׳ ֶאל דֶּ ֶרךְ ַה ּגֹויִ ם‬ :‫ר‬ ‫מ‬ ַ ‫א‬ ֱ ‫נ‬ ֶ ‫ש‬ ֶ ׁ ,ּ ‫ו‬ ּ ּ ‫ַאל ִּת ְל ָמד ּו ו ֵּמאֹותֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם ַאל ֵּת ָח ּת ּו‬ ‫ִּכי יֵ ַח ּת ּו ַהגּ ֹויִ ם ֵמ ֵה ָמה״ גּ ֹויִ ם יֵ ַח ּת ּו וְ ֵאין‬ .ּ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל יֵ ַח ּתו‬

The Sages said: There is no nation that is afflicted whose god is not afflicted with it, as it is stated: “And against all the gods of Egypt I will mete out judgment; I am God” (Exodus 12:12). The Gemara adds: When the Jewish people perform God’s will, they need not fear any of these omens, as it is stated: “Thus says the Lord: Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of Heaven; for the nations are dismayed at them” ( Jeremiah 10:2). The nations will be dismayed, but the Jewish people will not be dismayed, provided they do not follow the ways of the nations.

background

Sackcloth – ‫שק‬: ׂ ַ Everywhere that sackcloth is mentioned un- coarse material made of goat hair. Since goats were typically modified in the Bible and in rabbinic literature, it refers to a black, sackcloth is also dark.

138 

Perek II . 29a . ‫טכ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ב‬

‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים ַח ָּמה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫נִס ּ ָפד‬ ְ ‫ ַעל ַאב ֵ ּבית דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ֵּמת וְ ֵאינֹו‬:‫לֹוקה‬ ָ ‫אֹור ָסה ׁ ֶש ָ ּצ ֲע ָקה‬ ָ ‫נַע ָרה ַה ְמ‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ַעל‬,‫ַּכ ֲה ָל ָכה‬ ,‫ וְ ַעל ִמ ׁ ְש ַּכב זָ כוּר‬,‫מֹוש ַיע ָל ּה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִעיר וְ ֵאין‬ .‫וְ ַעל ׁ ְשנֵי ַא ִחין ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ּ ַפךְ דָּ ָמן ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬

The Sages taught that on account of four matters the sun is eclipsed:n On account of a president of the court who dies and is not eulogized appropriately, and the eclipse is a type of eulogy by Heaven; on account of a betrothed young woman who screamed in the city that she was being raped and there was no one to rescue her; on account of homosexuality; and on account of two brothers whose blood was spilled as one.

:‫לֹוקין‬ ִ ‫ו ִּב ׁ ְש ִביל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים ְמאֹורֹות‬ ‫ וְ ַעל ְמ ִע ֵידי ֵעדוּת‬,)‫ֹות ֵבי ּ ְ(פ ַל ְס ֵּתר‬ ְ ‫ַעל ּכ‬ ‫ וְ ַעל ְמגַ דְּ ֵלי ְ ּב ֵה ָמה דַּ ָ ּקה ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֶקר‬ .‫ וְ ַעל קֹוצְ צֵ י ִא ָילנֹות טֹובֹות‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬

And on account of four matters the heavenly lights are eclipsed: On account of forgers of a fraudulent document [pelaster]l that is intended to discredit others; on account of testifiers of false testimony; on account of raisers of small domesticated animals in Eretz Yisrael in a settled area; and on account of choppers of good, fruit-producing trees.

‫ ו ִּב ׁ ְש ִביל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים נִ ְכ ֵסי ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי‬And on account of four matters the property of homeowners n ‫ ַעל ַמ ׁ ְש ֵהי‬:‫ ָב ִּתים נִ ְמ ָס ִרין ַל ַּמ ְלכוּת‬is delivered to the monarchy as punishment: On account of ,‫ ׁ ְש ָטרֹות ּ ְפרו ִּעים וְ ַעל ַמ ְלוֵ י ְ ּב ִר ִ ּבית‬those keepers of paid promissory notes, who keep these documents instead of tearing them or returning them to the borrowers, as that would allow the lender to collect money with the note a second time; and on account of lenders with interest;

notes

On account of four matters the sun is eclipsed – ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל‬ ‫לֹוקה‬ ָ ‫א ְר ָ ּב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים ַח ָּמה‬: ַ What is the connection between a solar eclipse and these matters? The president of the court is compared to the sun because he disseminates the light of Torah. Since this betrothed young woman screams in the middle of the day and no one responds, from her perspective it is like night. With regard to homosexuality, that conduct was typical of the generation of the flood, when the sun was obscured (Arukh LaNer; Maharsha). The property of homeowners is delivered to the monarchy – ‫נִ ְכ ֵסי ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ָב ִּתים נִ ְמ ָס ִרין ַל ַּמ ְלכוּת‬: There are those who interpret this to mean that the authorities examine their records and expose actions that they performed clandestinely or anonymously (Benayahu). language

A fraudulent document [pelaster] – ‫פ ַל ְס ֵּתר‬:ְ ּ From the Greek πλάστης, plastès. Its meanings include forgery, falsehood, and fabrication. The Gemara is referring to forgers of fraudulent documents.

Perek II Daf 29 Amud b ‫ וְ ַעל ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ִס ּ ֵפק ְ ּביָ ָדם ְל ַמחֹות וְ ל ֹא‬and on account of those who had the ability to reprimand ‫ֹוס ִקים צְ ָד ָקה ָ ּב ַר ִ ּבים‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַעל ׁ ֶש ּפ‬,‫ ִמיח ּו‬sinners and did not reprimand them; and on account of .‫נֹותנִין‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵאינָן‬those who issued a commitment to give charity in public and ultimately do not give the charity to which they committed. ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים נִ ְכ ֵסי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ַעל ּכ ְֹוב ׁ ֵשי‬:‫ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ָב ִּתים יֹוצְ ִאין ְל ִט ְמיֹון‬ ‫עֹוש ֵקי ְ ׂש ַכר ָ ׂש ִכיר וְ ַעל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ַעל‬,‫ְ ׂש ַכר ָ ׂש ִכיר‬ ‫נֹותנִין ַעל‬ ְ ְ‫יהן ו‬ ֶ ‫אר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ּפ ְֹור ִקין עֹול ֵמ ַעל צַ ְּו‬ ‫ וְ גַ ּסוּת ָהרו ַּח‬,‫ וְ ַעל ַ ּג ּסוּת ָהרו ַּח‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ַח ְב ֵר‬ ‫ ״וַ ֲענָ וִ ים‬:‫ ֲא ָבל ַ ּב ֲענָ וִ ים ְּכ ִתיב‬.‫ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ּכו ָּּלן‬ .‫יִ ְיר ׁש ּו ָא ֶרץ וְ ִה ְת ַע ְּנג ּו ַעל רֹב ׁ ָשלֹום״‬

‫הדרן עלך הישן‬

Rav said: On account of four matters the property of homeowners is confiscated by the state treasury [timyon]:nl On account of those who delay payment of the salary of hired laborers (see Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:15); on account of those who withhold the salary of hired laborersn and do not pay at all; and on account of those who throw off the yoke of communal responsibility from their own necks and place that yoke on the necks of their friends; and on account of the arrogance of those who, due to their wealth, exercise power over the community. And the punishment for arrogance is equal to them all. However, with regard to the humble it is written: “The humble will inherit the land and delight themselves in the abundance of peace” (Psalms 37:11).

notes

Property confiscated by the state treasury – ‫נְ ָכ ִסים יֹוצְ ִאים‬ ‫ל ִט ְמיֹון‬:ְ The Maharsha explains that the common denominator of these four actions is that they are all the result of conceit and arrogance. Because people promote themselves and assume an air of self-importance, they become known to the authorities, who ultimately seize their possessions. Delay payment and withhold payment – ‫עֹושקֹו‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫כ ְֹוב ׁשֹו ו‬:ּ The Maharsha explains that these are not acts of actual robbery; rather, the employer withholds the payment of his workers because he deems dealing with the needs of the working class beneath him. Some interpreted that those who withhold payment in this context refers to those who hire workers but do not set the conditions and payment in advance and ultimately pay the worker less than the standard rate. Others explain that the reference is to employers who tell their workers that they will pay them after they ascertain the going rate of payment for services rendered but they fail to do so in a timely fashion (Benayahu). language

State treasury [timyon] – ‫ט ְמיֹון‬:ִ From the Greek ταμιεῖον, tamieyon, or ταμεῖον, tameyon, meaning treasury, the state treasury. Obviously, from the perspective of those who pay, and especially due to the corruption and carelessness of the treasury, this term is used to describe property that is not recoverable.



‫טכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ב קרפ‬. Perek II . 29b 

139

Summary of Perek II This chapter dealt primarily with analyzing the mitzva to reside in the sukka and with other halakhot that emerge from that analysis. The obligation to reside in the sukka is derived from the verse “In sukkot shall you reside seven days.” That verse is also the basis for the principle: Reside as you dwell. During the Festival, one must reside in his sukka in the same manner in which he resides in his house during the rest of the year. This principle leads to some strictures and some leniencies. On the one hand, one’s permanent abode during the festival of Sukkot must be in the sukka, and therefore, one is obligated to eat, drink, and sleep in the sukka. However, one is not obligated to reside in the sukka under circumstances in which he would not typically remain in his permanent residence. Therefore, one who is ill or for whom residing in the sukka causes discomfort is exempt from the mitzva. Similarly, one is not obligated to remain in the sukka in the rain. Travelers are also exempt, as are those whose business dealings compel them to be on the road. Fundamentally, one is obligated to eat in the sukka only food upon which one bases a meal. There is no obligation to eat a particular number of meals in the sukka; one need eat only if he chooses to do so, as he would at home. There is no obligation to reside in one sukka all seven days of the Festival. It is even permitted for one to build a sukka that, due to rabbinic decrees, he will be unable to use on Shabbat and on the first Festival day, provided that the structure of the sukka is sufficiently sturdy to last all seven days. Since the obligation is merely that the sukka be fit for residence, it is fit whether it is stationary or movable, on land or at sea. The shade of the sukka must be from its roofing; it is prohibited to place any perma­ nent barrier between one sitting in the sukka and the sky other than the roofing. Therefore, placing a cover over the sukka or any type of sheet or netting over a bed inside the sukka prevents fulfillment of the mitzva. However, a temporary barrier and sukka decorations do not constitute an obstruction and do not prevent the mitzva’s fulfillment. The obligation to reside in the sukka is a positive, time-bound mitzva. Therefore, based on established halakhic principles, women and Canaanite slaves are exempt from the mitzva. Minors, who are exempt from all mitzvot, are obviously exempt from this mitzva as well. However, there is an obligation by rabbinic law to train a child in performance of mitzvot, and the Sages determined the age at which the child should be trained to reside in the sukka. As is the case with regard to other mitzvot, one who is engaged in the performance of another mitzva is exempt from residing in the sukka. These and related halakhot and their various details were the main focus of this chapter.

141

However, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruits of the land, you shall keep the feast of the Lord seven days; on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest. And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook.

Introduction to Perek III

(Leviticus 23:39–40)

The Torah verses that command the children of Israel to take the four species on the festival of Sukkot raise various questions. The names provided in the Torah are not clearly defined, distinctive names of the species; rather, they are allusions and descriptions. The first question therefore concerns identifying these species. After that initial determination, it is necessary to determine the numerous details with regard to fulfillment of the mitzva. The number and measure of each of the species must be ascertained. Can the mitzva be fulfilled with any one of the species of tree mentioned in the verse, or are there restrictions with regard to the specific tree or part of the tree required? Questions arise with regard to a plethora of minute details. Among them: In what condition must these species be? What precise form must they take? Are there other restrictions with regard to their nature? Can trees that are prohibited for one reason or another be used in fulfilling the mitzva? Similarly, various questions are raised with regard to the purchase and taking of these species, ranging from the question of their ownership to issues related to taking the species during the Sabbatical Year and thereafter. The mitzvot of taking the species are also unclear. How is this taking performed? Are all the species taken together? Must they be attached or bound together? What is the nature and manner of the act of taking them? Must one merely hold them, or is there an additional requirement? There is an additional series of questions: Where is the taking of the species performed? Is it an obligation incumbent on each individual everywhere; or is it tied to the sacrificial service in the Temple? Is one obligated to take the species just one day or for all seven days? How many times a day? These questions, raised specifically with regard to each of the species and with regard to all the species together, along with practical questions that emerge from them, will be addressed in this chapter.

143

Perek III Daf 29 Amud b ‫ ׁ ֶשל‬.‫מתני׳ לו ָּלב ַה ָ ּגזוּל וְ ַהּיָ ֵב ׁש – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ‫ נִ ְק ַטם‬.‫ֲא ׁ ֵש ָירה וְ ׁ ֶשל ִעיר ַה ִּנדַּ ַחת – ּ ָפסוּל‬ – ‫ נִ ְפ ְרד ּו ָע ָליו‬.‫ נִ ְפ ְרצ ּו ָע ָליו – ּ ָפסוּל‬,‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ר‬ .‫ יַ ַאגְ ֶדנּ ּו ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫ לו ָּלב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬.‫צִ ּינֵי ַהר ַה ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל ְּכ ׁ ֵשירֹות‬ .‫נַע ַנֵע ּבֹו – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ֲ ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים ְּכ ֵדי ְל‬

‫ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬,‫גמ׳ ָקא ּ ָפ ֵסיק וְ ָתנֵי‬ .‫אשֹון וְ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬

‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ וְ ֵל ָּיכא‬,‫״ה ָדר״ ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬ ָ – ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ֵיָב ׁש‬ :‫אשֹון – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ׁ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא יֹום טֹוב ִר‬,‫ְ ּגזוּל‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫״ל ֶכם״ – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם‬ ָ ?‫ַא ַּמאי ל ֹא‬

mishna 

A lulavn that was stolenh or that is completely dryh is unfitn for use in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species. The lulav of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira]h and a lulav from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry,b which must be burned along with all the city’s property, are unfit. If the top of the lulav was severed or if the palm leaves were severed from the spine of the lulav, it is unfit. If its leaves, although still attached, were spread and are no longer completely joined to the spine, it is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: In that case, one should bind the lulav from the top, to join the leaves that spread to the spine. A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain are fit for use, although it differs from one taken from a standard palm tree, in that its leaves are shorter and do not cover the entire spine. A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva.

gemara 

The ruling in the mishna is that a stolen lulav is unfit. The Gemara posits: The mishna teaches this halakha unequivocally, indicating that there is no difference whether the stolen lulav is used on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, when taking the four species is a mitzva by Torah law, and there is no difference whether the stolen lulav is used beginning on the second day of the festival of Sukkot, when it is a mitzva by rabbinic law.

The Gemara asks: Granted, a dry lulav is unfit both on the first day and subsequently. It is unfit for use because the term hadar is used with regard to the four species, from which it is derived that we require beauty.n And since in a dry lulav there is not beauty, it is unfit. However, with regard to a stolen lulav, granted, on the first day of the Festival it is unfit, as it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day” (Leviticus 23:40), indicating that the four species must be taken from your own property. However, beginning on the second day of the Festival, why does one not fulfill his obligation with a stolen lulav?

:‫יֹוחי‬ ַ ‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai:

halakha

A lulav that was stolen – ‫לו ָּלב ַה ָ ּגזוּל‬: A lulav or any one of the other four species that is stolen is unfit for use in fulfillment of the mitzva, whether it is before or after its owners despaired of recovering it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai. If change by means of an action was effected prior to the performance of the mitzva, the lulav itself is fit, but its use in fulfilling the mitzva is prohibited due to the principle: A mitzva that comes by means of a transgression. Conversely, some say that a stolen lulav is unfit only for the robber himself, but others who acquire it from him may use it to fulfill the mitzva after the owners despair of recovering it, even if no physical change was effected in the lulav (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:1). A lulav…that is completely dry – ‫ב…ה ֵּיָב ׁש‬ ַ ‫לו ָּל‬: If most of the leaves or the spine of a lulav are dry (Tur), it is unfit. What is the definition of dry? It is when the green color fades and turns pale. Others say that the definition of dry applies only when it is so dry that it crumbles when one touches it with his fingernail (Tur, citing Tosafot). The latter opinion was relied upon in lands where there were no palm trees (Rema, citing Haggahot Maimoniyyot). However, many later authorities hold that one may not rely on that leniency (Taz and others; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:5). A lulav… of a tree worshipped as idolatry – ‫ב…של‬ ֶ ׁ ‫לו ָּל‬ ‫א ׁ ֵש ָירה‬:ֲ A lulav from an idolatrous city or from a tree that is itself worshipped as idolatry, is unfit. However, a lulav from a tree planted in a place where idolatry is worshipped is fit, provided the tree itself was not worshipped (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 469:3–4). background

A city whose residents were incited to idolatry – ‫ִעיר‬ ‫ה ּנִדַּ ַחת‬:ַ This is a city in which the majority of inhabitants worshipped idolatry (Deuteronomy 13:13–19). The city is judged by the Great Sanhedrin, the court of seventyone. The Sanhedrin has the authority to send an army to subdue the city. Afterward, courts are convened and each of the city’s adult inhabitants is judged. Those found guilty of idol worship are beheaded rather than stoned, which is the usual punishment for idolatry. The innocent are not slain. All the property in the city, including that of the righteous, is destroyed, and all its buildings are razed. It then remains in ruins forever.

notes

Lulav – ‫לו ָּלב‬: Although the etrog precedes the lulav in the verse in Leviticus, the mishna begins its treatment with the lulav for several reasons. First, the blessing recited when taking the four species is: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with his mitzvot and commanded us about taking the lulav. In addition, three of the species, i.e., the lulav, the myrtle branch, and the willow, are bound together. Together, they constitute the bulk of the components of the mitzva of taking the lulav. Furthermore, the halakhot of these three species are similar, while the etrog has several halakhot unique to it (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Kappot Temarim).

beauty is mentioned in the verse only with regard to the etrog, they hold that this halakha pertaining to lulav is derived from it. Rashi explains that a dry lulav is unfit based on the verse: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2), from which it is derived that one should perform the mitzva in a beautiful fashion (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol; Me’iri). Some identify the source of the unfitness in the verse “And when you offer the blind for sacrifice, is it no evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is it no evil? Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with you?” (Malachi 1:8). It is a display of contempt to perform a mitzva with an object that one would not present to a prominent person (Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Sefer That is completely dry is unfit – ‫ה ֵּיָב ׁש ּ ָפסוּל‬:ַ There are several Hashlama). In the Jerusalem Talmud, the unfitness is attributed reasons for this ruling. Tosafot and the Ritva explain that it is to the verse “The dead praise not the Lord” (Psalms 115:17), and unfit because it does not meet the criterion of beauty. Although a dry lulav is considered dead.



Granted a dry lulav is unfit because we require beauty – ‫ב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ֵיָב ׁש ָה ָדר ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬:ּ ִ The commentaries and halakhic authorities discuss the parameters and halakhot with regard to both the requirement of beauty and the prohibition against taking a stolen lulav. Some explain that the requirement of beauty with regard to the four species applies for all seven days of Sukkot only in the Temple, where this is a mitzva by Torah law all seven days (Sefer Hashlama). Others explain that when the Sages instituted the ordinance to take the lulav all seven days even outside the Temple to commemorate the Temple, they included the requirement of beauty in that ordinance, but not the other requirement that it be one’s own property (Sefat Emet). See Tosafot and the Ritva, who explain this distinction by differentiating between a flaw intrinsic to the object, e.g., the lack of beauty, and an external flaw, e.g., the object was stolen. ‫טכ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 29b 

145

Perek III Daf 30 Amud a background

Despair – ‫יֵ או ּׁש‬: Despairing of recovering a stolen object is not merely an emotional state of mind but a legal one as well. According to halakha, despair occurs when one who has lost his property despairs of the possibility of recovering it. Once this happens, the item is considered abandoned property, and anyone may take it. This concept relates to the halakhot of returning lost objects, as well as to the legal status of stolen property.

‫יה ִמצְ וָ ה ַה ָ ּב ָאה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּו ם דַּ ֲה וָ ה ֵל‬ ‫אתם ָ ּגזוּל‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ֲה ֵב‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬.‫ַ ּב ֲע ֵב ָירה‬ ‫ ָ ּגזוּל דּ ו ְּמיָ א‬,‫חֹולה״‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֶאת ַה ּ ִפ ֵּס ַח וְ ֶאת ַה‬ ‫יה ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא – ַאף‬ ּ ‫ ַמה ּ ִפ ֵּס ַח ֵלית ֵל‬,‫דְּ ִפ ֵּס ַח‬ ‫ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ִל ְפנֵי‬,‫יה ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬ ּ ‫ָ ּגזוּל ֵלית ֵל‬ .‫יֵ או ּׁש וְ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ְל ַא ַחר יֵ או ּׁש‬

It is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression,n which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, as it is stated: “And you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord” (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of a stolen animal is equivalent to that of a lame animal.n Just as a lame animal, because it is blemished, has no remedy and is unfit for use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy. There is no difference before the owners reach a state of despairb of recovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference after despair. In both cases there is no remedy.

‫״א ָדם ִּכי יַ ְק ִריב‬ ָ – ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִל ְפנֵי יֵ או ּׁש‬ .‫יה הוּא‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָלאו דִּ ֵיד‬,‫ִמ ֶּכם״ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ !‫נְיֵיה ְ ּביֵ או ּׁש‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַא ַחר יֵ או ּׁש – ָהא ַק‬ ‫יה ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ .‫ַה ָ ּב ָאה ַ ּב ֲע ֵב ָירה‬

The Gemara elaborates: Granted, before the despair of the owner, the robber may not sacrifice the animal because the animal does not belong to him. The Merciful One says: “When a person sacrifices from yours an offering”n (Leviticus 1:2). The term “from yours” indicates that the animal must belong to the one sacrificing it, and this stolen animal is not his. However, after the despair of the owner, didn’t the robber acquire the animal with the despair?n Once the owner despairs, the animal belongs to the robber, despite the fact that he incurs a debt that he must repay the owner. Since the animal is legally his, why is it prohibited for the robber to sacrifice it as an offering? Rather, is it not because the offering is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression? Since the animal came into his possession by means of a transgression, it is unfit for use in fulfilling a mitzva.

‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫אֹוהב‬ ֵ ‫״כי ֲאנִי ה׳‬ ַ ִּ ‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫יֹוחי‬ ְ‫ ָמ ׁ ָשל ְל ֶמ ֶלך‬.‫עֹולה״‬ ָ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט ׂשֹונֵ א ָ ּגזֵ ל ְ ּב‬ ,‫עֹובר ַעל ֵ ּבית ַה ֶּמ ֶכס‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ .‫ֹוכ ִסים‬ ְ ‫ ְּתנ ּו ֶמ ֶכס ַל ּמ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַל ֲע ָב ָדיו‬ ָ‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא ָּכל ַה ֶּמ ֶכס ּכוּלּ ֹו ׁ ֶש ְּלך‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ ‫עֹוב ֵרי‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ֶּמ ּנִי יִ ְל ְמד ּו ָּכל‬:‫הוּא! ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬ .‫ וְ ל ֹא ְיַב ִריח ּו ַעצְ ָמן ִמן ַה ֶּמ ֶכס‬,‫ְד ָר ִכים‬ ‫״אנִי ה׳‬ ֲ :‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ָא ַמר‬ ׁ ‫ַאף ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫עֹולה״ ִמ ֶּמ ּנִי יִ ְל ְמד ּו ָ ּבנַי‬ ָ ‫ׂשֹונֵ א ָ ּגזֵ ל ְ ּב‬ .‫וְ ְיַב ִריח ּו ַעצְ ָמן ִמן ַה ָ ּגזֵ ל‬

And Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering” (Isaiah 61:8)?hn The Gemara cites a parable of a flesh-and-blood kingn who was passing by a customs house. He said to his servants: Pay the levy to the taxmen. They said to him: Doesn’t all the tax in its entirety belong to you? If the taxes will ultimately reach the royal treasury, what is the point of paying the levy? He said to them: From my conduct, all travelers will learn and will not evade payment of the tax. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I the Lord... hate robbery in a burnt-offering.” Although the whole world is His and the acquisitions of man have no impact upon Him, God says: From My conduct, My children will learn and distance themselves from robbery,n even from robbery unrelated to the needs of offerings.

halakha

Robbery in a burnt-offering – ‫עֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ָ ּגזֵ ל ְ ּב‬: In a case where one steals an animal and sacrifices it as an offering, the offering is disqualified. God hates it, and needless to say it is not accepted. However, if the owner despairs of ever recovering the animal, the offering is fit. Nevertheless, the Sages said that a sin-offering whose stolen status became public knowledge does not effect atonement for the one who offers it, even after the owner despairs, in deference to the altar (Rambam Hilkhot Issurei Mizbe’aĥ 5:7).

notes

A mitzva that comes by means of a transgression – ‫ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ‫ה ָ ּב ָאה ַ ּב ֲע ֵב ָירה‬:ַ The later authorities dealt at length with clarification of this subject (see Ĥatam Sofer) and they discovered several halakhic distinctions based on this principle. In any event, apparently, not every object used in the commission of a transgression is deemed unfit for use in fulfillment of a mitzva. It is unfit only in cases where the transgression itself facilitates performance of the mitzva.

However, Rabbi Aaron HaLevi writes that whenever the Gemara when the entire offering is sacrificed to God, and everything cites an issue tangential to the central discussion, it is not par- belongs to Him anyway, God hates robbery (see Rav Yoshiya ticular in citing verses that prove the ultimate conclusion. It Pinto and others). suffices with an allusion that supports the ultimate halakhic conclusion. Parable of a…king – ְ‫מ ׁ ָשל ְל ֶמ ֶלך‬:ָ One can explain the parable as Acquire the animal with the despair – ‫נְיֵיה ְ ּביֵ או ּׁש‬ ּ ‫ק‬:ַ Some em- follows: The king does not want to deprive the taxmen of their phasize that this acquisition of the animal is not effected by de- wages, as they receive a small percentage of each levy. Similarly, spair alone; rather, it is brought about through a combination of God does not want to deprive the priests, who receive a small A stolen animal is equivalent to a lame animal – ‫ ָ ּגזוּל דּ ו ְּמיָא‬despair and a change of possession. This change of possession portion from the burnt-offering, i.e., the hides (Da’at Kedoshim). ‫דְּ ִפ ֵּס ַח‬‎: Listed in the surrounding verses are other defects that occurs when the robber consecrates the animal as an offering disqualify offerings. Why then did the verse juxtapose specifi- and thereby transfers the animal from his ownership to God’s. cally the disqualifications of stolen and lame? This juxtaposition Everyone agrees that the combination of despair and change From robbery – ‫מן ַה ָ ּגזֵ ל‬:ִ Some explain that the intention here is teaches that the disqualification of the stolen animal has no of possession is an effective means of acquisition (see Ritva). not merely that the Jewish people should distance themselves remedy, just as the disqualification of the lame animal cannot Robbery in a burnt-offering – ‫עֹולה‬ ָ ‫גזֵ ל ְ ּב‬:ּ ָ Some emphasize from performing an act of robbery; rather, it means that they be reversed (Arukh LaNer). that the verse is referring specifically to a burnt-offering, since should find stolen objects repugnant as well, to the extent that When a person sacrifices from yours an offering – ‫ ָא ָדם ִּכי‬it is clearly prohibited to steal other offerings from which the they will not utilize them even when purchased from others ‫יַ ְק ִריב ִמ ֶּכם‬: See Tosafot, who question this proof at length. priest and the owners partake. The verse teaches that even (Kappot Temarim).

146 

Perek III . 30a . ‫ל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

‫ ֵיָב ׁש ּ ָפסוּל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬,‫ ִא ְּת ַמר נַ ִמי‬It was also stated: Rabbi Ami said: A dry lulavb is unfit be‫ ָ ּגזוּל ּ ָפסוּל ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָה ָדר‬cause it does not meet the criterion of beauty, and a stolen .‫יה ִמצְ וָ ה ַה ָ ּב ָאה ַ ּב ֲע ֵב ָירה‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬lulav is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression. ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬,‫ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ִר‬ ‫ֹוך ׁ ֶשּיֹוצֵ א ְ ּב ׁ ָשאוּל – יֹוצֵ א‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ּת‬,‫ׁ ֵשנִי‬ .‫נַ ִמי ְ ּבגָ זוּל‬

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Ami disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzĥak, as Rabbi Yitzhak bar Naĥmani said that Shmuel said: The Sages taught that the halakha that a stolen lulav is unfit applies only with regard to the first day of the festival of Sukkot. However, beginning on the second day of the Festival, there is no longer a Torah requirement to use a lulav from one’s own property. Since one fulfills his obligation with a borrowed lulav, one fulfills his obligation with a stolen one as well.

‫ לו ָּלב ַה ָ ּגזוּל‬:‫ְמ ִתיב ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ ,‫ ָהא ׁ ָשאוּל – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬,‫וְ ַהּיָ ֵב ׁש ּ ָפסוּל‬ – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ימא ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ִר‬ ָ ‫ימת? ִא ֵיל‬ ַ ‫ֵא‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי‬,‫״ל ֶכם״ – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם‬ ָ ‫ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ְ ּביֹום‬.‫יה הוּא‬ ּ ‫ָלאו דִּ ֵיד‬ !‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי ָ ּגזוּל ּ ָפסוּל‬,‫טֹוב ׁ ֵשנִי‬

Rabbi Naĥman bar Yitzĥak raises an objection from the mishna: A lulav that was stolen or that is completely dry is unfit. By inference, one concludes that a borrowed lulav is fit for use. The Gemara asks: When does this halakha apply? If you say that it applies only on the first day of the Festival, isn’t it written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day,” indicating that the four species must be taken from your own property, and this borrowed lulav is not his? Clearly, the mishna is not referring to the first day. Rather, is it not that the mishna is referring to the second day of the Festival, and the mishna teaches that a stolen lulav is unfit on this day too, contrary to Shmuel’s opinion?

,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹולם ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ִר‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:)‫ָ(ר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ‫יב ֲעיָ א‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬:‫יב ֲעיָ א ָק ָא ַמר‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ָלא ִמ‬ ,‫ ֲא ָבל ָ ּגזוּל‬,‫יה הוּא‬ ּ ‫ׁ ָשאוּל – דְּ ָלאו דִּ ֵיד‬ ,‫ימא ְס ָתם ְ ּגזֵ ָילה יֵ או ּׁש ְ ּב ָע ִלים הוּא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫יה דָּ ֵמי‬ ּ ‫ו ְּכ ִד ֵיד‬

Rava said: Actually, the mishna can be explained as referring to the first day of the Festival, and the tanna is stating the halakha employing the didactic style: It was not necessary. It was not necessary to state that one does not fulfill his obligation with a borrowed lulav, as it is not his. However, with regard to a stolen lulav, say: Barring extraordinary circumstances, standard robbery is a case that leads to despair of the owners, and despite the fact that a stolen lulav was acquired by means of a transgression, its legal status is like the robber’s own property. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not so. One does not fulfill his obligation with a stolen lulav. The mishna is not a refutation of Shmuel’s opinion.

:‫ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב הוּנָ א ְל ָהנְ ה ּו ֲאוַ ונְ ָּכ ֵרי‬ ‫ִּכי ְזָבנִית ּו ָא ָסא ִמ ּגֹויִ ם ל ֹא ִּתגְ זְ ז ּו ַא ּתוּן‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.ּ‫ֶא ָּלא ִלגְ זַ זו ּּה ִאינְ ה ּו וְ יָ ֲהב ּו ְלכו‬ ‫ַט ְע ָמא – ְס ָתם גּ ֹויִ ם ַ ּגזְ ָלנֵי ַא ְר ֲע ָתא‬ ,ּ‫נִינְ הו‬

§ Apropos the unfitness of four species acquired through robbery, the Gemara relates: Rav Huna said to the merchants [avankarei]l selling the four species: When you purchase myrtle branchesn from gentiles, don’t you cut them off the tree? Rather, let the gentiles cut them and give them to you.h What is the reason for this advice? It is because typical gentiles are land robbers,

background

A dry lulav – ‫יָב ׁש‬: ֵ

Unfit, dry lulav

language

Merchants [avankarei] – ‫אוַ ונְ ָּכ ֵרי‬: ֲ Although the precise etymology of this word is not entirely clear, the origin is undoubtedly Persian. It probably derives from the Middle

Persian āwahan, meaning a station for travelers, paired with a suffix, which together means one who travels. Merchants indeed travel between stations to buy and sell their wares.

notes

When you purchase myrtle branches – ‫כי ְזָבנִית ּו ָא ָסא‬:ִּ Some of name might apply, as discussed later in the Gemara. Howexplain that Rav Huna instructed them specifically with re- ever, certainly one must be careful with regard to the other gard to myrtle branches because the possibility of a change species as well (Arukh LaNer). halakha

Care to avoid theft in the purchase of the species – ‫זְ ִהירוּת‬ ‫מ ֶ ּגזֶ ל ִ ּב ְקנִּיַ ת ַה ִּמינִים‬:ִ One must make certain that a Jew himself does not cut from the tree any of the four species for the purpose of the mitzva, lest the land was stolen by its gentile owner. Instead, he should have the gentile cut it, and then the Jew acquires it from him (Rema, based on



Rashba). With regard to ownership of land, there is no distinction between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora (Or Zarua). These halakhot vary in accordance with changing circumstances in different eras and different places (see Bikkurei Ya’akov and Biur Halakha; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:1). ‫ל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 30a 

147

Perek III Daf 30 Amud b halakha

A change after which the object reverts to its original state – ‫שינּ וּי ַהחֹוזֵ ר ִל ְב ִרּיָ יתֹו‬: ִ ׁ If a stolen object undergoes change, provided that the change is irreversible, the robber is required to return only the monetary value of the object at the time of the theft, even if the owner did not despair. However, a change that can be reversed is not considered a significant change. For example, in the case of boards and nails that have been formed into a box, the box can be dismantled and the boards restored to their prior condition (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 649:5).

‫ ִלגְ זַ זו ּּה‬,‫ ִה ְל ָּכ ְך‬.‫ וְ ַק ְר ַקע ֵאינָ ּה נִ גְ זֶ ֶלת‬and land is not stolen.n When one seizes land, the land remains the ‫יהו ּו יֵ א ּו ׁש ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ֱ ‫יכי דְּ ֶל‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ֵה‬,ּ‫ ִאינְ הו‬property of its original owner, even if that owner has despaired. In this .ּ‫ וְ ׁ ִשינּ וּי ָה ָר ׁשוּת ִ ּב ַידיְ יכו‬,ּ‫ ִ ּב ַידיְ יה ּו דִּ ְידהו‬case, there is concern that these myrtle branches were stolen from Jews. Therefore, let the gentiles cut the myrtle branches, so that the despair of the owners will be when the myrtle branches are still in the hands of the gentiles and the change of possession will be accomplished through their purchase and transfer into your hands. The combination of owner’s despair and change of possession will render the myrtle branches the property of the merchants, and it will not be a mitzva fulfilled by means of a transgression. ‫יהוֵ י יֵ או ּׁש‬ ֱ ‫ ִּכי ָ ּגזְ ז ּו ֲאוַ ונְ ָּכ ֵרי – ֶל‬,‫ סֹוף סֹוף‬The Gemara asks: Ultimately, even when the merchants cut the myrtle ‫ וְ ׁ ִשינּ וּי ָה ָר ׁשוּת ִ ּב ַידן! ָלא‬,ּ‫ ְ ּב ָע ִלים ִ ּב ַידיְ יהו‬branches, let it be a case of despair in their hands, and the change of .ּ‫הֹוש ְענָ א דַּ ֲאוַ ונְ ָּכ ֵרי גּ ו ַּפיְ יהו‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ְ ּב‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬possession is accomplished through the purchase and transfer of the myrtle branches into the hands of the buyers. Why did Rav Huna advise them to have the gentiles cut the myrtle branches? The same result is achieved through their sale. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rav Huna to advise the merchants to allow the gentiles to cut the myrtle branches only with regard to the myrtle branches of the merchantsn themselves, which will not undergo another change of possession. The only way to ensure that the merchants are fulfilling the mitzva with myrtle branches that belong to them is to have the gentiles cut them and have the change of possession accomplished through the purchase from the gentiles. ‫ לו ָּלב‬:‫ וְ ִל ְיקנִיו ּּה ְ ּב ׁ ִשינּ וּי ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה! ָקא ָס ַבר‬The Gemara asks: And let them acquire the myrtle branches with a .‫ ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ֶאגֶ ד‬physical change accomplished by the action of binding them with the lulav and the willow branch. Just as despair followed by a change in possession effects acquisition, despair followed by a physical change effects acquisition for the one who implements that change. In that case, too, the myrtle branches no longer belong to the original owner. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna holds: A lulav does not require binding.n There is no mitzva to bind the four species together. One need only hold them unbound in his hand; therefore, the myrtle branches undergo no action that effects physical change. ‫לֹומר לו ָּלב צָ ִריךְ ֶאגֶ ד – ׁ ִשינּ וּי‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִאם ִּת ְמצֵ י‬And even if you want to say that a lulav requires binding, and therefore n ‫ וְ ׁ ִשינּ ּוי ַהחֹוזֵ ר‬,‫ ַהחֹוזֵ ר ִל ְב ִרּיָ יתֹו הוּא‬the myrtle branches undergo a physical change, it is a change after h .‫יה ׁ ִשינּ וּי‬ ּ ‫ ִל ְב ִרּיָ יתֹו ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬which the object reverts to its original state. Binding the species effects no change in the myrtle branches themselves. Once the binding is removed, the myrtle branches are restored to their original state. And the principle is: A change after which the object reverts to its original state is not considered a change. It is of no significance with regard to effecting acquisition. ּ ָ ‫ דְּ ֵמ ִע‬,‫ וְ ִל ְיקנִיו ּּה ְ ּב ׁ ִשינּ וּי ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם‬The Gemara asks: And let the merchants acquire a myrtle branch with ‫יק ָרא ֲהוָ ה‬ ‫ וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬,‫יה ָא ָסא‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬a change of name that it underwent, as initially it was called a myrtle branch, and now that it is designated for use in fulfilling the mitzva,

notes

And land is not stolen – ‫וְ ַק ְר ַקע ֵאינָ ּה נִ גְ זֶ ֶלת‬: See Rashi and Tosafot. It would seem that besides the verses cited as proof, the acquisition of land is fundamentally unique. Since it is impossible to physically transfer land, ownership of land differs from ownership of other objects. With regard to other objects, ownership is manifest in the owner’s ability to retain the object within his legally defined domain and in his right to move it from place to place. With regard to land, ownership is an abstract concept; therefore, it cannot be negated even when it is used by others. The myrtle branches of the merchants – ‫הֹוש ְענָא דַּ ֲאוַ ונְ ָּכ ֵרי‬: ַ ׁ The later authorities ask: If myrtle branches may not be picked by Jewish merchants due to the concern that they are grown on

148 

Perek III . 30b . ‫ל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

stolen property, why isn’t there a similar ruling in the case of other produce grown on land owned by gentiles? Shouldn’t it be prohibited for Jews to pick that as well? They answer: Even with regard to myrtle branches, it is not a case of actual theft, as it is not certain that the field is in fact stolen. Nevertheless, due to the sanctity of the mitzva of the four species, special precautions are taken to avoid even that remote possibility (Penei Yehoshua; Arukh LaNer).

lulav does not require binding, binding the lulav is not halakhically significant, and therefore it is not considered a significant action in terms of acquisition either (Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes).

Change – ‫שינּ וּי‬: ִ ׁ According to the verse: “He shall restore that which he took by robbery” (Leviticus 5:23), the robber is required to return the stolen article, in its condition at the time of the robbery, to its rightful owner. Consequently, when the object undergoes significant change, it can no longer be reA lulav does not require binding – ‫יך ֶאגֶ ד‬ ְ ‫לו ָּלב ֵאין צָ ִר‬: Even turned in its original condition. Consequently, the robber is though binding is not required, why not have the merchants bind instead obligated to return the monetary value of the stolen the lulav anyway, as everyone agrees that a bound lulav is opti- object. Significant change to a stolen object effectively abromal? In that case, the branches could still be acquired through gates any claim the original owner has to it; from that point on, the physical change of binding. According to the opinion that a it belongs to the robber.

Perek III Daf 31 Amud a it is called hoshana, which is a term used to describe the four speּ ָ ‫הֹוש ְע נָ א! ֵמ ִע‬ ‫יק ָרא נַ ִמ י ְל ָא ָסא‬ ַׁ cies. The Gemara answers: This is not a full-fledged change of .‫יה‬ ַׁ ּ ‫הֹוש ְענָ א ָקר ּו ֵל‬ name, as occasionally it also happens that they initially refer to a myrtle branch as a hoshana while it is attached to the tree. ‫ וְ ַה ְמ ַס ֵּכ ְך‬,‫ סו ָּּכה ְ ּגזו ָּלה‬:‫  § ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬The Sages taught: With regard to a stolen sukkah and with ,‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬regard to one who roofs a sukka in the public domain, which .‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬is tantamount to robbing land from the public, Rabbi Eliezer deems these sukkot unfit for use in fulfillment of the mitzva, and the Rabbis deem them fit. ‫לֹוקת ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ּת ֵֹוקף‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ֶאת ֲח ֵבירֹו וְ הֹוצִ יאֹו ִמ ּסו ָּּכתֹו‬ ‫ ֵאין ָא ָדם‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫יעזֶ ר ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ .‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּבסו ָּּכתֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ָ ‫יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬ ,‫ִאי ַק ְר ַקע נִ גְ זֶ ֶלת – סו ָּּכה ְ ּגזו ָּלה ִהיא‬ ‫וְ ִאי נַ ִמי ַק ְר ַקע ֵאינָ ּה נִ גְ זֶ ֶלת – סו ָּּכה‬ .‫ׁ ְשאו ָּלה ִהיא‬

Rav Naĥmanp said: This dispute is limited to a case where one assaults anothern and forcibly evicts him from his sukka, and takes his place in the sukka. In that case, Rabbi Eliezer deems the sukka unfit. And Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his own reasoning, as he said: A person does not fulfill his obligation with the sukka of another. Therefore, in any event, he does not fulfill his obligation with it. If land can be stolen and acquired by the robber, the sukka from which he evicted the owner is a stolen sukka. And if indeed land cannot be stolen, nevertheless, the robber does not fulfill his obligation according to Rabbi Eliezer, as it is a borrowed sukka.

‫ ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א‬:‫ דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,ּ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ְל ַט ְע ַמיְ יהו‬And the Rabbis conform to their reasoning, as they said: A ‫ וְ ַק ְר ַקע‬.‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּבסו ָּּכתֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ָ ‫ יְ ֵדי‬person does not fulfill his obligation with the sukka of another. .‫ וְ סו ָּּכה ׁ ְשאו ָּלה ִהיא‬,‫ ֵאינָ ּה נִ גְ זֶ ֶלת‬And since land cannot be stolen and the sukka is merely a borrowed sukka and not a stolen one, the robber fulfills his obligation, despite the fact that he committed a reprehensible act. ‫ ֲא ָבל ָ ּגזַ ל ֵעצִ ים וְ ִס ֵּיכךְ ָ ּב ֶהן – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬However, if one stole woodh and roofed a sukka with it, every.‫ ֵאין לֹו ֶא ָּלא דְּ ֵמי ֵעצִ ים‬one agrees, as Rabbi Eliezer concedes, that the original owner of the wood has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. The wood itself belongs to the robber, so it is not a stolen sukka. – ‫ ִמ ַּמאי‬The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Naĥman draw the conclusion that the dispute is with regard to a stolen sukka and not with regard to a sukka established with stolen building materials?

halakha

A stolen sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ְ ּגזו ָּלה‬: A stolen sukka is fit. How so? In a case where one builds a sukka and a thief forcibly removes him from the sukka and sits there, the thief is actually sitting in a borrowed sukka, because land is not stolen. This is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rema wrote: However, one should not sit in another’s sukka without his knowledge ab initio. All the more so, one should not sit in another’s sukka if his intention is to steal it. Similarly, one may not build his sukka in a public domain ab initio. However, one fulfilled his obligation after the fact (Maharil). Some authorities rule that one should not recite a blessing over a stolen sukka (Magen Avraham). However, later authorities are lenient in this matter (Eliya Rabba; Peri Megadim). However, if one stole a sukka that was not attached to the ground, he did not fulfill his obligation, since he has stolen the actual sukka and not just land. Similarly, in a case where the land belongs to the thief and the sukka to another, if the landowner forces the owner of the sukka out of the sukka, he does not fulfill his obligation in that stolen sukka (Haggahot Maimoniyyot; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 637:3). If one stole wood – ‫גזַ ל ֵעצִ ים‬:ּ ָ One who stole wood and constructed a sukka fulfills his obligation, even if he did not physically alter the wooden beams. This is because the Sages instituted that the original owner has a claim only to the monetary value of the beams (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 637:3). notes

A case where one assaults another – ‫ב ׁ ֶש ּת ֵֹוקף ֶאת ֲח ֵבירֹו‬:ּ ְ If one merely enters another’s sukka against his will and sits there, it is considered to be a borrowed sukka. Although some say that borrowing without the knowledge of the owner is in fact robbery, in this case, where nothing is actually taken but one merely uses an object belonging to another, there is uncertainty whether the action can be characterized as robbery (see Arukh LaNer and others).

‫ ָמה‬,‫ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי דּ ו ְּמיָ א דִּ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬The Gemara answers: From the fact that the halakha of a stolen – ‫יה הוּא‬ ּ ‫ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ַק ְר ַקע ָלאו דִּ ֵיד‬sukka is juxtaposed in the baraita to the halakha of a sukka estab.‫יה הוּא‬ ּ ‫ סו ָּּכה נַ ִמי ָלאו ַק ְר ַקע דִּ ֵיד‬lished in the public domain, the baraita teaches that the legal status of the stolen sukka is similar to the legal status of a sukka established in the public domain. Just as one does not fulfill his obligation with a sukka in the public domain because the land is not his, with regard to the stolen sukka too, one does not fulfill his obligation because the land is not his, not because the building materials were stolen.

Personalities

Rav Naĥman – ‫רב נַ ְח ָמן‬:ַ Rav Naĥman bar Ya’akov was a Babylonian amora of the second and third generations of amora’im. While he brings teachings in the name of both Rav and Shmuel, his primary teacher was Rabba bar Avuh, Rav’s student. While he never formally headed one of the Babylonian academies, many of the sages of the next generation were his students, including the great amora Rava. In his youth, Rav Naĥman was already recognized as a prodigy. He married Yalta, a member of the Exilarch’s family,



who was a learned and strong-willed woman. Subsequently, Rav Naĥman was appointed a judge in the Exilarch’s house in Nehardea. In that capacity, Rav Naĥman became expert in civil law, to the extent that the Gemara concludes that in matters of civil law his opinion is always accepted. While Rav Naĥman was known to have a forceful personality, he was also considered to be one of the pious men of his generation, and the Gemara brings numerous examples of his acts of kindness. ‫אל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 31a 

149

notes

Sitting in a stolen sukka – ‫בסו ָּּכה ְ ּגזו ָּלה ָהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי‬:ּ ְ The early authorities asked: Shouldn’t one fail to fulfill his obligation by sitting in a stolen sukka because it is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression (see Ritva)? Some answer: The disqualification of a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression applies only to mitzvot whose purpose is to appease God, e.g., the four species, but not to other mitzvot, e.g., sitting in a sukka. Other early commentaries reject that distinction (see Ritva). Others say that since a change was effected on the stolen wood, it no longer belongs to the original owner, and therefore there is no transgression associated with the sukka itself (Piskei Rid). Or, perhaps the Sages who were sitting in the sukka in this case hold that a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression is valid (Piskei Rid; see Me’iri). Yet others maintain that the primary component of the sukka is not the land on which it is standing, but rather its roofing. Therefore, as long as the roofing material is not stolen, there is no flaw in the fulfillment of this mitzva (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz; Kappot Temarim). Whose father had – ‫יה ַל ֲאבו ָּהא‬ ּ ‫דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬: Some explain that she was a member of a wealthy family and referred to her biological father (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi and others). The ordinance of a beam – ‫ת ָ ּקנַ ת ָמ ִר ׁיש‬:ַּ This ordinance is one of many instituted by the Sages to facilitate the penitent’s repentance. There was concern that, were the letter of the Torah law enforced, those who would otherwise be open to repenting would refrain from doing so. Therefore, the Sages instituted that one need not return a stolen beam already built into a structure; instead, the thief could pay the value of the beam. The same ordinance was instituted in the case of a sukka. Due to the significance of the mitzva, the Sages accorded the beam status as if it were a fixed part of the sukka. Beauty in the species – ‫ה ָדר ַ ּב ִּמינִים‬:ָ Ultimately, Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that beauty is a description unique to fruits, and therefore it is relevant only to the etrog, and not to the other species. By the same token, the term “dense-leaved” is an adjective relevant to the myrtle branch and not the other species (Ritva).

,‫יה דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ַה ִהיא ַס ְב ָּתא דַּ ֲא ַתאי ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫ ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא וְ כו ְּּלה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן דְּ ֵבי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמ ָרה ֵל‬ !‫ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא ְ ּבסו ָּּכה ְ ּגזו ָּלה ָהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי‬ ‫ ֲא ַמ ָרה‬.‫וחה וְ ָלא ַא ׁ ְש ַ ּגח ָ ּב ּה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ָ ְ‫צָ ו‬ ‫יה ַל ֲאבו ָּהא ְּת ָלת‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ית ָתא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫וחא ַק ַּמיְ יכ ּו‬ ָ ְ‫ְמ ָאה ו ְּת ָמנֵי ְס ֵרי ַע ְב ֵדי צָ ו‬ :‫וְ ָלא ַא ׁ ְש ַ ּג ִחית ּו ָ ּב ּה?! ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ‫ּ ָפ ִע ָיתא ִהיא דָּ א וְ ֵאין ָל ּה ֶא ָּלא דְּ ֵמי ֵעצִ ים‬ .‫ִ ּב ְל ָבד‬

‫ ַהאי ְּכ ׁשו ָּרא דִּ ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬Ravina said: With regard to the stolen large beam of a sukka, the ‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ּ ‫ ָע ְב ִדי ֵל‬,‫ דִּ גְ זו ָּלה‬Sages instituted an ordinance that the robber need not return it nh .‫ ַּת ָ ּקנַ ת ָמ ִר ׁיש‬intact, due to the general ordinance of a beam. By the letter of the law, one who stole a beam and incorporated it in the construction of a new house is required to dismantle the house and return the beam. The Sages instituted an ordinance requiring the robber to repay the monetary value of the beam instead. They instituted this ordinance to facilitate the repentance of the robber, who would be less likely to repent if doing so entailed destruction of the house. :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֵמ ֵעצִ ים? ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬The Gemara asks: This is obvious. In what way is the beam differ,‫יחא‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַהאי ָלא ׁ ְש ִכ‬,‫יחי‬ ִ ‫ ֵעצִ ים ׁ ְש ִכ‬ent from other wood used in establishing the sukka? The Gemara .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬answers: Lest you say: Wood is common, and therefore the owners are more likely to despair of recovering the wood and will suffice with receiving monetary restitution and replacing the wood, but, with regard to this large beam, which is not common, say that there is no despair, and the robber is required to return the actual beam, therefore, Ravina teaches us that the ordinance applies even to this beam, and the robber is required to return only its monetary value. ֵּ ‫ָהנֵי ִמ‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ָב ַתר‬,‫ילי – ְ ּב גֹו ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ,‫ וְ ִאי ִח ְ ּברֹו ְ ּב ִטינָ א‬.‫ינֵיה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה – ָה ַדר ְ ּב ֵע‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יל ּו ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ִש ְב ָעה נַ ִמי – יָ ֵהיב ֵל‬ .‫דָּ ֵמי‬

The Gemara notes: This halakha that the robber need not dismantle the sukka and return the beam applies only within the seven days of the Festival. However, after the seven days, the beam returns to the owner intact. And if the robber attached it with mortar and it is affixed permanently to the sukka, then even after the seven days of the Festival, the ordinance remains in effect, and the robber gives the original owner the monetary value of the beam.

.‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ יָ ֵב ׁש ּ ָפסוּל‬:‫ָּתנָ א‬ :‫ דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬.‫לֹוקת ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ ָמה ֶא ְתרֹוג ָ ּב ֵעי‬,‫ַמ ְּק ׁ ִשינַן לו ָּלב ְל ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ָה ָדר – ַאף לו ָּלב ָ ּב ֵעי ָה ָדר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ל ֹא ַמ ְּק ׁ ִשינַ ן לו ָּלב ְל ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ .‫ְ ּב ֶא ְתרֹוג דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ָה ָדר ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬

§ It was taught in the Tosefta: A dry lulav is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda

halakha

The ordinance of a beam and a sukka – ‫ַּת ָ ּקנַ ת ָמ ִר ׁיש‬ ‫וְ סו ָּּכה‬: A thief is obligated to return the object that he stole. By Torah law, even if he stole a beam and built it into a building, he is required to dismantle the structure and return the beam to the original owner. However, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the penitent need return only the monetary value of the beam. Similarly, if one stole a beam and built it into his sukka and the owner demands its return, the thief need return only the beam’s monetary value during the Festival. After the Festival, he must return the beam itself (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 360:1).

The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who came before Rav Naĥman. She said to him: The Exilarch and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen sukka.n She claimed that the Exilarch’s servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Naĥman did not pay attention to her. She said to him: A woman whose father, Abraham, our forefather, hadn three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her? She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. Rav Naĥman said to the Sages: This woman is a screamer, and she has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. However, the sukka itself was already acquired by the Exilarch.

deems it fit. Rava said: The dispute is specifically with regard to a lulav, as the Rabbis hold: We liken the lulav to the etrog, based on their juxtaposition in the verse. Just as the etrog requires beauty, so too, the lulav requires beauty.n And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not liken the lulav to the etrog. However, with regard to an etrog, everyone agrees that we require beauty [hadar] as the verse states: “Fruit of a beautiful tree” (Leviticus 23:40) and a dry etrog does not meet that criterion.

,‫ ו ְּבלו ָּלב ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָה ָדר? וְ ָה ְתנַן‬The Gemara asks: And with regard to a lulav, does Rabbi Yehuda ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ יַ ַאגְ ֶדנּ ּו ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬really not require beauty? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that ?‫ ַט ְע ָמא – ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָב ֵעי ָה ָדר‬Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a lulav whose leaves have spread out, one should bind the lulav from the top. What is the reason to do so? Is it not because he requires beauty in the case of lulav? ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ִּכ ְד ָק ָתנֵי ַט ְע ָמא‬,‫ ל ֹא‬The Gemara rejects this: No, as the reason is taught: Rabbi Yehuda – ‫״כ ּפֹות ְּת ָמ ִרים״‬ ַּ :‫ ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon that the same verse states: .ּ‫ וְ ִאם ָהיָ ה ּ ָפרוּד יִ ְכ ּ ְפ ֶתנו‬,‫“ ָּכפוּת‬Branches [kappot] of a date palm.” The Sages interpret the term to mean bound [kafut], indicating that if the leaves of the lulav were spread, one should bind it. ‫ ֵאין אֹוגְ ִדין ֶאת‬:‫ וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ָה ָדר? וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty with .‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ַה ּלו ָּלב ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ִמינֹו‬regard to the lulav? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: One binds ?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָב ֵעי ָה ָדר‬the lulav only with its own species, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? What is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda requires the binding to be from its own species? Is it not due to the fact that he requires beauty with regard to the lulav?

150 

Perek III . 31a . ‫אל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ִסיב וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫ דְּ ָהא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ּ ָ ‫ְ ּב ִע‬ ‫ [וְ ֶא ָּלא] ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫יק ָלא‬ ְ ‫יק ָרא דְּ ִד‬ ְ‫ לו ָּלב צָ ִריך‬:‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָה ָתם – דְּ ָקא ָס ַבר‬ ‫יתי ִמינָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ֲהוָ ה ְלה ּו‬ ֵ ְ‫ וְ ִאי ַמי‬,‫ֶאגֶ ד‬ .‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ִמינִין‬

The Gemara answers: No, that is not the reason, as Rava said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, one may bind the lulav even with fiber that grows around the trunk of the date palm and even with the root of the date palm, even though these do not meet the criterion of beauty. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there, that a lulav must be bound with its own species? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that a lulav requires binding,b and if one brought another species to bind it, they are five species instead of four, violating the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah.

:‫ו ְּב ֶא ְתרֹוג ִמי ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָה ָדר? וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ֹוח ִתין‬ ֲ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּפ‬,‫ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמינִין ׁ ֶש ַ ּבלּ ו ָּלב‬ ‫ ל ֹא ָמצָ א‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫יפין ֲע ֵל‬ ִ ‫מֹוס‬ ִ ‫ֵמ ֶהן – ָּכ ְך ֵאין‬ ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג ל ֹא ִיָביא ל ֹא ּ ָפ ִר ׁיש וְ ל ֹא ִרמֹון וְ ל ֹא‬ – ‫ יְ ֵב ׁ ִשין‬,‫ ְּכמ ּו ׁ ִשין – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרין‬.‫דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ .‫ ַאף ֵיְב ׁ ִשין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to an etrog, does Rabbi Yehuda require beauty? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the four species of the lulav, just as one may not diminish from their number, so too, one may not add to their number. If one did not find an etrog, he should not bring a quince, a pomegranate, or any other item instead. If the species are slightly dried, they are fit. If they are completely dry,h they are unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry etrogim are fit.

background

A lulav requires binding – ‫יך ֶאגֶ ד‬ ְ ‫לו ָּלב צָ ִר‬: A coin minted during the bar Kokheva revolt. One side depicts the gate to the Temple, while the other has the four species. Three are bound together, while the fourth, the etrog, is to their left.

Coin imprinted with the Temple and the four species

‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident halakha

Slightly dried and completely dry – ‫כמו ּׁש וְ ֵיָב ׁש‬:ָּ The principle is that a slightly dry lulav, myrtle branch, or willow branch is fit, while a completely dry one is unfit. Slightly dry means that its appearance has changed in that it appears wilted; its color is somewhat changed, but it still retains some freshness. Completely dry refers to a condition where there remains no

freshness at all. With regard to an etrog, though, some authorities deem it unfit even if it is slightly dried (Maharil; Roke’aĥ; and others). However, most halakhic authorities deem it fit (Rambam; Rosh; Haggahot Maimoniyyot; and many others). The later authorities rule in accordance with the latter (Magen Avraham; Birkei Yosef; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 646:6, 647:2, 648:1).

Perek III Daf 31 Amud b ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ישין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ִ ׁ ‫מֹור‬ ִ ‫ ִ ּב ְבנֵי ְכ ַר ִּכין ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬involving city dwellers who lived in an area distant from the !?‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם ְר ָאיָ ה‬:)‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָ(ל ֶהם‬.‫נֵיהן‬ ֶ ‫ ִל ְבנֵי ְב‬region where the four species grow, who would bequeath n .‫ ֵאין ׁ ְש ַעת ַהדְּ ָחק ְר ָאיָ ה‬their lulavim to their grandchildren, even though they were completely dry. The Sages said to him: Is there proof from there that species that are dry remain fit for use? Actions taken in exigent circumstances are not proof. In typical circumstances, it would be prohibited to use those species. ‫ ַאף ֵיְב ׁ ִשין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫יהת‬ ַ ‫ ָק ָתנֵי ִמ‬In any event, the Tosefta teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: .‫ ַאלּ ו ָּלב‬,‫ ַמאי ָלאו – ַא ֶא ְתרֹוג? ל ֹא‬.‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרין‬Even dry species are fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. What, is it not referring to an etrog as well, indicating that in his opinion an etrog does not require beauty? No, he was stating only that a dry lulav is fit for use. ‫ֹוח ִתין ֵמ ֶהן ָּכךְ ֵאין‬ ֲ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּפ‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫יפין ֲע ֵל‬ ִ ‫מֹוס‬ ִ ,‫הֹואיל וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה לו ָּלב צָ ִריךְ ֶאגֶ ד‬ ִ ‫יה‬ ִ ְ‫וְ ִאי ַמי‬ ּ ‫יתי ִמינָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ַהאי ְלחו ֵּד‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫יה ָק ֵאי‬ ּ ‫ָק ֵאי וְ ַהאי ְלחו ֵּד‬



The Master stated in the baraita cited above: Just as one may not diminish from their number,n so too, one may not add to their number. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Why would it be permitted to add an additional species? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Since Rabbi Yehuda said that a lulav requires a binding, and that requirement is a fundamental component of the mitzva, and if you bring another additional species, this species stands alone and that species stands alone, i.e., because the additional species is not bound with the others, its presence is insignificant, and causes no problem, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that this is not the case. In fact, one may not bring an additional species.

notes

Who would bequeath their lulavim – ‫ישין ֶאת‬ ִ ׁ ‫מֹור‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫לו ְּל ֵב‬: Clearly, the proof is from the fact that they would actually fulfill the mitzva with these lulavim, as the mere fact that they were bequeathed proves nothing (Ritva). The authorities dealt at length with the issue of whether in exigent circumstances, when the species are not available, one should use unfit species so that the mitzva will not be forgotten (see Rosh, Ritva, and the ge’onim). Just as one may not diminish from their number – ‫ֹוח ִתין ֵמ ֶהן‬ ֲ ‫כ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּפ‬:ְּ The authorities dealt with whether this is a problem specifically when it comes to adding or subtracting one of the four species, or if it is also problematic to add or subtract the number of the four species themselves, e.g., taking two lulavim or two myrtle branches (see Kappot Temarim).

‫אל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 31b 

151

background

Leek green – ‫כ ְר ִּתי‬:ַּ The leaves of this plant are a prototypical green, and served, even in other cultures, as an exemplar of color. notes

The minimum measure of a small etrog – ‫ׁ ִשיעוּר ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ‫ק ָטן‬:ָ Some asked: Once the Gemara established that an unripe etrog is unfit, why raise a question from the case of a small etrog, which ostensibly has the same problem? They explained that a green etrog is clearly not fully grown. It is unripe and therefore unfit. However, the only flaw of a small etrog with the proper coloring might be its lack of beauty (Kappot Temarim). The asheira of Moses – ‫א ׁ ֵש ָרה דְּ מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬: ֲ Apparently, the same halakha applies to any idolatry belonging to a Jew. It is unfit for use in the mitzva, since its status can neither be remedied nor negated, and it must be destroyed (see Tosafot).

‫ ל ֹא ָמצָ א ֶא ְתרֹוג ל ֹא ִיָביא‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ .‫ל ֹא ִרמֹון וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ִר ׁיש וְ ל ֹא דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ ‫ ִּכי‬,‫יתי‬ ֵ ְ‫ ַלי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ,‫יכי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִּת ׁ ּ ָש ַכח ּת ַֹורת ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ ‫ימנִין דְּ נָ ֵפיק חו ְּר ָבא‬ ְ ִ‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ז‬ . ְ‫ דְּ ָא ֵתי ְל ִמ ְס ַרך‬,‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ּינ‬

The Master stated in the baraita cited above: If one cannot find an etrog, he may not bring a pomegranate, a quince, or anything else instead. The Gemara wonders: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say: He should bring these fruits so that the halakhic category of the etrog will not be forgotten, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that it is in fact prohibited because on occasion, damage will result from this practice. Some may come to be drawn to this practice and use these species even when etrogim are available.

‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ַהּיָ ׁ ָשן ּ ָפסוּל‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara proposes: Come and hear another proof that, with regard ,‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ָר ָבא‬.‫ יְ ה ּו ָדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬to an etrog, Rabbi Yehuda does not require beauty: An old etrog is unfit. .‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, who holds that everyone agrees that an etrog requires beauty. The Gemara concludes: It is, indeed, a conclusive refutation of Rava’s opinion. ‫ ַהּיָ רֹוק‬:‫וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ָה ָדר? וְ ָהא ֲאנַן ְּתנַן‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ַּכ ַּכ ְר ִּתי‬ ?‫ ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָב ֵעי ָה ָדר‬.‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה ּפ‬ .‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ל ֹא ָ ּג ַמר ּ ֵפ ָירא‬,‫ל ֹא‬

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty in an etrog? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to an etrog that is leek green,b Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit? The Gemara asks: Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, it is due to the fact that in the case of a green etrog the fruit did not ripen, and it is inappropriate to fulfill the mitzva with an unripe fruit.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר ֶא ְתרֹוג ָק ָטן‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה‬,‫ ָּכ ֶאגֹוז‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דְּ ָב ֵעי‬.‫ ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ל ֹא ָ ּג ַמר ּ ֵפ ָירא‬,‫ָה ָדר? ל ֹא‬

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: What is the minimum measure of a small etrog?n Rabbi Meir says: It may be no smaller than a walnut-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be no smaller than an egg-bulk. The Gemara asks: Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, it is due to the fact that in that case of an etrog smaller than an egg-bulk, the fruit did not ripen.

‫ ו ְּבגָ דֹול ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיֶ ֱאחֹוז ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬,‫ְ ּביָ דֹו ַא ַחת‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֶא ָחד ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי יָ ָדיו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ,‫ַט ְע ָמא – ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָב ֵעי ָה ָדר? ל ֹא‬ ‫ לו ָּלב ַ ּבּיָ ִמין וְ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ וְ ָא ֵתי‬,‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫ ז‬,‫ַ ּב ְ ׂשמֹאל‬ ּ ‫ימנִין דְּ ִמ ַח ְּל ִפי ֵל‬ .‫ וְ ָא ֵתי ְל ִא ְיפסו ֵּלי‬,ּ‫ְל ַא ּפ ִֹוכינְ הו‬

Come and hear an additional proof: And in a large etrog, the maximum measure is so that one could hold two in his one hand; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is fit even if it is so large that he can hold only one in his two hands. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, the rationale is as Rabba said: One holds the lulav in the right hand and the etrog in the left. Sometimes, when one is handed the four species, they will exchange them for him, placing the three species in his left hand and the etrog in his right, and then he will come to switch them and place each in the appropriate hand. However, if the etrog is too large, he will be unable to hold the etrog and the lulav together, and he will come to render the etrog unfit, as it is apt to fall.

!‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָהא ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָדר‬The Gemara asks: However, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, isn’t it written: The fruit of a beautiful [hadar] tree? How, then, can he rule that an etrog does not require beauty? .‫״הדָּ ר ְ ּב ִא ָילנֹו ִמ ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ְל ׁ ָשנָ ה״‬ ַ ‫ ַההוּא‬The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda holds: That verse means that one should take a fruit that dwells [hadar] in its tree from year to year. It remains on the tree and does not wither and fall at the end of the season as do most fruits. That is characteristic of the etrog. ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל‬.‫״של ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ׁ ֶשל ִעיר ַה ִּנדַּ ַחת״‬ ֶ ׁ § The mishna continues: The lulav of a tree worshipped as idolatry ‫ לו ָּלב‬:‫[ ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה ּ ָפסוּל? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬asheira] and a lulav from a city whose residents were incited to idola– ‫נָטל‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִאם‬,‫בֹודה זָ ָרה ל ֹא יִ ּטֹול‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶשל ֲע‬try, which must be burned along with all the city’s property, are unfit. And is a lulav of an asheira unfit? But didn’t Rava say with regard to a !‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ lulav of idolatry: One should not take it to fulfill the mitzva ab initio; however, if he took it, it is fit and he fulfills his obligation after the fact? Apparently, a lulav from an asheira is fit. ,‫ ָה ָכא ַ ּב ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה דְּ מ ׁ ֶֹשה ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬The Gemara explains: Here, in the mishna, we are dealing with the n .‫יה‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ַכ ּתו ֵּתי ִמ‬asheira of Moses, depicted in the Torah. The mishna is not referring ּ ‫יכ ַּתת ׁ ִשיעו ֵּר‬ to a tree planted in deference to idolatry, but rather to a tree that was itself worshipped as an idol. There is an obligation to burn idolatry and destroy it. Therefore, legally, the latter tree is considered as if it were already burned. The requisite measure of the etrog was crushed, and it is therefore unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rava’s ruling does not apply to an asheira of that kind.

152 

Perek III . 31b . ‫אל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

‫ דַּ יְ ָקא נַ ִמי דְּ ָק ָתנֵי דּ ּו ְמיָ א דְּ ִעיר‬The Gemara notes: The formulation of the mishna is also precise .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ ַה ִּנדַּ ַחת‬and indicates that the reference is to an asheira of Moses, as the juxtaposition of the halakha of an asheira to the halakha of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry teaches that the legal status of the asheira is similar to that of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, in which all the property must be burned. In both cases, the lulav is considered already burned and lacking the requisite measure. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the reason that the lulav is unfit. ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫ֹאשֹו״‬ ׁ ‫ ״נִ ְק ַטם ר‬The mishna continues: If the top of the lulav was severednh it is – ‫ ֲא ָבל נִ ְסדַּ ק‬,‫ ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא נִ ְק ַטם‬unfit. Rav Huna said: They taught that it is unfit only when it was severed; however, if the top merely split,h the lulav .‫ ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬completely n is fit. ,‫ לו ָּלב ָּכפוּף‬:‫נִסדַּ ק ָּכ ׁ ֵשר? וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara asks: And is a split lulav fit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A lulav that is benth at the top,

notes

If the top was severed – ‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫נִק ַטם ר‬: ְ There are many opinions among the commentaries and authorities as to the precise definition of this flaw (Maggid Mishne). More than ten opinions are stated. Some explain that a lulav is unfit only when its upper leaves were severed along with the spine (Ra’avad and others). Others hold it is unfit when most of the leaves of the lulav were severed (Rosh). Yet others hold that even if only some of the upper leaves were severed it is unfit; and still others maintain that any part that is severed renders the lulav unfit (Ran; Ritva; Maggid Mishne; and others). With regard to the reason that this renders the lulav unfit, most explain that it is because a severed lulav lacks beauty. However, one

opinion maintains that taking a lulav that was severed in some way is not considered a complete taking. If the top split the lulav is fit – ‫נִסדַּ ק ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬: ְ There are many opinions with regard to the split lulav, especially as pertains to the distinction between the split lulav, which is fit, and both the lulav whose central twin-leaf is split and a lulav split like a fork, which are unfit. Some suggest that a split lulav is one with a horizontal split across it, or a split spine (Ra’avad). Others hold that a split lulav refers to a case where the split is lengthwise, in a leaf other than the central twinleaf (see Me’iri).

halakha

If the top was severed – ‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫נִ ְק ַטם ר‬: A lulav whose top was severed is unfit. This is defined as one with most of its leaves above the spine severed (Tur, citing Rosh). If the central twin-leaf is split, it is unfit (Rema, citing Maggid Mishne; Ritva; Ran). Apparently, it is unfit even if it is only slightly split (see Vilna Gaon and others). However, if no other lulav is available, one may recite the blessing over a lulav in that condition (Mordekhai). Some later authorities ruled stringently in this case (Magen Avraham and others). However, one may rely on the early authorities, who ruled leniently (Eliya Rabba, Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:6).



A lulav that split – ‫נִסדַּ ק‬ ְ ‫לו ָּלב ׁ ֶש‬: If a lulav split, and its two sides separated from each other to the extent it appears like two lulavim, it is unfit (Rambam). That is the ruling even if the middle twin-leaf is not split (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:7, and in the comment of the Rema). A lulav that is bent – ‫לו ָּלב ָּכפוּף‬: A lulav that is bent at the top is unfit, provided that it is the spine that is bent. However, if the leaves at the top are slightly bent (Peri Megadim), the lulav is fit (Rosh; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:9). ‫אל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 31b 

153

Perek III Daf 32 Amud a language

Fork [heimanak] – ‫ימנָ ק‬ ָ ‫ה‬:ֵ There are many variants of this word in the various manuscripts, and its origin is unclear. The Arukh, citing the ge’onim, explains that it is a two-pronged fork used by the Persians as an eating utensil.

.‫ֹומה ְל ַמ ָ ּגל – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ֶ ּ‫ ָעקוּם ד‬,‫ ָסדוּק‬,‫ ָקווּץ‬that is thorny,nh split, or curvedh to the extent that it is shaped ‫ֹומה ְל ָחרוּת – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר! ָא ַמר‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬.‫ ָחרוּת – ּ ָפסוּל‬like a sickle is unfit. If it became hard as wood it is unfit. If it h .‫ימנָ ק‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָע ֵביד ְּכ ֵה‬:‫ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬merely appears like hard wood but is not yet completely hardened, it is fit. Apparently, a split lulav is unfit. Rav Pappa said: The split lulav in the baraita is so split that it is shaped like a fork [heimanak],l with the two sides of the split completely separated, and it appears that the lulav has two spines. ‫ ָלא ֲא ָמ ַרן‬:‫ֹומה ְל ַמ ָ ּגל״ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ֶ ּ‫״עקוּם ד‬ ָ The baraita continues: If it is curved to the extent that it is ‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ַא ֲח ָריו – ְ ּב ִרּי‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ָפנָיו‬shaped like a sickle, it is unfit. Rava said: We said that it is ּ ‫ית‬ .‫ הוּא‬unfit only when it is curved forward away from the spine; however, if it is curved backward, toward the spine, it is fit for use because that is its nature, and that is the way a lulav typically grows.

Two-pronged Persian forks background

That grew with one leaf – ‫דְּ ָס ֵליק ְ ּב ַחד הוּצָ א‬:

,‫ ַל ְ ּצ ָד ִדין ִּכ ְל ָפנָיו דָּ ֵמי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬Rav Naĥman said: The legal status of a lulav that is curved to .‫ ִּכ ְל ַא ֲח ָריו דָּ ֵמי‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬either of the sides is like that of a lulav curved forward, and it is unfit. And some say: Its legal status is like that of a lulav curved backward, and it is fit. ‫ ַהאי לו ָּל ָבא דְּ ָס ֵליק ְ ּב ַחד‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬And Rava said: This lulav that grew with one leaf,bnh i.e., .‫ ו ָּפסוּל‬,‫ הוּצָ א – ַ ּב ַעל מוּם הוּא‬leaves on only one side of the spine, is blemished and unfit.

notes

Thorny – ‫קווּץ‬:ָ Two interpretations were suggested for this word. One is that it is referring to a lulav with thorns growing on its spine (Rashi; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). An alternative explanation is that it is referring to a shrunken lulav that is wrinkled (Ran; Tosafot; Me’iri). According to the first interpretation, the first letter of this word is a kuf. According to the second interpretation, the first letter is a kaf. The Rif cites both versions. That grew with one leaf – ‫דְּ ָס ֵליק ְ ּב ַחד הוּצָ א‬: There are three

interpretations suggested for this flaw. According to Rashi, it means that leaves emerge from only one side of the spine. According to the Rosh, the problem is that its leaves are single leaves, as opposed to the standard lulav whose leaves are double. According to the ge’onim, this is referring to a lulav in which only one leaf runs the entire length of the lulav. The reason that it renders the lulav unfit is that it lacks beauty. Others say that it is because the lulav is defective. There is a practical halakhic difference between these reasons (Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi).

halakha

A thorny [kavutz] lulav – ‫לו ָּלב ָקווּץ‬: According to the version where the word kavutz begins with a kuf, this lulav has thornlike protrusions on its spine. Alternatively, according to the version where it begins with a kaf, it is a shrunken lulav. Both are unfit, in accordance with the baraita and the Rif, who cites both versions (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:8).

Lulav with leaves on only one side of its spine

A curved lulav – ‫לו ָּלב ָעקוּם‬: A lulav that is curved forward to the point that its spine looks humped is unfit. If it is curved backward it is fit, if it is curved to the sides, it is unfit, in accordance with the stringent version in the Gemara, due to some uncertainty with regard to the correct version of the Gemara (Ritva). The lulav should not be curved at all ab initio (Sha’arei Teshuva; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:8).

154 

Perek III . 32a . ‫בל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

Hard as wood, appears like hard wood – ‫ֹומה‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬,‫ָחרוּת‬ ‫ל ָחרוּת‬:ְ If the majority of the leaves of the lulav hardened like wood to the point that they protrude from the spine and cannot be bound to the spine, the lulav is unfit. However, if most leaves remain sufficiently flexible to be bound to the spine, the lulav is fit (Ran; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:2). That grew with one leaf – ‫דְּ ָס ֵליק ְ ּב ַחד הוּצָ א‬: A lulav that has all its leaves on one side of the spine and a lulav that has only single, not double, leaves are unfit, in accordance with the two explanations for this flaw (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:3).

– ‫ נִ ְפ ְרצ ּו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬.‫ § ״נִ ְפ ְרצ ּו ָע ָליו״ כו׳‬The mishna continues: If the palm leaves were severedn from the ‫יפרוּד‬ ְ ‫ נִ ְפ ְרד ּו – דְּ ִא‬,‫ דְּ ָע ֵביד ִּכי חו ְּפיָ א‬spine of the lulav, it is unfit; if its leaves were spread, it is fit. Rav .‫ ַא ְפרו ֵּדי‬Pappa said: Severed means that the leaves are completely detached from the spine, and one ties them to the lulav, so that the lulav is made like a broom.b Spreadh means that the leaves remain attached but are merely separated from the spine in that they jut outward. ?ּ‫יֹומת ַמהו‬ ֶ ‫ נֶ ְח ְל ָקה ַה ְּת‬:‫ָ ּב ֵעי ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫יֹוחנָן) ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַ(ר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ .‫יֹומת – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ֶ ‫נִיט ָלה ַה ְּת‬ ְּ :‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ,‫ַמאי ָלאו – הוּא ַהדִּ ין נֶ ְח ְל ָקה? ל ֹא‬ .‫יה‬ ְּ ּ ‫ דְּ ָהא ָח ֵסר ֵל‬,‫נִיט ָלה ׁ ָשאנֵי‬

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if the central twin-leaf split?hn The Gemara cites proof to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear that which Rabbi Yoĥanan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If the central twin-leaf was removed, the lulav is unfit. What, is it not that the same is true if the twin-leaf split? The Gemara answers: No, the case where it was removed is different, because the result is that it is lacking, and an incomplete lulav is certainly unfit. However, if the leaf remains in place, even though it is split, it does not necessarily render the lulav unfit.

‫יֹוחנָ ן) ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַ(ר ִ ּבי‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬Some say that Rabbi Yoĥanan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi – ‫יֹומת‬ ֶ ‫ נֶ ְח ְל ָקה ַה ְּת‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬said: If the central twin-leaf split, it becomes as a lulav whose .‫ ו ָּפסוּל‬,‫יֹומת‬ ֶ ‫ִיט ָלה ַה ְּת‬ ְּ ‫נַע ֶ ׂשה ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ ֲ central twin-leaf was removed, and it is unfit. According to this version of the statement, the dilemma is resolved.

background

Broom – ‫חו ְּפיָא‬: It is possible to hold palm leaves together after they have fallen off, by tying them. However, this does not constitute an acceptable lulav.

Broom made of palm leaves The hardened branch – ‫חרו ָּתא‬:ָ

‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ַּתנְיָא‬.‫אֹומר״‬ ֵ ‫ § ״ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬The mishna continues. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the leaves were spread, one should bind the lulav from the top. It was taught in a ‫״כ ּפ ֹות‬ ֵ ַּ :‫אֹומ ר ִמ ׁ ּש ּו ם ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬ baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon that – ‫ ִאם ָהיָ ה ּ ָפרוּד‬,‫ְּת ָמ ִרים״ – ָּכפוּת‬ the verse states: “Branches [kappot] of a date palm.” The Sages .ּ‫יִ ְכ ּ ְפ ֶתנו‬ interpret the term to mean bound [kafut], indicating that if the leaves of the lulav were spread, one should bind it. ‫ ִמ ַּמאי דְּ ַהאי‬:‫יה ָר ִבינָ א ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where is it ascertained that this ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַּכ ּפֹות ְּת ָמ ִרים דְּ לו ָּל ָבא הוּא? ֵא‬term, “branches of a date palm,” is referring to the branches of the b .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫ ָחרו ָּתא! ָ ּב ֵעינָ א ָּכפוּת‬lulav? Say it is referring to the hardened branch of the date palm. Rav Ashi answered: That cannot be, as we require the lulav to be bound, and there is no binding, since at that stage the hardened leaves point outward, and binding them is impossible. ‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: If the fundamental requirement of the mitzva is ָּ ‫אֹופ ָתא! ָּכפוּת ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ִא‬ .‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫עֹומד ְל‬ ֵ ְ‫ וְ ַהאי ָּכפוּת ו‬,‫ ּ ָפרוּד‬a lulav that appears as one unit, say that one takes the trunk of the date palm. The Gemara answers: The term bound, from which it is derived that the branch should appear as one unit, indicates that there is the possibility that it could be spread. However, this trunk is perpetually bound, as it can never become separated.

Hardened palm branch halakha

Severed and spread – ‫נִ ְפ ְרד ּו וְ נִ ְפ ְרצ ּו‬: A lulav whose leaves do not lie flat against its spine and are separated a bit is fit, even if it is not bound, in accordance with the mishna and Gemara. The Rema, citing Maggid Mishne and the Ran, wrote that in order to perform the mitzva optimally, one should use a lulav whose leaves are connected. However, if the leaves separated to the extent that they bend to the sides, and all the more so if they are partially severed and attached only at the bottom, the lulav is unfit (Ran; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:1–2). notes

If the leaves were severed – ‫נִ ְפ ְרצ ּו ָע ָליו‬: Among the many explanations suggested, there are three primary explanations. Some explain that the leaves are completely disconnected from the lulav and one attaches them in the manner that one attaches palm leaves to fashion a broom (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rashi; and others). Others maintain that the leaves do not run upward along the length of the spine, but rather protrude to the sides or even sag as though they were about to fall (Rambam; Ramban; see Rif ). Yet others hold that the leaves split lengthwise into two or more parts (Tosafot; Ra’avad; Rosh). The central twin-leaf split – ‫יֹומת‬ ֶ ‫נֶ ְח ְל ָקה ַה ְּת‬: There are many opinions with regard to this flaw; in the Bikkurei Ya’akov eight are listed. However, if one considers the different explanations for each opinion, the number of possibilities is even greater. The following are the primary opinions: The ge’onim, as their opinion is understood by many authorities, among them the Beit Yosef, hold that a lulav with its central twin-leaf split is a lulav with two leaves at the top, unlike the standard lulav, which has only one.



If those leaves separate, it is a split twin-leaf. Others say that the reference is to a red shell that enwraps the young lulav (Kappot Temarim). Yet others explain that the twin-leaf is the connection between the two parts of the double leaves. According to this opinion, every leaf has a twin-leaf, and some explain that it is unfit only if a majority of the double leaves of the lulav have split. Others maintain that the word twin-leaf, in the singular, indicates only one twin-leaf on the lulav, and therefore it must refer to any of the leaves or to one specific leaf but not to all of them (Rambam; Ra’avad; see Me’iri and Rosh). Some explain that the twin-leaf refers to the top leaf of the lulav, since that one is most recognizable as doubled. If that leaf splits, the lulav is unfit (Rashi; Ran; see Ritva). According to this opinion, the legal status of the top of the lulav is equivalent to that of the top of the etrog in the sense that its beauty is most prominently manifest there, and any flaw renders it unfit. Alternatively, a flaw on the center leaf renders the taking of the lulav an incomplete taking (see Peri Megadim and others).

The central twin-leaf split – ‫יֹומת‬ ֶ ‫נֶ ְח ְל ָקה ַה ְּת‬: If most of the leaves of the lulav split at the point of their connection, it is unfit (Tur, Beit Yosef ). Some explain that if the middle leaf split at the point of their connection and all the way down to the spine it is unfit, and that is the custom (Rema, citing Terumat HaDeshen). In order to perform the mitzva optimally, one should use a lulav that is not split at all (Rema, citing Ran; Ritva). A leaf that is split less than a handbreadth long is not considered split at all (Taz). Some rule stringently even if the split is less than a handbreadth (Ĥayyei Adam; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:3).

‫בל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 32a 

155

language

Branch of the date palm [kufra] – ‫כו ְּפ ָרא‬:ּ This word exists in Arabic as well: ‫جفري‬, jufrī. notes

Palms of the Iron Mountain – ‫צִ ּינֵי ַהר ַה ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל‬: Apparently, the Iron Mountain is a place where the earth is very hard, and therefore the lulavim grow there with small, thin leaves (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Me’iri). halakha

Palms of the Iron Mountain – ‫צִ ּינֵי ַהר ַה ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל‬: A lulav whose leaves are very short, like those that grow on the palms of the Iron Mountain, is fit, provided the top of one leaf reaches the bottom of the leaf above it. If that is not the case, or if there is only one leaf on each side of the spine along the entire length of the lulav, it is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 645:4).

‫נֹועם‬ ַ ‫יה ַד ְר ֵכי‬ ָ ‫ ״דְּ ָר ֶכ‬:‫ימא ּכו ְּפ ָרא! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: And say the verse is referring to the branch l .‫יה ׁ ָשלֹום״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ָ ‫יבֹות‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָכל נְ ִת‬of the date palm [kufra] that has not yet hardened completely and could still be bound, albeit with difficulty. Abaye said that it is written in praise of the Torah: “Its way are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17). At that stage of development, some of the leaves are thorns that potentially wound. The Torah would not command to use that type of branch in fulfilling the mitzva. ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬:‫ֹוס ָפ ָאה ְל ָר ִבינָ א‬ ְ ‫יה ָר ָבא ּת‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava, the expert in Tosefta, said to Ravina: Since the verse states !‫ימא ֲח ָדא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬.‫״כ ּפֹת״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ַּ !‫“ ַּת ְר ֵּתי ַּכ ּ ֵפי דְּ ַת ְמ ֵרי‬branches of a date palm” in the plural, say that one is obligated to .‫יה‬ ַּ ‫ ְל ַההוּא‬take two palm branches in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species. ּ ‫״כף״ ָק ֵרי ֵל‬ Ravina answered: Although the word is vocalized in the plural, based on tradition kappot is written without the letter vav, indicating that only one is required. The Gemara suggests: And say that one is required to take only one leaf? The Gemara answers: If that were the intention of the Torah, it would not have written kappot without a vav. That single leaf is called kaf. Kappot without the vav indicates both plural, i.e., multiple leaves, and singular, i.e., one branch. ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫  § ״צִ ּינֵי ַהר ַה ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה״‬The mishna continues: A lulav from the palms of the Iron nh ּ ָ ‫ֹאשֹו ׁ ֶשל זֶ ה ַמ ִ ּג ַיע ְלצַ ד ִע‬ ‫יקרֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ׁ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשר‬Mountain is fit. It has few leaves on its spine, and those leaves ּ ָ ‫ֹאשֹו ׁ ֶשל זֶ ה ַמ ִ ּג ַיע צַ ד ִע‬ ‫יקרֹו‬ ׁ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֵאין ר‬,‫ זֶ ה‬are not crowded together like the leaves on a standard lulav. Abaye said: The Sages taught that this type of lulav is fit only in a case .‫ׁ ֶשל זֶ ה – ּ ָפסוּל‬ in which the top of this leaf reaches the base of that leaf above it on the spine. However, if there are so few leaves that the top of this leaf does not reach the base of that leaf, it is unfit. ‫ וְ ָהא‬.‫ צִ ּינֵי ַהר ַה ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬:‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬That was taught in a baraita as well: A lulav from the palms of the ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ ֲאנַן ְּתנַן ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה! ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ְּכ ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Iron Mountain are unfit. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn .‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬in the mishna that it is fit? Rather, learn from it in accordance with the statement of Abaye, that there is a distinction based on the configuration of the leaves on the lulav. Indeed, learn from it.

Perek III Daf 32 Amud b ‫ צִ ּינֵי ַהר ַה ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל‬:‫ ְּתנַן‬.‫יה ִמ ְיר ָמא‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִא‬ ּ ‫יכא דְּ ָר ֵמי ֵל‬ :‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬:‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬,‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ּ ָ ‫ֹאשֹו ׁ ֶשל זֶ ה ַמ ִ ּג ַיע ְלצַ ד ִע‬ ‫יקרֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ׁ ‫ָּכאן – ׁ ֶשר‬ ּ ָ ‫ֹאשֹו ׁ ֶשל זֶ ה ַמ ִ ּג ַיע ְלצַ ד ִע‬ ‫יקרֹו‬ ׁ ‫ ָּכאן – ׁ ֶש ֵאין ר‬,‫זֶ ה‬ .‫ׁ ֶשל זֶ ה‬

And others raise it as a contradiction. We learned in the mishna: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain is fit. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: It is unfit? Abaye said: This is not difficult: Here, in the mishna, where the lulav is fit, it is referring to a case where the top of this leaf reaches the base of that next leaf, whereas, there, in the baraita, where the lulav is unfit, it is referring to a case where the top of this leaf does not reach the base of that next leaf.

‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָמ ְריֹון ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ :‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי‬ ָ ‫ָל ּה ָּתנֵי ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ָמ ִרי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ָ ּבן‬ ‫עֹולה ָע ׁ ָשן‬ ֶ ְ‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְת ָמרֹות יֵ ׁש ְ ּבגֵ יא ֶ ּבן ִה ָּנם ו‬ ,‫ וְ זֶ ה ּו ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשנִינ ּו צִ ּינֵי ַהר ַה ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל ְּכ ׁ ֵשרֹות‬,‫ינֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ֵ ּב‬ .‫יה ָּנם‬ ִ ‫וְ זֹו ִהיא ּ ִפ ְת ָח ּה ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּג‬

The Gemara describes the location of these lulavim. Rabbi Maryon said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, and some say that Rabba bar Mari taught this baraita in the name of Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai: There are two date palms in the valley of ben Hinnom,b and smoke arises from between them. And this is the place about which we learned in the mishna: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain is fit. And that site is the entrance of Gehenna. background

Valley of ben Hinnom, to the southwest of the Old City

156 

Perek III . 32b . ‫בל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

Valley of ben Hinnom – ‫גיא ֶ ּבן ִה ָּנם‬:ּ ֵ The valley of ben Hinnom is the valley to the southwest of the Old City of Jerusalem. It is from there that the word Gehenna is derived. Its reputation as a place of

horror possibly dates back to First Temple times, when it was a site of worship of the Canaanite god Molekh. The rituals for worshipping Molekh included, according to some commentaries, child sacrifice.

‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫״לו ָּלב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים״‬ ‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲה ַדס‬:‫ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ְּכ ֵדי‬,‫ וְ לו ָּלב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫וַ ֲע ָר ָבה – ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ .‫ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא לו ָּלב יֹוצֵ א ִמן ַה ֲה ַדס ֶט ַפח‬

The mishna continues: A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The minimum measure of a myrtle branch and a willow branch is three handbreadths. And the minimum measure of a lulav is four handbreadths.nh The difference between the measures is so that the lulav will extend at least one handbreadth from the myrtle branch.

‫ ׁ ִש ְדרֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ּ ַפ ְרנָ ְך ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The spine of .‫ לו ָּלב צָ ִריךְ ׁ ֶשּיֵ צֵ א ִמן ַה ֲה ַדס ֶט ַפח‬the lulav, and not merely its leaves, must be at least four handbreadths long, so that it will extend from the myrtle branch at least one handbreadth.h ‫ לו ָּלב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים ְּכ ֵדי‬:‫ ְּתנַן‬The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: A lulav that has ‫נַע ַנֵע ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫ ו ְּכ ֵדי ְל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫נַע ַנֵע ּבֹו – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר! ֵא‬ ְ ‫ ְל‬three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ָּמר ִּכ ְד ִאית ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָמר ִּכ ְד ִאית ֵל‬.‫ ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva? That indicates that a lulav three handbreadths long is fit. The Gemara answers: Emend the language of the mishna and say: A lulav that has three handbreadths and an additional handbreadth that is sufficient to enable one to wave with it is fit. This emendation is understood by each amora according to his opinion. It is understood by this Sage, Shmuel, as per his opinion that only one additional handbreadth is required including the leaves; and it is understood by this Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, as per his opinion that the additional handbreadth must be in the length of the spine of the lulav, and the leaves are not taken into consideration. ,‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲה ַדס וַ ֲע ָר ָבה – ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara cites proof from a baraita. Come and hear: The mini!‫ ַמאי ָלאו – ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ָע ִלין‬.‫ וְ לו ָּלב – ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬mum measure of a myrtle branch and of a willow branch is three .‫ ְל ַבד ֵמ ָע ִלין‬,‫ ל ֹא‬handbreadths, and that of a lulav is four handbreadths. What, is it not that this measure is calculated with the leaves, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it can be understood that the measure is calculated without the leaves.

notes

The measure of the myrtle branch, willow branch, and lulav – ‫שיעוּר ֲה ַדס ֲע ָר ָבה וְ לו ָּלב‬: ִ ׁ Three explanatory and halakhic views have been offered with regard to this issue. Some hold that Rabbi Tarfon established these small measures for all the species, including the lulav (Rabbi Yitzĥak ibn Giat; Ra’avad; Ran; Tur). Others hold that Rabbi Tarfon exclusively referred to the species that he mentioned explicitly, the myrtle and willow branches, but he did refer not to the lulav, which is measured with large handbreadths, or that at least the handbreadth of the lulav that emerges from the myrtle and willow branches is a standard handbreadth (Ramban; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ritva). Indeed, some hold that Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion is an individual opinion and the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. background

The opinion of Rabbi Tarfon – ‫יטת ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬ ַּ ‫ש‬: ִ ׁ The usual size of a handbreadth is one-sixth of a cubit; according to this standard measurement, three handbreadths equal half of a cubit (see figure B). Rav Dimi explains that Rabbi Tarfon is referring to a handbreadth of a different size, one that is one-fifth of a cubit; according to this explanation, three handbreadths amount to more than half of a cubit (see figure C). Rabin explains that Rabbi Tarfon’s is referring to a handbreadth that is one-sixth of the total length of five standard handbreadths; according to this explanation, three handbreadths amount to less than half of a cubit (see figure A).

,‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲה ַדס וַ ֲע ָר ָבה – ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬,‫ גּ ו ָּפא‬Apropos the baraita cited above, the Gemara discusses the matter :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬.‫ וְ לו ָּלב – ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬itself. The minimum measure of a myrtle branch and of a willow .‫ ְ ּב ַא ָּמה ַ ּבת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ְט ָפ ִחים‬branch is three handbreadths, and that of a lulav is four handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon says: With a cubit of five handbreadths.b The preliminary understanding of Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion is that the minimum measure of a myrtle branch is five handbreadths, not three. !‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬ ּ ‫יה ָמ ֵר‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ְש ָרא ֵל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said: May his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgive b ‫ ַ ּבת‬,‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָעבֹות ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָלא ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ִחינַן‬Rabbi Tarfon for this extreme stringency. Now, we do not find even a dense-leaved myrtle branch three handbreadths long; is it !?‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ִמ ָ ּב ֲעיָ א‬ necessary to say that finding one five handbreadths long is nearly impossible? ‫ ַא ָּמה ַ ּבת ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫ימי ֲא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬ ‫ צֵ א ֵמ ֶהן‬,‫אֹות ּה ַ ּבת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ָ ‫ְט ָפ ִחים ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה ָהו ּו‬,‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר ַללּ ו ָּלב‬,‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַל ֲה ַדס‬ .‫ְלה ּו – ְּת ָל ָתא ו ְּת ָל ָתא חו ְּמ ׁ ֵשי‬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that this is the correct understanding of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon: Take a cubit of six handbreadths, and render it a cubit of five handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon is saying that for the purpose of measuring the myrtle branch, willow branch, and lulav, the standard six-handbreadth cubit is divided into five handbreadths, each slightly larger than the standard handbreadth. Take three of these large handbreadths for the myrtle branch, and three of these handbreadths plus the extra handbreadth for the lulav. The Gemara calculates: How many standard handbreadths are there in the minimum measure of a myrtle branch or willow branch? There are three and three-fifths standard handbreadths.

A

B

C

Explanations of Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion May his Master forgive Rabbi Tarfon – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ָמ ֵר‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ָרא ֵל‬ ‫ל ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬:ְ Though this expression does not explicitly convey an element of condemnation, it is an allusion to the serious reproof of one of the Sages whose statements or actions are deemed inappropriate. When God’s name is desecrated through the conduct of a Sage, the Gemara often reacts: May his Master forgive him.

halakha

The measure of the myrtle branch, willow branch, and lulav – ‫שיעוּר ֲה ַדס ֲע ָר ָבה וְ לו ָּלב‬: ִ ׁ The proper measure of the myrtle branch and willow branch is three handbreadths, and the measure of the lulav is four handbreadths. Authorities disagree with regard to the measure of these handbreadths. Some say the myrtle branch and willow branch measure two and a half standard handbreadths, which equal ten thumb-breadths, and the lulav measures 131/3 thumb-breadths, in accordance with the opinion



of Rabbi Tarfon (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Ran). Some say that even according to Rabbi Tarfon, the lulav measures fourteen thumbbreadths (Ramban and others). Others say that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, and all of the species are measured with standard handbreadths. Consequently, the myrtle branch and willow branch each measure twelve thumb-breadths and the lulav measures sixteen (Rambam). One should act in accordance with that opinion

ab initio (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 650:1, and in the comment of the Rema). The spine of the lulav will extend one handbreadth – ‫ׁ ִש ְדרֹו‬ ‫של לו ָּלב יֹוצֵ א ֶט ַפח‬: ֶ ׁ There is no maximum measure for the four species. However, some maintain that even if one takes myrtle branches and willow branches that are longer than the requisite measure, the lulav must still extend one more handbreadth (Rif; Rambam; and others; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 650:2). ‫בל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 32b 

157

‫ ָה ָכא ָא ַמר‬,‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַאדִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲה ַדס‬:‫ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ וְ ָה ָתם ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫וַ ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ .‫ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון! ָלא דַּ ק‬:‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ְלקו ָּּלא‬,‫ימר דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן ָלא דַּ ק ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬ ַ ‫ֵא‬ !?‫ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַן ָלא דַּ ק‬

However, on that basis, there is a difficulty, as one statement of Shmuel contradicts another statement of Shmuel. Here, Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The minimum measure of the myrtle branch and of the willow branch is three handbreadths, and there, Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who requires a larger handbreadth. There is a discrepancy of three-fifths of a handbreadth between the measures. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the measure is three handbreadths, he was not precise and merely approximated the measure. The Gemara asks: Say that we say: He was not precise when the approximation leads to stringency,n but when it leads to leniency, do we say: He was not precise? That would result in using an unfit myrtle branch in performing a mitzva.

‫ ַא ָּמה ַ ּבת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ֲא ַמר‬ ‫ צֵ א ֵמ ֶהן‬,‫אֹות ּה ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ָ ‫ְט ָפ ִחים ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה ָהוֵ י‬.‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַל ֲה ַדס וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר ַללּ ו ָּלב‬ .‫ְלה ּו – ְּת ֵרי ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא‬

When Rabin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that this is the correct understanding of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon: Take a cubit of five handbreadths, and render it a cubit of six handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon said that for the purpose of measuring the myrtle branch, willow branch, and lulav, a five-handbreadth cubit is divided into six handbreadths, each slightly smaller than the standard handbreadth. Take three of these smaller handbreadths for the myrtle branch, and three of these handbreadths plus the extra handbreadth for the lulav. The Gemara calculates: How many standard handbreadths are there in the minimum measure of a myrtle branch or willow branch? There are two and a half standard handbreadths.

‫ סֹוף סֹוף ַק ׁ ְשיָ א דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַאדִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל! ָלא‬The Gemara asks: Ultimately, there remains a difficulty, as one state‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו ְלחו ְּמ ָרא ָלא דַּ ק‬,‫ דַּ ק‬ment of Shmuel contradicts another statement of Shmuel. In one .‫ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬:‫ הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬statement he said the minimum measure of a myrtle branch is two and a half handbreadths, and in another he said that the measure is three handbreadths. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the measure is three handbreadths, he was not precise and merely approximated the measure. And this is a case of: He was not precise, where the approximation leads to a stringency, as Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. Shmuel holds that the actual measure required is two and a half handbreadths, and he rounded it off to three, which is a more stringent measure. ‫ ׁ ֶשל‬.‫מתני׳ ֲה ַדס ַה ָ ּגזוּל וְ ַהּיָ ֵב ׁש – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ‫ נִ ְק ַטם‬.‫ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ׁ ֶשל ִעיר ַה ִּנדַּ ַחת – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ֲענָ ָביו‬,‫ נִ ְפ ְרצ ּו ָע ָליו‬,‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ר‬ – ‫יע ָטן‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ִאם ִמ‬.‫ְמרו ּּבֹות ֵמ ָע ָליו – ּ ָפסוּל‬ .‫ וְ ֵאין ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטין ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬.‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬

mishna 

A myrtle branchn that was stolenh or that is completely dryh is unfit. A myrtle branch of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] or a myrtle branch from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, if the leaves were severed completely, or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. If one diminished their number by plucking berries so that they no longer outnumbered the leaves, the myrtle branch is fit. But one may not diminish the number on the Festival itself.

notes

He was not precise where the approximation leads to stringency – ‫לא דַּ ק ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬:ָ Since the statements of a Sage are generally intended to reflect practical halakha, presumably, even if he is approximating, he would make certain that the result would not lead to transgression. Therefore, when approximating, he would round the measure upward to ensure that the actual minimum requisite measure would be observed. Halakhot of the myrtle branch – ‫דִּ ינֵי ֲה ַדס‬: Ostensibly, many of these halakhot were stated previously with regard to the lulav and are repeated with regard to the willow branch. Why is this apparent

redundancy necessary? Since there are halakhot unique to each of the species, e.g., the berries of the myrtle branch, the mishna deals with each of the species individually (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). With regard to a stolen myrtle branch in particular, the repetition is necessary, since myrtle and willow branches are so plentiful. Because they have no use other than for the mitzva, one might assume that they have no monetary value, and therefore taking branches that belong to others is not characterized as theft. For this reason the mishna teaches the halakhot of myrtle and willow branches separately (Kappot Temarim).

halakha

A myrtle branch that was stolen – ‫ה ַדס ַה ָ ּגזוּל‬:ֲ A stolen myrtle branch is unfit, as per the mishna (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:1).

it is unfit. The term slightly dry refers to a situation where the color of the leaves have not paled, even if the myrtle leaves crumble when touched with a fingernail. The term completely dry is referring to A myrtle branch…that is completely dry – ‫ס…ה ֵּיָב ׁש‬ ַ ‫ה ַד‬:ֲ A myrtle a situation where the leaves have paled, in accordance with the branch whose leaves have dried slightly is fit. If it is completely dry, mishna (Ra’avad; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 646:6–7).

158 

Perek III . 32b . ‫בל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

gemara 

The Sages taught: It is written: ‫״ענַ ף ֵעץ ָעבֹות״ – ׁ ֶש ֲענָ ָפיו‬ ֲ :‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ “Boughs of a dense-leaved tree” (Le‫אֹומר זֶ ה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִאי זֶ ה הוּא – ֱהוֵ י‬.‫חֹופין ֶאת ֵעצֹו‬ ִ viticus 23:40); this is referring to a tree whose leaves obscure .‫״עבֹות״ וְ ֵל ָּיכא‬ ָ ‫ימא זֵ ָיתא! ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬.‫ ֲה ַדס‬its tree. And which tree is that? You must say it is the myrtle tree.

background

The olive tree – ‫זֵ ָיתא‬: The leaves on an olive branch do not have a chain-like configuration.

‫חֹופין ֶאת‬ ִ ‫ימא דּ ו ְּל ָבא! ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן ֲענָ ָפיו‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara suggests: And say it is the olive tree,b whose .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ֵעצֹו וְ ֵל‬leaves obscure the tree. The Gemara answers: We require a “dense-leaved” tree, whose leaves are in a chain-like configuration, and that is not the case with an olive tree. ‫יה ַד ְר ֵכי‬ ָ ‫ ״דְּ ָר ֶכ‬:‫ימא ִה ְירדּ וּף! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara suggests: And say it is the Oriental plane tree,b whose leaves are in a braid-like configuration. The Gemara ‫״ה ֱא ֶמת‬ ָ :‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר ֵמ ָה ָכא‬.‫יכא‬ ַ ָּ ‫נֹועם״ וְ ֵל‬ .‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ָשלֹום ֱא ָהבוּ״‬answers: We require a tree whose leaves obscure its tree, and that is not the case with an Oriental plane tree. The Gemara suggests: And say the verse is referring to oleander,b which has both characteristics. Abaye said: It is written with regard to the Torah: “Its ways are ways of pleasantness” (Proverbs 3:17), and that is not the case with the oleander tree, because it is a poisonous plant and its sharp, thorn-like leaves pierce the hand of one holding it. Rava said: The unfitness of the oleander is derived from here: “Love truth and peace” (Zechariah 8:19), and poisonous plants that pierce are antithetical to peace. ‫דֹומה‬ ֶ ְ‫יעה ו‬ ָ ‫ ָקל ּו ַע ְּכ ִמין ְק ִל‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ְל ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ֶש ֶלת – זֶ ה ּו ֲה ַדס‬ ‫״ענַ ף ֵעץ ָעבֹות״ – ֵעץ ׁ ֶש ַּט ַעם‬ ֲ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יַ ֲעקֹב‬ .‫אֹומר זֶ ה ֲה ַדס‬ ֵ ‫ ֱהוֵ י‬,‫ֵעצֹו ו ִּפ ְריֹו ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬

Olive branch

The Sages taught: Plaited like a braid and chain-like; that is characteristic of the myrtle branch used in the fulfillment of the mitzva. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says another characteristic. It is written: “Boughs of a dense-leaved tree,” indicating a tree that the taste of its branches and the taste of its fruit are alike. You must say this is the myrtle branch.

‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬,‫ ֵעץ ָעבֹות – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫ ָּתנָ א‬A Sage taught in the Tosefta: A dense-leaved branch is fit, and .‫ ָעבֹות – ּ ָפסוּל‬one that is not dense-leaved is unfit, even though it is a myrtle branch.

background

Oriental plane tree – ‫דּ ו ְּל ָבא‬: This is the Platanus orientalis, a tall, deciduous tree that can rise to height of 50 m. Its large leaves are divided into lobes, and they grow interlaced. This is what the verse calls “dense-leaved.” It is a fruitless tree serving primarily for ornamentation. The leaves of the Platanus orientalis do not obscure the tree.

Oleander – ‫ה ְירדּ וּף‬:ִ This is the Nerium oleander, an evergreen that can rise to a height of 4 m. Its leaves, which have a greenyellow color, are hard and elongated, and its flowers are pink. Its sap and its leaves are very bitter and contain poison capable of killing animals and people. The shape of the oleander branches and tree are similar to those of the myrtle. This plant is rejected not because of its appearance but because of its harmful nature.

Above: Oriental plane tree Right: Oleander



‫בל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 32b 

159

notes

Since this statement emerged from the mouth of Rav Kahana – ‫יה דְּ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ִ Cases ּ ‫הֹואיל וְ נָ ֵפיק ִמ ּפו ֵּמ‬: where a student, in deference to his teacher, is vigilant in following his rulings and even in quoting the precise formulation stated by his teacher appears elsewhere. Rav Kahana clearly held that the mitzva is optimally performed with a myrtle branch with three leaves emerging from each base. However, his student took specifically a myrtle branch with two leaves emerging from one base and one leaf a bit lower on the branch, in order to act in accordance with Rav Kahana’s statement, even though it involved fulfilling the mitzva in a less than optimal manner. Wild [shoteh] myrtle branch – ‫ֹוטה‬ ֶ ‫ה ַדס ׁש‬:ֲ Some explain that the term shoteh is used to describe any replica that does not approximate the original, e.g., a firstborn shoteh is a firstborn son without the rights of a firstborn. That is the meaning of a myrtle branch shoteh (Ritva). Others explain the word shoteh more literally, like an insane person who acts indiscriminately. The word here describes an item that grows in a haphazard fashion, as opposed to a typical myrtle branch, whose leaves grow systematically, with three leaves emerging from each base (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi).

‫ וְ הוּא‬:‫יכי דָּ ֵמי ָעבֹות? ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ ‫ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬.‫ימי ְּת ָל ָתא ְּת ָל ָתא ַט ְר ּ ֵפי ְ ּב ִק ָּינא‬ ִ ְ‫דְּ ָקי‬ ‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬.‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְּת ֵרי וְ ַחד‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ִ ,‫ְמ ַהדֵּ ר ַא ְּת ֵרי וְ ַחד‬ ּ ‫הֹואיל וְ נָ ֵפיק ִמ ּפו ֵּמ‬ :‫ימר ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ָ ‫יה ָמר ַ ּבר ַא ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ .‫יה‬ ֶ ‫״ה ַדס ׁש‬ ֲ ‫ ְל ַההוּא‬,‫ַא ָ ּבא‬ ּ ‫ֹוטה״ ָק ֵרי ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of “dense-leaved tree”? Rav Yehuda said: And it is a configuration where three leaves emerge from each base.b Rav Kahana said: Even two leaves emerging from one base and one leaf that covers the other two emerging from a lower base is called thick. Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, would purposely seek a myrtle branch configured with two leaves emerging from one base and one emerging from a lower base, since this statement emerged from the mouth of Rav Kahana.n Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: My father called a myrtle branch with that configuration a wild myrtle branch.nhb

– ‫נִש ַּתּיְ יר ּו ּבֹו ִמיעוּט‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫נָשר ּו רֹוב ָע ָליו ו‬ ְ ׁ :‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Sages taught: If most of its leaves fellh and only a minority .‫ימת‬ ֶ ֶ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ָעבוּתֹו ַקּי‬,‫ ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬of the leaves remained, the myrtle branch is fit, provided that its dense-leaved nature remains intact. ,‫נָשר ּו רֹוב ָע ָליו ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ָהא ּגו ָּפא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬The Gemara wonders: This matter itself is difficult, as there is an ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ימת״‬ ֶ ֶ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ָּתנֵי ״ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ָעבוּתֹו ַקּי‬internal contradiction in this baraita. On the one hand, you said: ?‫יכי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחת ָל ּה‬ ִ ‫ דְּ נָ ְת ִרי ְלה ּו ְּת ֵרי – ָעבֹות ֵה‬If most of its leaves fell it is fit, and then the baraita taught: Provided that its dense-leaved nature remains intact. Once two of every three leaves fell, how can you find a branch whose denseleaved nature is intact? ‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחת ָל ּה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye said: You can find it

halakha

A dense-leaved myrtle branch and a wild myrtle branch – ‫ֹוטה‬ ֶ ‫ה ַדס ָעבֹות וַ ֲה ַדס ׁש‬:ֲ A myrtle branch, referred to in the Torah as “boughs of a dense-leaved tree,” is the species on which three leaves grow at each level of the stem. However, if two grow at one level and one below it, that is a wild myrtle branch, and it is unfit even after the fact. The Rema was lenient in the case of wild myrtle branches on which the leaves grow two at each level (Rabbi Yosef Colon ben Shlomo and others). Most later authorities (Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav) completely reject this opinion (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 646:3). If most of its leaves fell – ‫נָשר ּו רֹוב ָע ָליו‬: ְ ׁ According to most authorities, this halakha is dependent on the original configuration of the myrtle branch. The entire myrtle branch should have leaves emerging in the three-leaf configuration ab initio. However, one fulfills his obligation even if the leaves on most of the branch are tripled (Ra’avad). Even if one leaf fell from each group of three, leaving two, the myrtle branch is fit for use in performance of the mitzva after the fact, since most of the leaves remain (Taz, citing Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav; Mishna Berura). If the myrtle branch has more than three leaves at each level, even if most fell, since three remain, it is fit, in accordance with the statement of Abaye (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 646:4–5).

160 

Perek III . 32b . ‫בל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

background

Three-fold myrtle branch – ‫ה ַדס ְמ ׁ ֻש ָּל ׁש‬:ֲ

Wild myrtle branch – ‫ֹוטה‬ ֶ ‫ה ַדס ׁש‬:ֲ

Three-fold myrtle branch

Wild myrtle branch

Perek III Daf 33 Amud a ‫ימי ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ִ ְ‫ דְּ ָקי‬,‫ְ ּב ָא ָסא ִמצְ ָר ָאה‬ ‫ דְּ ִכי נָ ְת ִרי ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּ ָפ ׁש ּו ְלה ּו‬,‫ְ ּב ַחד ִק ָּינא‬ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ְּת ָל ָתא‬ .‫הֹוש ְענָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ָא ָסא ִמצְ ָר ָאה – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ְל‬

in an Egyptian myrtle branch,n which has seven leaves emerging from each and every base, as even when four leaves, the majority, fall, three remain, and its dense-leaved nature remains intact. Abaye said: Learn from it that the Sages hold that this Egyptian myrtle branch is fit for use as a hoshana in the mitzva of the four species.

‫יה‬ ִ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫הֹואיל וְ ִאית ֵל‬ ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ׁ ֵשם ְלוַ וי – ָלא ִמ ְת ַּכ ׁ ּ ֵשר‬ ‫״עץ ָעבֹות״ ָא ַמר‬ ֵ !‫ימא ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬.‫ָלן‬ .‫ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. It is a myrtle branch. Why would it be unfit? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since its name is accompanied by a modifier, i.e., it is not called simply a myrtle branch but an Egyptian myrtle branch, it is unfit. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is fit for use. The Gemara asks: And say it is indeed so, that since its name is accompanied by a modifier it is unfit. The Gemara answers: It is fit, as “dense-leaved tree” is stated by the Merciful One. As the Torah did not mandate the use of a specific species but rather listed an identifying characteristic, a tree with that characteristic is fit in any case, and the modifier is irrelevant.

‫נִש ֲאר ּו ּבֹו‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ ְיָב ׁש ּו רֹוב ָע ָליו ו‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬The Sages taught: If most of its leaves driedn and three branchh ‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬.‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַ ּבדֵּ י ָע ִלין ַל ִחין – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬es of moist leaves remained on it, it is fit. Rav Ĥisda said: And .‫ֹאש ָּכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬ ׁ ‫ ו ְּבר‬:‫ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬that is the ruling only if the moist leaves are at the top of each and every one of the branches. However, if the moist leaves are elsewhere on the branch, it is unfit. :‫ ָּתנֵי עו ָּּלא ַ ּבר ִח ָּיננָ א‬.‫ֹאשֹו״‬ ׁ ‫  § ״נִ ְק ַטם ר‬The mishna continues: If the top of the myrtle branch was .‫ֹאשֹו וְ ָע ְל ָתה ּבֹו ְּת ָמ ָרה – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ׁ ‫ נִ ְק ַטם ר‬severed, it is unfit. Ulla bar Ĥinnana taught: If the top of the myrtle branch was severed,h but a gallnut-like berry grew in that place, it is fit, as the berry fills the void and the top of the branch no longer appears severed. ‫ֹאשֹו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב יֹום‬ ׁ ‫ נִ ְק ַטם ר‬:‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: If the top was severed on the n ?ּ‫ ַמהו‬,‫ טֹוב וְ ָע ְל ָתה ּבֹו ְּת ָמ ָרה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬Festival eve, and the berry grew in that place on the Festival, what is the halakha? This dilemma is tied to a more fundamental, ?‫יֵ ׁש דִּ חוּי ֵאצֶ ל ִמצְ �ֹות אֹו ל ֹא‬ wide-ranging dilemma: Is there disqualification with regard to mitzvot or not? Because this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began, is the halakha that it is permanently disqualified and cannot be rendered fit? Or perhaps the halakha is that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Once the growth of the berry neutralizes the cause for the disqualification, the myrtle branch is again fit for use. ‫ ִּכ ָּסה ּו‬:‫יה ֵמ ָה א דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ ּ ‫וְ ִת ְפ ׁשֹוט ֵל‬ – ‫ ִּכ ָּסה ּו ָהרו ַּח‬,‫וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬.‫ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬ ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָחזַ ר‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ָחזַ ר וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה – ּ ָפטוּר‬,‫וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה‬ .‫ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬

notes

In an Egyptian [mitzra’a] myrtle branch – ‫ב ָא ָסא ִמצְ ָר ָאה‬: ְּ See Kappot Temarim, who prefers the second explanation of Rashi that this term refers to an Egyptian myrtle branch. According to Rashi’s first interpretation of this phrase, it refers to a myrtle branch that grows on the boundary [metzar] of the field. The term does not modify the myrtle branch. It simply denotes its location. The Gemara later explains: Abaye taught that this kind of myrtle branch is fit, because otherwise the thought would have been that the term is a modifier, rendering the myrtle branch unfit. Most of its leaves dried – ‫יָב ׁש ּו רֹוב ָע ָליו‬: ְ There are many different opinions with regard to this halakha. They depend on the understanding of certain terms in the Gemara. Some explain that most of the leaves of the myrtle branches dried, but three branches of moist leaves remain, meaning that on each of the three branches three leaves remain (Rashi). The Rid interprets the phrase similarly, though he understands the phrase: Most of its leaves, as referring to most of the myrtle branches bound with the lulav. Others explain that the term badei alin, branches of leaves, is not referring to myrtle branches, but rather to each point on the branch from which three leaves emerge. According to this understanding, there must be three branches, each with one completely fresh set of leaves (Me’iri), although the authorities disagree whether or not those leaves must be situated at the top of the branch (see Ran, Ritva, and others). If the top was severed on the Festival eve – ‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫נִ ְק ַטם ר‬ ‫מ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב‬:ֵ The Rid suggested a variant reading of the Gemara: If the top was severed and a berry grew in its place on the Festival. In other words, the Festival began with the myrtle branch fit for use, and it was only during the Festival that it was disqualified and then became fit again. See the Ritva, who rejects that reading. Covering the blood – ‫כיסוּי ַהדָּ ם‬:ִּ The mitzva of covering the blood appears in the Torah (Leviticus 17:13) and is discussed in tractate Ĥullin. One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird is obligated to cover the blood with dirt, and he recites a blessing prior to performing the act. Several details of the mitzva are clarified there: With what materials can one cover the blood, how much of the blood must be covered, and which blood must be covered.

The Gemara asks: And resolve this dilemma from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who slaughtered a nondomesticated animal or a bird and is obligated to cover the blood,n if he covered the blood and it was then uncovered,h he is exempt from the obligation to cover it a second time. However, if the wind blew dust and covered the blood and no person was involved, he is obligated to cover it. Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: They taught that he is obligated to cover the blood after the wind covered it only if the blood was then exposed. However, if it was not then exposed, he is exempt from the obligation to cover it.

halakha

And three branches of moist leaves remained on it – ‫נִש ֲאר ּו‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ו‬ ‫בֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַ ּבדֵּ י ָע ִלין ַל ִחין‬: ּ If most of the leaves on the myrtle branch dried, and one set of three fresh leaves remain at the top of each of the branches, it is fit. According to Rashi’s interpretation of the Gemara, this ruling is as per the baraita and Rav Ĥisda. Some explain that even if one fresh leaf remains in each set, it is fit (Tur, citing Rosh). The halakha is in accordance with the former opinion, as it was adopted by the prominent halakhic authorities (Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 646:8).



The top of the myrtle branch was severed – ‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ה ַדס ׁ ֶש ִנ ְּק ַטם ר‬:ֲ In the case of a myrtle branch whose top was severed or became completely dry, it is fit for use, even if no berry grew in its place. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon cited below (Rif; Rambam; Ramban; Rosh). The reference here is to the branch and not just the leaves (Ran). Some deem the myrtle unfit if its top is severed (Ra’avad; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Ran; Me’iri). When a myrtle branch without a severed top is available, one should rule stringently and not use one whose top is severed (Rema, citing Maggid Mishne; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 646:4).

Blood of a slaughtered animal that was uncovered – ‫דַּ ם‬ ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה‬ ָ ‫ש ִח‬: ְ ׁ One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird is obligated to cover its blood. If wind blows dirt that covers the blood, he is exempt from the obligation to cover it. However, if it is subsequently uncovered, he is then obligated to cover it. However, if one originally covered the blood, and it is subsequently uncovered, he is exempt. With regard to one who is obligated to cover the blood after it was uncovered, the later authorities disagreed whether he recites a blessing over that act (Magen Avraham) or not (Peri Ĥadash; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:11). ‫גל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 33a 

161

notes

Disqualification with regard to mitzvot – ‫דִּ חוּי ֵאצֶ ל ִמצְ וֹת‬: The concept of disqualification applies in the halakhot of offerings. Once an animal is consecrated, if it is then disqualified for some reason, this disqualification remains. Its legal status is that of an animal with a blemish that may not be sacrificed as an offering. The question here is whether this concept is applied to all mitzvot. With regard to objects designated for use in the fulfillment of a mitzva that were then disqualified for that use, is this object disqualified permanently even if the cause for the original disqualification is no longer in effect? In addition, the question is not merely whether the concept of disqualification applies to all mitzvot, but also at what point in time the disqualification must take effect in order for the object to be permanently disqualified. Merely designating certain objects for use in the fulfillment of a mitzva is not considered significant, i.e., it is not comparable to consecration of an offering. In order for disqualification to render an object permanently disqualified, a more definitive action is necessary.

162 

Perek III . 33a . ‫גל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

‫ ִּכי ָחזַ ר וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה ַא ַּמאי ַחּיָ יב‬:‫ וְ ָהוֵ ינַ ן ָ ּב ּה‬And we discussed this issue and asked: When it was then ex!‫הֹואיל וְ ִאידְּ ֵחי ִאידְּ ֵחי‬ ִ ?‫ ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬posed, why is he obligated to cover it a second time? Since it was disqualified, it should remain disqualified. When the wind covered the blood, he was exempt from covering the blood. If so, even if the blood is subsequently uncovered, he should remain exempt. Why then, is he obligated to cover the blood in that case? ‫אֹומ ֶרת ֵאין דִּ חוּי‬ ֶ ‫ זֹאת‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬And Rav Pappa said: That is to say that there is no disqualifican .‫ ֵאצֶ ל ִמצְ וֹת‬tion with regard to mitzvot. Once the cause of the exemption from the obligation is neutralized, one is once again obligated to fulfill the mitzva. Although there is disqualification with regard to offerings, that is not the case with regard to mitzvot. If so, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma is resolved. ‫יפ ׁ ִשיט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא גּ ו ָּפא ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ֵל‬ ‫ ָלא‬,‫יה דְּ ֵאין דִּ חוּי ֵאצֶ ל ִמצְ וֹת‬ ּ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ֵל‬ ‫ אֹו‬,‫ׁ ְשנָ א ְלקו ָּּלא וְ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ְלח ּו ְמ ָרא‬ – ‫ ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַס ּפו ֵּקי ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬:‫דִּ ְל ָמא‬ .ּ‫ ְלקו ָּּלא – ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן? ֵּתיקו‬,‫ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬

The Gemara answers: It is with regard to Rav Pappa’s resolution itself that Rabbi Yirmeya raised the dilemma. Is it obvious to Rav Pappa, based on the discussion with regard to the blood, that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot; and there is no difference whether that ruling leads to leniency, as in the case of a myrtle branch whose top was severed and a berry grew in its place, rendering it fit, and there is no difference whether that ruling leads to stringency, as in the case of the blood, where one is obligated to cover it anew? Or, perhaps the tanna was uncertain, and therefore, when that ruling leads to stringency, we say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot, and one must perform the mitzva. However, when that ruling leads to leniency, we do not say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma stands unresolved.

‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ ָע ַבר ו ְּל ָק ָטן – ּ ָפסוּל‬:‫ימא ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬,‫(בן) צָ דֹוק‬ ּ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ,‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא לו ָּלב ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ֶאגֶ ד‬:‫ְס ָברו ָּה‬ ‫לֹומר צָ ִריךְ ֶאגֶ ד – ָלא יָ ְל ִפינַן‬ ַ ‫וְ ִאם ִּת ְמצֵ י‬ ‫״ת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ וְ ל ֹא‬ ַּ ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב ָ ּב ּה‬,‫לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬ .‫ִמן ֶה ָע ׂשוּי‬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this matter of disqualification with regard to mitzvot is dependent upon a dispute of tanna’im, as a similar topic was taught in a baraita: If one transgressed and picked the berries that render the myrtle branch unfit on the Festival, it remains unfit; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok. The Sages deem it fit. The Gemara explains: Everyone, both tanna’im, agree that a lulav does not require binding. And even if you say that a lulav requires binding, nevertheless, we do not derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka. With regard to sukka it is written: Prepare it, from which it is derived, and not from that which is already prepared. The sukka must be established by means of an action, not one that was established by itself.

– ‫ דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָפ ֵסיל‬:‫ַמאי ָלאו ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן‬,‫ ָא ְמ ִרינַן יֵ ׁש דִּ חוּי ֵאצֶ ל ִמצְ וֹת‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ ‫ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן יֵ ׁש דִּ חוּי ֵאצֶ ל‬:‫דְּ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר ָס ַבר‬ !‫ִמצְ וֹת‬

What, is it not that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, and the Rabbis are disagreeing about the following? The one who deems the myrtle branch unfit, Rabbi Elazar, holds: We say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Since this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began because the berries outnumbered the leaves, reducing the number of berries will not render it fit. And the one who deems the myrtle branch fit, the Rabbis, holds: We do not say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Even though this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began, once the cause of the disqualification is neutralized, the myrtle branch is rendered fit for use in the performance of the mitzva.

‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן יֵ ׁש דִּ חוּי‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ֵמ ַילף לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬,‫ֵאצֶ ל ִמצְ וֹת‬ .‫ יָ ְל ִפינַן לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬:‫ ָמר ָס ַבר‬:‫ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ .‫ ָלא יָ ְל ִפינַן לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬:‫ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. No, one could say that everyone agrees that we do not say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. And here, it is with regard to deriving lulav from sukka that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, holds: We derive lulav from sukka. Just as a sukka must be rendered fit through building and not by means of an action taken after it was built, so too, a lulav must be rendered fit through binding and not by an action taken after it was bound. Since this myrtle branch was not rendered fit through binding but rather through the removal of the berries after it was bound, it is unfit. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: We do not derive lulav from sukka. Therefore, even if the lulav was rendered fit from that which is already prepared, it is fit.

ְ‫ ִאי ְס ִב ָירא ָלן לו ָּלב צָ ִריך‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ ,‫ֶאגֶ ד – דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא יָ ְל ִפינַן לו ָּלב ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬ ,‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫יך ֶאגֶ ד ָקא ִמ‬ ְ ‫וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּבלו ָּלב צָ ִר‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫ לו ָּלב‬:‫ו ִּב ְפלוּגְ ָּתא דְּ ָהנֵי ַּת ָּנ ֵאי; דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ָאגוּד ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָאגוּד ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ .‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָאגוּד – ּ ָפסוּל‬,‫ ָאגוּד ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ

And if you wish, say instead: If we hold that lulav requires binding, everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka. And here, it is with regard to whether or not a lulav requires binding that they disagree, and they disagree in the dispute of these tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow and whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound it is fit; if it is not bound it is unfit.

‫יחה״‬ ָ ‫״ל ִק‬ ְ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה? יָ ֵליף‬ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא‬.‫יחה״ ֵמ ֲאגוּדַּ ת ֵאזֹוב‬ ָ ‫״ל ִק‬ ְ ‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫אשֹון״‬ ׁ ‫״ו ְּל ַק ְח ֶּתם ָל ֶכם ַ ּבּיֹום ָה ִר‬ ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן‬,‫ ״ו ְּל ַק ְח ֶּתם ֲאגוּדַּ ת ֵאזֹוב״‬:‫ָה ָתם‬ ‫ ֵלית ְלה ּו‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫ֲאגו ָּדה – ַאף ָּכאן ֲאגו ָּדה‬ .‫יחה‬ ָ ‫יחה ְל ִק‬ ָ ‫ְל ִק‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: He derives the term taking written with regard to the four species from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop by means of a verbal analogy. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: “Take a bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, in the context of the four species: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook” (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. And the Rabbis hold: We do not derive the term taking from the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

‫ לו ָּלב ִמצְ וָ ה‬:‫ דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫ַמאן ְּתנָ א ְל ָהא‬ ‫ ַמ ּנִי? ִאי‬.‫ וְ ִאם ל ֹא ֲאגָ דֹו – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬,‫ְלאֹוגְ דֹו‬ ?‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ִּכי ל ֹא ֲאגָ דֹו ַא ַּמאי ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ִאי ַר ָ ּבנַן – ַמאי ִמצְ וָ ה ָקא ָע ֵביד? ְל‬ .‫ ו ִּמצְ וָ ה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ״זֶ ה ֵא ִלי וְ ַאנְ וֵ הוּ״‬,‫ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

On a related note, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught in the baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow with the lulav,h and if he did not bind it, it is fit? Whose opinion is it? If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when he did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what mitzva did he perform? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the reason that there is a mitzva to bind them is due to the fact that it is stated: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [ve’anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2), which they interpreted to mean: Beautify yourself [hitna’e] before Him in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render the lulav unfit for the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

halakha

There is a mitzva to bind the lulav – ‫לו ָּלב ִמצְ וָ ה ְלאֹוגְ דֹו‬: There is a mitzva to bind the lulav, myrtle branches, and willow branches together in order to enhance the beauty of the mitzva. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:1). notes

Our great rabbi – ‫ר ֵ ּבינ ּו ַה ָ ּגדֹול‬:ַ Rav Ĥisda used this term because he was among the younger students of Rav and also learned Torah from the older students of Rav, e.g., Rav Huna. He sought to emphasize that he learned this particular matter directly from his great rabbi, from Rav himself.

:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬.‫ § ״אֹו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ֲענָ ָביו ְמרו ִ ּּבין״‬The mishna continues: Or if its berries were more numerous b ‫ וְ ַה ָּמקֹום יִ ְהיֶ ה‬,‫ דָּ ָבר זֶ ה ַר ֵ ּבינ ּו ַה ָ ּגדֹול ֲא ָמרֹו‬than its leaves, it is unfit. Rav Ĥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi,n Rav, and may the Omnipresent ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬:‫ְ ּב ֶעזְ רֹו‬ come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only if .‫ִ ּב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם אֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְמקֹומֹות – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ the berries were concentrated in one place. However, if they were distributed in two or three places throughout the branch, it is fit. :‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to Rav Ĥisda:

background

Its berries were more numerous than its leaves – ‫ָהי ּו ֲענָ ָביו‬ ‫מרו ִ ּּבין ֵמ ָע ָליו‬:ְ

Myrtle branch with few leaves and many berries



‫גל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 33a 

163

Perek III Daf 33 Amud b halakha

Berries of the myrtle branch – ‫ענָ בֹות ֲה ַדס‬:With ֲ regard to a myrtle branch on which there are more berries than leaves, if the berries are green, it is fit. If the berries are black or red, it is unfit. If one has no other myrtle branch to use on the Festival, he may take one with red or black berries. However, he does not recite a blessing. The Rema, citing Beit Yosef, holds that after the first day it is fit in any case. Practically, the halakha is not in accordance with that opinion (see Taz and Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 646:2, 11).

,‫ ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ּו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְמקֹומֹות ָהוֵ י ְמנ ּו ָּמר‬If the berries are distributed in two or three places, the myrtle !‫ ו ָּפסוּל‬branch is speckled with different colors in different places. It lacks beauty and is certainly unfit. ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬:‫ ִאי ִא ְּת ַמר ָה ִכי ִא ְּת ַמר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ֲענָ ָביו ְמרו ִ ּּבין ֵמ ָע ָליו – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ,‫ דָּ ָבר זֶ ה ַר ֵ ּבינ ּו ַה ָ ּגדֹול ֲא ָמרֹו‬:‫ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא‬:‫וְ ַה ָּמקֹום יִ ְהיֶ ה ְ ּב ֶעזְ רֹו‬ – ‫ֲענָ ָביו ׁ ְשחֹורֹות ֲא ָבל ֲענָ ָביו יְ רו ּּקֹות‬ .‫ וְ ָכ ׁ ֵשר‬,‫ִמינֵי דַּ ֲה ַדס הוּא‬

notes

Berries on a myrtle branch render the myrtle branch unfit – ‫פסוּל ֲענָ בֹות ַ ּב ֲה ַדס‬:ְ ּ The Gemara never states explicitly why berries on a myrtle branch render it unfit. From the Gemara (see Rashi) it appears that it is unfit due to lack of beauty; since the berries are a different color, they detract from the beauty of the myrtle branch. However, from the Jerusalem Talmud it appears that there are two other issues. First, the berries transform the branch into something other than a myrtle branch, as the berries themselves are a different species. Second, the mitzva is to take boughs of a dense-leaved tree and not its fruits. Since the berries are black, they are a full-fledged fruit and render the myrtle branch unfit. ּ ָ ‫דָּ חוּי ֵמ ִע‬: It is clear Disqualification from the outset – ‫יק ָרא‬ that disqualification from the outset does not lead to permanent disqualification, even in other situations. There is nothing novel in that. However, it had yet to be proven whether or not an item that was already designated for the purpose of a mitzva and then became disqualified may be used in fulfillment of that mitzva after the cause of the disqualification ceases.

Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated as follows: Or, if its berriesh were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit.n Rav Ĥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to ripe, black berries, since they stand in stark contrast to the green leaves of the branch, which then appears speckled. However, if its berries are green, they are considered of the same type as the myrtle branch, as they are the same color. Consequently, the branch does not appear speckled, and therefore it is fit.

.‫ ֲאדו ּּמֹות ִּכ ׁ ְשחֹורֹות דָּ ְמיָ ין‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa said: The legal status of red berries is like that of black – ‫ ַהאי דָּ ם ׁ ָשחֹור‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ones, as Rabbi Ĥanina said: In the case of menstrual blood, this .‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָּל ָקה‬,‫ ָאדֹום הוּא‬black blood is actually red blood, except that it deteriorated. Red and black are considered two shades of the same color. ?‫ימת‬ ַ ‫ דְּ ַמ ֲע ִטינְ ה ּו ֵא‬.‫יע ָטן ָּכ ׁ ֵשר״‬ ֲ ‫״אם ִמ‬ ִ !‫יטא‬ ָ ‫יה – ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ָ ‫ִא ֵיל‬ ּ ‫יה דִּ ְל ַאגְ ֵד‬ ּ ‫ימא ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמ‬ ּ ָ ‫יה – דָּ חוּי ֵמ ִע‬ ‫יק ָרא‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ָב ַתר דִּ ְל ַאגְ ֵד‬ ּ ָ ‫הוּא! ִּת ְפ ׁשֹוט ִמ ָּינ ּה דָּ חוּי ֵמ ִע‬ ‫יק ָרא ָלא‬ !‫ָהוֵ י דָּ חוּי‬

§ The mishna continues: If he diminished their number, it is fit. The Gemara asks: This is a case where he diminished their number when? If you say that he did so before he bound the lulav, it is obvious that it is fit. When he performs the mitzva with it, the leaves outnumber the berries. Rather, it must be that he diminished their number after he bound the lulav with the other species. If so, it is a case of disqualification from the outset,n as it was unfit at the time that it was bound. Resolve from here the dilemma that was raised and conclude that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification.

‫ ֶאגֶ ד‬:‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Actually, it is a case where he ּ ‫עֹולם ָ ּב ַתר דְּ ַאגְ ֵד‬ ‫ וְ ַהזְ ָמנָ ה ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬,‫ ַהזְ ָמנָ ּה ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬diminished the number of berries after he bound it. And that Sage .‫ ָלאו ְּכלוּם הוּא‬holds that binding does not render the three bound species a lulav used for a mitzva. Rather, it is mere designation of the species for the mitzva, and mere designation is not anything of significance. The fact that the berries outnumbered the leaves at the time that it was bound is not disqualification from the outset, as binding is a stage prior to the outset. ‫ ָהא ָע ַבר‬.‫״וְ ֵאין ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטין ְ ּביֹום טֹוב״‬ ?‫ימת‬ ַ ‫ דְּ ַא ׁ ְשחוּר ֵא‬,‫ו ְּל ָק ָטן ַמאי – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫ימא דְּ ַא ׁ ְשחוּר ֵמ ֶא ְתמֹול – דָּ חוּי‬ ָ ‫ִא ֵיל‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ ‫ ִּת ְפ ׁשֹוט ִמ ָּינ ּה דָּ ח ּוי‬,‫יק ָרא הוּא‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ !‫יק ָרא דְּ ָלא ָהוֵ י דָּ חוּי‬

§ The mishna continues: But one may not diminish the number

on the Festival itself. The Gemara asks: But if one violated the prohibition and picked them, what is the halakha? The myrtle branch is fit, as the mishna prohibited doing so ab initio but did not deem it unfit. The Gemara clarifies: This is a case that the berries turned black when? If you say that they were black from yesterday, the Festival eve, the myrtle is disqualified from the outset, as it is unfit at the start of the Festival. If so, resolve from here that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification, as the mishna says that if one picked the berries, the myrtle branch is fit.

‫ נִ ְר ֶאה‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – דְּ ַא ׁ ְשחוּר ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬Rather, is it not that they turned black on the Festival itself and ‫ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ִמ ָּינ ּה נִ ְר ֶאה וְ נִ ְד ֶחה‬,‫ וְ נִ ְד ֶחה הוּא‬he picked them that day. That then is a case where the myrtle branch !‫ חֹוזֵ ר וְ נִ ְר ֶאה‬was fit and then disqualified, as at the start of the Festival the berries were green and only later turned black, rendering the myrtle branch unfit. Conclude from it that an item that was fit and then disqualified can then be rendered fit again, thereby resolving an unresolved dilemma. ּ ָ ‫עֹולם דְּ ַא ׁ ְשחוּר ֵמ ִע‬ ‫ דָּ חוּי‬,‫יק ָרא‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ ,‫יק ָרא דְּ ָלא ָהוֵ י דָּ חוּי – ִּת ְפ ׁשֹוט ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ‫ֲא ָבל נִ ְר ֶאה וְ נִ ְד ֶחה חֹוזֵ ר וְ נִ ְר ֶאה – ל ֹא‬ .‫ִּת ְפ ׁשֹוט‬

164 

Perek III . 33b . ‫גל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No, actually, it is a case where the berries turned black from the outset, prior to the Festival. Resolve from it that an item disqualified from the outset is not permanently disqualified. However, do not resolve the dilemma concerning whether an item that was fit and then disqualified can then be rendered fit, as no clear proof can be adduced from here.

,‫ ֵאין ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטין ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫יעזֶ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ָקא ְמ ַת ֵ ּקן ָמנָ א‬.‫ ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטין‬:ּ‫ָא ְמרו‬ !‫ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬

The Sages taught: One may not diminish the number of berries on the Festival to render the myrtle branch fit.h In the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, they said: One may diminish their number. The Gemara asks: But isn’t he preparing a vessel on a Festival, as he renders an unfit myrtle branch fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva?

,‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ְּל ָק ָטן ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫יעזֶ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָס ַבר ָל ּה‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ַּכ ֲאבו ּּה‬ .‫מו ָּּתר‬

Rav Ashi said: It is a case where he picked them for the purpose of eating them, as it is permitted to pick berries from a branch unattached to the ground, and preparing the myrtle branch for use is permitted because he did not intend to do so. And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who said: An unintentional act,n i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited labor inadvertently ensues, is permitted on Shabbat or on a Festival. Here too, one’s intention is to eat the berries. Although the myrtle branch is prepared for use in the process, picking the berries is permitted because that was not his intention.

:ּ‫ וְ ָהא ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ָר ָבא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬The Gemara challenges: But didn’t Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of: Cut off its head and will it ‫יה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִ ּב ְפ ִסיק ֵר‬ ֶ ּ ‫יש‬ !‫ וְ ל ֹא יָ מוּת‬not die? Even Rabbi Shimon, who says that an unintentional act is permitted, said so only in cases where the prohibited result is possible but not guaranteed. However, when a prohibited result is inevitable, just as death inevitably ensues from decapitation, the act is prohibited. In the case of picking berries off of a myrtle branch for food, one cannot claim that he did not intend for the prohibited result of preparing the myrtle branch for use to ensue. In this case, the myrtle branch will inevitably be rendered fit; how is this permitted? ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן דְּ ִאית ֵל‬The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he has another fit myrtle branch. Therefore, one is not .‫יתי‬ ִ ‫הֹוש ְענָ א ַא ֲח ִר‬ ַׁ considered to be preparing a vessel. Since the ultimate objective is to render the lulav and the accompanying species, which constitute the vessel in question, fit, and those species are already fit, picking the berries from the myrtle branch is not inevitable preparation of a vessel. Therefore, if one ate the berries, and the myrtle branch is thereby rendered fit, it is fit for use in the mitzva. ‫ ה ּו ַּתר ַא גְ דּ ֹו ְ ּביֹום‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּב נַ ן‬ .‫טֹוב – אֹוגְ דֹו ַּכ ֲאג ּודָּ ה ׁ ֶשל יָ ָרק‬ ‫יענַ ב! ָהא ַמ ּנִי‬ ַ ‫יה ִמ‬ ַ ‫וְ ַא ַּמאי? ֵל‬ ּ ‫יע ְּנ ֵב‬ ‫נִיבה‬ ָ ‫ ֲע‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה ִהיא‬ .‫יתא ִהיא‬ ָ ְ‫ְק ׁ ִש ָירה ְמ ַע ְּלי‬

§ The Sages taught: If the binding of the lulav was untied on the

Festival, one may bind it again. One may not bind it with a sophisticated knot as before, but with a knot like the one used in a binding of vegetables,n by merely winding the string around the species. The Gemara asks: But why merely wind it? Let him tie a bow, which is permitted on Shabbat or a Festival, as he is not tying an actual knot. The Gemara answers: Whose opinion is it in this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a bow is a full-fledged knot, and therefore it is prohibited to tie one on the Festival.

!‫יתא ָ ּב ֵעי‬ ָ ְ‫ ֶאגֶ ד ְמ ַע ְּלי‬,‫ ִאי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬The Gemara answers: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion ,‫יה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכו‬of Rabbi Yehuda, since he holds that a lulav requires binding, as he ּ ‫ות‬ .‫יה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא‬ ּ ‫ ו ָּפ ֵליג ֲע ֵל‬derived from the Paschal lamb, he requires the binding to be a fullfledged binding. How, then, can winding the string like the binding of vegetables suffice in fulfillment of the mitzva? The Gemara answers: This tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with his opinion in one matter, i.e., that a bow is a full-fledged knot, and disagrees with him in one matter, as the tanna holds that binding the species is merely to enhance the beauty of the mitzva, but it is not a Torah requirement. – ‫יב ׁ ָשה‬ ֵ ִ‫מתני׳ ֲע ָר ָבה ְ ּגזו ָּלה ו‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ל ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ׁ ֶש ל ִעיר‬,‫ּ ְפ ס ּו ָל ה‬ ,‫ֹאש ּה‬ ָ ׁ ‫ נִ ְק ַטם ר‬.‫ַה ִּנדַּ ַחת – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ .‫ וְ ַה ַ ּצ ְפצָ ָפה – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫נִ ְפ ְרצ ּו ָע ֶל‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ּ ְָשר ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ָע ֶל‬,‫ְּכמו ׁ ָּשה‬ .‫ַ ּב ַעל – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬



mishna 

A willow branch that was stolenh or is completely dryh is unfit.n One from a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira]h or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. If the top was severed,h or its leaves were severed,n or if it is the tzaftzafa, a species similar to, but not actually a willow, it is unfit. However, a willow branch that is slightly dried, and one that a minority of its leaves fell,h and a branch from a willow that does not grow by the river, but instead is from a nonirrigated field, is fit.

halakha

Diminishing the number of berries on the Festival – ‫מיעוּט ֲענָ בֹות ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬:ִ One may not diminish the number of berries by picking them on the Festival. However, if he did so, whether he did so in a permitted manner, i.e., someone else picked them to eat (Maggid Mishne; Taz; Magen Avraham; and others), or whether he did so in a prohibited manner, intentionally picking them to render the myrtle branch fit, the myrtle branch is fit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 646:26). A willow branch that was stolen – ‫ע ָר ָבה ְ ּגזו ָּלה‬:ֲ A stolen willow branch is unfit, as is the case with the other species (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:1). A willow branch that… is completely dry – ‫ע ָר ָבה… ֵיְב ׁ ָשה‬:ֲ If the majority of the leaves on a willow branch are completely dry, it is unfit. It is considered completely dry if it crumbles with the contact of a fingernail. Some say that a willow branch is considered completely dry only if its leaves have paled. If the leaves have slightly dried and wilted, the willow branch is fit. The tendency is to rule stringently with regard to willow branches, since they are in greater supply and more easily accessible (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 647:2). A willow branch…from a tree worshipped as idolatry, etc. – ‫ה…של ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה וכו׳‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ע ָר ָב‬:ֲ A willow branch worshipped as idolatry or from a city incited to worship idols is unfit, as is the case with the other species (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:3). A willow branch if the top was severed – ‫ה…נ ְק ַטם‬ ִּ ‫ֲע ָר ָב‬ ‫ֹאש ּה‬ ָ ׁ ‫ר‬: A willow branch whose top was severed, which according to most authorities means the top of the branch itself was severed, is unfit. The Rambam deems it fit, but common practice is to follow the first opinion. Some deem it unfit even if the top leaves, and not the top of the branch, are severed. Some seek to enhance performance of the mitzva by ensuring that the top leaf is intact (Responsa Givat Shaul; Ĥayyim UVrakha; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 647:2). A willow branch whose leaves fell – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ע ָר ָבה ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ּ ְָשר ּו ָע ֶל‬:ֲ If most of the leaves of a willow branch fell, it is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 647:2). notes

An unintentional act – ‫דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין‬: Rabbi Shimon’s statement primarily pertains to the halakhot of Shabbat. However, his general view is that intent is the most significant component in assessing an action. Therefore, if a permitted action will unintentionally have a prohibited result, it remains permitted. However, Abaye and Rava stated a caveat with regard to this halakha. If the prohibited result is inevitable, one cannot claim that the prohibition was unintentional. Rabbi Shimon concedes that in that case one is liable for performing the prohibited action. The commentaries and authorities disagreed as to whether or not Rabbi Shimon concedes in a case where one does not want the inevitable result. Like a binding of vegetables – ‫כ ֲאגוּדָּ ה ׁ ֶשל יָ ָרק‬:ַּ Rabbeinu Ĥananel explained that this is referring to taking several lulav leaves, winding them, and tying the other species to the lulav, in the manner that one ties a bundle of vegetables. Halakhot of the willow branch – ‫דִּ ינֵי ֲע ָר ָבה‬: Even though most halakhot of the willow branch are identical to the halakhot of the lulav and the myrtle branch, they are cited separately due to two halakhot unique to the willow: The tzaftzafa is unfit, and the willow branch that grows in a non-irrigated field is fit (Tosefot Yom Tov; Kappot Temarim). Its leaves were severed – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫נִ ְפ ְרצ ּו ָע ֶל‬: Some explain that this term is referring to a situation where all the leaves fell, whereas the term fell is referring to a case where only some of the leaves fell (Ra’avad and others). Others explain that this term is referring to a case where the leaves are partially detached (Maggid Mishne). Yet others explain that it means that the leaves split (Me’iri). ‫גל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 33b 

165

notes

Of the non-irrigated field and of the mountains – ‫ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל‬ ‫וְ ׁ ֶשל ָה ִרים‬: The word naĥal, which appears in the phrase: Willows of the brook, has two possible meanings. One is a water source, e.g., a river. The other is a wadi through which water flows sporadically. To counter conclusions that could be drawn from these definitions, the baraita enumerated willows that grow in non-irrigated fields, which suffice with rainwater, as opposed to willows irrigated by a water source, and willows that grow on a mountain, as opposed to willows that grow in a wadi (Rabbi Shmuel Strashun).

gemara 

The Sages taught: “Willows of the ‫״ע ְר ֵבי נָ ַחל״ – ַה ְ ּג ֵד ִילין‬ ַ :‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ brook” (Leviticus 23:40) means wil– ‫״ע ְר ֵבי נָ ַחל״‬ ַ :‫ דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫ַעל ַה ַּנ ַחל‬ lows that grow by the brook. Alternatively, “willows of the .‫ ׁ ֶש ָע ֶלה ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה ָמ ׁשוּךְ ַּכנַ ַחל‬brook” is an allusion to the tree in question. It is a tree whose leaf is elongated like a brook. ‫ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא‬.‫״ע ְר ֵבי נָ ַחל״‬ ַ : ְ‫ ַּתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬It was taught in another baraita: From “willows of the brook,” – ‫ ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל וְ ׁ ֶשל ָה ִרים ִמ ּנַיִ ין‬,‫ ַע ְר ֵבי נָ ַחל‬I have derived only actual willows of the brook that grow on of the non-ir.‫ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬,‫״ע ְר ֵבי נָ ַחל״‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬the banks of the brook. With regard to willows rigated field and willows of the mountains,n from where do I derive that they are fit as well? The verse states: “Willows of the brook,” in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit in any case.

Perek III Daf 34 Amud a notes

Ten saplings, etc. – ‫נְטיעֹות וכו׳‬ ִ ‫ע ֶ ׂשר‬:ֶ Rashi is of the opinion that these three halakhot are grouped together only because the Sages discussed them at the same time. Subsequently, they were always grouped together. However, according to Tosafot in Mo’ed Katan (4a), these halakhot were transmitted to Moses from Sinai together to teach that they are relevant only during the time of the Temple. I said that the Jewish people should be before Me as a plant placed by great waters – ‫יִש ָר ֵאל ְל ָפנַי ְּכ ָקח ַעל‬ ׂ ְ ‫ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ׁ ֶשּיְה ּו‬ ‫מיִ ם ַר ִ ּבים‬:ַ Some explain this verse homiletically: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted Israel to always be proximate to the waters of Torah, just as the willow branch grows by the brook, but they chose to draw inspiration from other sources (HaKotev).

,‫״ע ְר ֵבי״ – ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ ַ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ָ ּבא ׁ ָשאוּל‬Abba Shaul says: “Willows” in the plural teaches that there are .‫ ַא ַחת ַללּ ו ָּלב וְ ַא ַחת ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬two mitzvot that involve use of the willow branch. One is the willow branch for the lulav, and one is the willow branch taken for the Temple, with which the people would circle the altar on Sukkot. ‫ ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ְמנָ א ְלהוּ? ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְ ּג ִמ ִירי‬,‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.ּ‫ְלהו‬ – ‫נִיסו ְּך ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ ּ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ ֲע ָר ָבה‬,‫ֶע ֶ ׂשר נְ ִטיעֹות‬ .‫ֲה ָל ָכה ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמ ִּסינַי‬

And the Rabbis, who do not interpret the verse that way, from where do they derive the mitzva of the willow branch for the Temple? It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that they learned through tradition and not from a verse, as Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: There are three halakhot for which the Sages unsuccessfully sought a Torah source. The first is the halakha of ten saplings.nh There is a mitzva by Torah law to extend the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and to begin refraining from plowing thirty days before the Sabbatical Year begins. However, one may plow around individual saplings to sustain them. In a field that is one beit se’a, fifty by fifty cubits, in which there are ten evenly spaced saplings, it is permitted to plow the entire field until the onset of the Sabbatical Year to sustain the saplings. The second halakha is the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple.h And the third halakha is the mitzva of the water libationh on the altar, which accompanies the daily offerings each day of Sukkot, together with the daily wine libation. No Torah source was found for these halakhot, as each is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

‫״ע ְר ֵבי נָ ַחל״ – ַה ְ ּג ֵדילֹות‬ ַ :‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ּ ְפ ָרט ְלצַ ְפצָ ָפה ַה ְ ּג ֵד ָילה ֵ ּבין‬,‫ַעל ַה ַּנ ַחל‬ ‫״קח‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי ְק ָר ָא ּה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬.‫ֶה ָה ִרים‬ .‫ַעל ַמיִ ם ַר ִ ּבים צַ ְפצָ ָפה ָ ׂשמֹו״‬

The Sages taught an additional baraita: “Willows of the brook” is referring to those that grow by the river, which comes to exclude a tzaftzafa, which grows among the mountains and not near a brook. Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse from which the fact that the tzaftzafa is unfit is derived? It is derived from the reprimand that is written: “He placed it by great waters, and set it as a tzaftzafa” (Ezekiel 17:5). The Jewish people were planted like a willow on great waters, but ultimately became like a tzaftzafa. Apparently, a tzaftzafa does not grow on great waters.

‫ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ּ ְפר ּו ׁ ֵשי ָקא‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫״קח ַעל ַמיִ ם ַר ִ ּבים״ ו ַּמאי נִיה ּו‬ ָ ,‫ְמ ָפ ֵר ׁש‬ ‫״שמֹו״? ָא ַמר‬ ׂ ָ ‫״צַ ְפצָ ָפה״! ִאם ֵּכן ַמאי‬ ‫ ֲאנִי‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַה ָ ּק‬,ּ‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו‬ ‫ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ָפנַי ְּכ ָקח ַעל ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ וְ ֵהן ָ ׂשמ ּו ַעצְ ָמן‬.‫ ו ַּמאי נִיה ּו – ֲע ָר ָבה‬,‫ַר ִ ּבים‬ .‫ְּכצַ ְפצָ ָפה ׁ ֶש ֶ ּב ָה ִרים‬

Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: And perhaps the second part of the verse is merely explaining the first part, and it means: He placed it by great waters, and what is it that He placed there? It is a tzaftzafa. Rabbi Zeira answered: If so, and that is the meaning of the verse, what is the meaning of the term “set it”? Rather, the verse means that the willow branch was transformed into a tzaftzafa. That is how Rabbi Abbahu explained the verse, as Rabbi Abbahu said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said that the Jewish people should be before Me as a plant placedn by great waters, and what is that plant? It is a willow. And they set themselves as a tzaftzafa of the mountains.

halakha

Ten saplings – ‫נְטיעֹות‬ ִ ‫ע ֶ ׂשר‬:ֶ If ten saplings were spread evenly throughout an area of a beit se’a, two thousand five hundred square cubits, during the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle it is permitted to plow the area until the very beginning of the Sabbatical Year. The standard prohibition against plowing thirty days before the beginning of the Sabbatical Year is not in effect, as per a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 3:5). Willow branch in the Temple – ‫ע ָר ָבה ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:ֲ There is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai to bring a second willow branch to the Temple, in addition to the willow branches taken with the lulav (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:20). The water libation – ‫נִיסו ְּך ַה ַּמיִ ם‬: ּ On each of the seven days of the festival of Sukkot, a water libation is performed on the altar in addition to the wine libation. This is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 6:6).

166 

Perek III . 34a . ‫דל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

:‫נִיתא‬ ָ ‫ִא ָּיכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ְל ַהאי ְק ָרא ַא ַּמ ְת‬ ,‫״קח ַעל ַמיִ ם ַר ִ ּבים צַ ְפצָ ָפה ָ ׂשמֹו״‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ּ ְפרו ׁ ֵּשי ָקא‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ – ‫״קח ַעל ַמיִ ם ַר ִ ּבים״ ַמאי נִיה ּו‬ ָ ,‫ְמ ָפ ֵר ׁש‬ ‫״שמֹו״ – ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ׂ ָ ‫ ִאם ֵּכן ַמאי‬.‫צַ ְפצָ ָפה‬ ‫ ֲאנִי‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַה ָ ּק‬,ּ‫ַא ָ ּבהו‬ ‫ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ָפנַי ְּכ ָקח ַעל ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ וְ ֵהן ָ ׂשמ ּו ַעצְ ָמן‬,‫ ו ַּמאי נִיה ּו ֲע ָר ָבה‬,‫ַר ִ ּבים‬ .‫ַּכ ַ ּצ ְפצָ ָפה ׁ ֶש ֶ ּב ָה ִרים‬

Some taught this verse as the conclusion of the baraita and Rabbi Zeira raised the objection, and the response to his objection is unattributed: He placed it by great waters, and set it as a tzaftzafa. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects: And perhaps the second part of the verse is merely explaining the first part, and it means: He placed it by great waters, and what is it that He placed there? It is a tzaftzafa. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, and that is the meaning of the verse, what is the meaning of the term “set it”? Rabbi Abbahu said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said that the Jewish people should be before Me as a plant placed by great waters, and what is that plant? It is a willow. And they set themselves as a tzaftzafa of the mountains.

?‫ ִאי זֶ ה ּו ֲע ָר ָבה וְ ֵאיזֶ ה ּו צַ ְפצָ ָפה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ וְ ָע ֶלה ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה‬,‫ֲע ָר ָבה ָקנֶ ה ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה ָאדֹום‬ ‫ ָקנֶ ה ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה‬,‫ צַ ְפצָ ָפה‬.‫יה ָח ָלק‬ ָ ‫ ו ִּפ‬,‫ָמ ׁשו ְּך‬ .‫ֹומה ְל ַמ ָ ּגל‬ ֶ ּ‫ ו ִּפ ָיה ד‬,‫ וְ ָע ֶלה ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה ָעגֹול‬,‫ָל ָבן‬ ‫ֹומה‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬,‫ֹומה ְל ַמ ָ ּגל – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬:‫וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ ִּכי ַּתנְ יָ א‬:‫ְל ַמ ָּסר – ּ ָפסוּל! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ .‫ַה ִהיא – ְ ּב ִח ְיל ָפא ִ ּג ָילא‬

Apropos the defining characteristics of the willow branch, in contrast to similar species that are unfit, the Sages taught: What is a willow and what is a tzaftzafa?bnh With regard to a willow branch, its stem is red, and its leaf is elongated, and the edge of its leaf is smooth. With regard to a tzaftzafa, its stem is white, its leaf is round, and the edge of its leaf is serrated like a sickle. The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If the edge of its leaf is serrated like a sickleb it is fit, but if it is serrated like a saw,bn whose teeth are uneven in both size and sequence, it is unfit? Abaye said: When that baraita was taught, it was referring to a particular type of willow called ĥilfa gila, whose leaves are serrated. However, all other types of willow branches have leaves with a smooth edge.

‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ַהאי ִח ְיל ָפא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫הֹוש ְענָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ִ ּג ָילא ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ְל‬ – ‫יה ׁ ֵשם ְלוַ וי‬ ִ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ֵת‬ ּ ‫הֹואיל וְ ִאית ֵל‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ל ֹא נִ ְת ַּכ ׁ ּ ֵשר‬

Abaye said: Conclude from it that this ĥilfa gila is fit for use in the hoshana of the four species. The Gemara wonders: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since its name is accompanied by a modifier, as it is called ĥilfa gila, it should not be unfit. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is fit.

background

Willow branch and tzaftzafa – ‫ע ָר ָבה וְ צַ ְפצָ ָפה‬:ֲ Even though the mishna and the Gemara provide many indicators to distinguish between the willow branch and the tzaftzafa, botanists disagree with regard to their precise identification. Apparently, the two trees are species of willow and come from the Salix genus. Neither tree grows particularly high, although they grow rapidly. In both species, there are many variations and there are species that are hybrids of the two.

Willow branch The tzaftzafa, however, is one of the species of willow that is most distant from the willow fit for use in performing the mitzva, both in the shape of its leaves and its branches. It is apparently one of the forms referred to today as the white willow, Salix alba L.

‫״ע ְר ֵבי נָ ַחל״ ָא ַמר‬ ַ ?‫ימא ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: And say it is indeed so, that since its name is .‫ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬,‫ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬accompanied by a modifier it is unfit. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One states: “Willows of the brook,” in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit in any case. White willow Teeth of a sickle – ‫שינֵי ַמ ָ ּגל‬: ִׁ

notes

Willow branch and tzaftzafa – ‫ע ָר ָבה וְ צַ ְפצָ ָפה‬:ֲ The halakhic authorities and commentaries discussed whether the identifying characteristics of the willow branch or the tzaftzafa are precise (see Arukh LaNer and Sefat Emet). In other words, is a willow branch fit only if it bears all three distinguishing indicators? Apparently, based on the discussion with regard to the ĥilfa gila, not all of the indicators are necessary, as the edge of the ĥilfa gila is serrated.

Like a sickle…like a saw – ‫ֹומה ְל ַמ ָּסר‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹומה ְל ַמ ָ ּגל…ד‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬: There are many different and even contradictory versions of this statement in the Tosefta and in the Jerusalem Talmud. It is possible, however, to reconcile all the different versions, albeit with some difficulty, if one says that there are several different types of willows under discussion here, being that there exist many different species of willow, of tzaftzafa, and of hybrids combining the two.

halakha

Willow branch and tzaftzafa – ‫ע ָר ָבה וְ צַ ְפצָ ָפה‬:ֲ The willows of the brook mentioned in the Torah is the species of the same name. Its leaf is elongated, the edge of its leaf is smooth, and the stem from which the leaves grow is red. However, if the stem is green, it is fit (Beit Yosef ). Most of this species grows on riverbanks. Nevertheless, a willow that grows elsewhere is also fit. There is another species of willow called ĥilfa gila that is also



fit. It is like a regular willow branch, except that its leaves have a serrated edge, with small, even teeth like those on a sickle. However, a tzaftzafa, whose leaves are round, and the edge of whose leaf is serrated unevenly with teeth like those of a saw, and whose stem is not red, is not fit, since it is not a species of willow. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 647:1).

Sickle with serrated teeth Teeth of a saw – ‫שינֵי ַמ ּ ׂשֹור‬: ִׁ

Saw with uneven, serrated teeth ‫דל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 34a 

167

notes

Their names changed – ‫א ׁ ְש ַּת ּנֵי ׁ ְש ַמיְ יה ּו‬:ִ This passage was cited here in support of Abaye’s opinion that a ĥilfa gila is a type of willow branch. Despite the fact that the tzaftzafa could certainly have been called ĥilfa, as the name ĥilfeta suggests, the names were changed in the common usage of the people, and ĥilfa refers to a willow branch. A needle that is found in the thick wall of the second compartment of the stomach – ‫עֹובי ֵ ּבית ַה ּכֹוסֹות‬ ִ ‫מ ַחט ַה ִּנ ְמצָ א ְ ּב‬:ַ A hole in the wall of any of several organs in the body of an animal, e.g., the heart, renders it a tereifa. Occasionally, a needle can be found to be stuck in the wall of an organ, but it is unclear whether it penetrated all the way through the wall or not. Alternatively, it can be unclear whether its presence in one side will lead to it ultimately penetrating the other side, rendering the animal a tereifa.

ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת ִמ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ילי‬ ‫ִא ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּני ׁ ְש ַמיְ יה ּו ִמ ִּכי ָח ַרב ֵ ּבית‬ ‫ ֲע ָר ָב ָתא‬,‫ ַח ְל ָפ ָתא ֲע ָר ָב ָתא‬:‫ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ .‫ ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ַללּ ו ָּלב‬.‫ַח ְל ָפ ָתא‬

Apropos the branches of the willow and the tzaftzafa, the Gemara cites what Rav Ĥisda said: These three objects’ names changedn since the Temple was destroyed. That which was called willow was called in later generations ĥalfata, which is another name for tzaftzafa, and that which was called ĥalfata was called willow. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the name change? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to the mitzva of taking the lulav, as one of the species bound with the lulav is a willow branch, which is now called tzaftzafa.

‫יפ ּו ָרא ֲח צֹוצְ ְר ָתא ֲח צֹוצְ ְר ָתא‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ִש‬In addition, that which was called trumpet was called shofar in ‫ ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְל ׁש ָֹופר‬,‫ ׁ ִש ּיפו ָּרא‬later generations, and that which was called shofar was called .‫ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ ׁ ֶשל ר‬trumpet in later generations. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference whether a shofar is called shofar or trumpet? The Gemara answers: It is significant with regard to the halakhot of shofar of Rosh HaShana. On Rosh HaShana, one fulfills his obligation only by sounding a shofar. If one comes today and asks what instrument he should use to sound the requisite blasts, he should be told to use a trumpet. ,‫תֹור ָתא‬ ָ ‫תֹורא ּ ְפ‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ‬,‫תֹורא‬ ָ ‫תֹור ָתא ּ ְפ‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ‬Also, that which was originally called petora was called in later .‫ ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְל ִמ ָ ּקח ו ִּמ ְמ ָּכר‬generations by the name previously used for a small table, petorata, and a petorata was called petora. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the change of name? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to the halakhot of buying and selling. One who orders a petora should know that he ordered a small table and not a large one. ‫ ֵ ּבי ָכ ֵסי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י ַאף ֲאנִי‬Abaye said: I too shall speak of changes in the meaning of .‫ הו ְּב ִל ָילא ֵ ּבי ָכ ֵסי‬,‫ הו ְּב ִל ָילא‬terms in this generation. That which was called huvlila, the first compartment of the stomach of animals that chew their cud, is, in recent generations, called bei kasei, the name of the second compartment of the animal’s stomach. Similarly, that which was once called bei kasei is called huvlila in recent generations. ‫ ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְל ַמ ַחט ַה ִּנ ְמצָ א‬What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this .‫עֹובי ֵ ּבית ַה ּכֹוסֹות‬ ִ ‫ ְ ּב‬change of names? It is with regard to a needle that is found in the thick wall of the second compartment of the stomach.n In the halakhot of tereifot, it is prohibited to eat animals with a life expectancy of less than a year. It was established that if a needle punctures the wall of the second compartment of the stomach from only one side, the animal is kosher. If the needle penetrates the wall in a manner visible from both sides, the animal assumes the halakhic status of a tereifa. In the first stomach, even if the needle penetrated only one side of the wall, the animal assumes the halakhic status of a tereifa. Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish between the first and the second compartments of the stomach. :‫אֹומר‬ ַ ‫יֹוסף ַאף ֲאנִי‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ַ ּבר‬Rava bar Yosef said: I too shall speak of changes in the meaning ‫ ְל ַמאי‬,‫ ּבו ְּר ִסיף ָ ּב ֶבל‬,‫ ָ ּב ֶבל ּבו ְּר ִסיף‬of terms in this generation. The city that in biblical times was called Babylon was called Bursif in later generations, and Bursif was called Babylon in later generations. The Gemara asks: What is

Perek III Daf 34 Amud b .‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫יטי‬ ֵּ ִ‫ נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְלג‬the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? It is in the area of women’s bills of divorce. With regard to bills of divorce, special care is devoted to ensuring that the name of the place where the bill is written is not altered. Therefore, it is important to be aware that Babylon underwent a name change in later generations.

168 

Perek III . 34b . ‫דל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ‫ֲה ַד ִּסים ּו ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲע ָרבֹות ל ּו ָלב ֶא ָחד‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫וְ ֶא ְתרֹוג ֶא ָחד‬ ‫יל ּו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ְקטו ִּמים‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬.‫וְ ֶא ָחד ֵאינֹו ָקטוּם‬ ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬.‫יל ּו ׁ ְש ָל ׁ ְש ָּתן ְקטו ִּמים‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ּלו ָּלב ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ ָּכךְ ֲה ַדס ֶא ָחד וַ ֲע ָר ָבה ַא ַחת‬,‫ֶא ָחד‬

mishna 

Rabbi Yishmael says: The mitzva of the four species h is to take three myrtle branches, and two willow branches, one lulav, and one etrog.h With regard to the myrtle branches, even if the tops of two are severedn and the top of one is not severed, it is fit. Rabbi Tarfon says: Even if the tops of all three are severed, it is fit. Rabbi Akiva says with regard to the number of each of the species: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too there is one myrtle branch and one willow branch.

gemara 

‫״פ ִרי‬ ְ ּ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬,‫גמ׳ ַּתנְיָא‬ – ‫״כ ּפֹת ְּת ָמ ִרים״‬ ַּ ,‫ֵעץ ָה ָדר״ – ֶא ָחד‬ ‫״ע ְר ֵבי‬ ַ ,‫״ענַ ף ֵעץ ָעבֹות״ – ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ֲ ,‫ֶא ָחד‬ ,‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ְקטו ִּמים‬,‫נָ ַחל״ – ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬.‫וְ ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָקטוּם‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ְש ָל ׁ ְש ָּתן ְקטו ִּמים‬,‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ּלו ָּלב ֶא ָחד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יבא‬ ָ ‫ֲע ִק‬ ‫וְ ֶא ְתרֹוג ֶא ָחד ָּכ ְך ֲה ַדס ֶא ָחד וַ ֲע ָר ָבה‬ .‫ַא ַחת‬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: “The fruit of a beautiful tree” (Leviticus 23:40); that is one etrog. “Branches of a date palm”; that is one lulav. Based on tradition, kappot is written without the letter vav. Although the word is vocalized in the plural, the lack of the vav indicates that only one is required. “Boughs of a denseleaved tree”; these are three, as the verse is referring to a branch with several stems. “Willows of the brook”; these are two, as it is plural. Even if the tops of two are severed and the top of one is not severed, it is fit. Rabbi Tarfon says: Even if the tops of all three are severed, it is fit. Rabbi Akiva says: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too, there is one myrtle branch and one willow branch.

‫ יָ כֹול יְ ֵהא ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ וְ ִכי‬:‫ִע ָּמ ֶהן ַ ּב ֲאגו ָּדה ַא ַחת? ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬ ?‫״פ ִרי ֵעץ ָה ָדר וְ ַכ ּפֹת ְּת ָמ ִרים״‬ ְ ּ ‫נֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫ ו ִּמ ּנַיִ ן‬.‫״כ ּפֹת״‬ ַּ ‫וַ ֲהל ֹא ל ֹא נֶ ֱא ַמר ֶא ָּלא‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַע ְּכ ִבין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫יחה ַּת ָּמה‬ ָ ‫״ו ְּל ַק ְח ֶּתם״ – ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ְל ִק‬

Rabbi Eliezer said to him that the species cannot be equated. I might have thought that the etrog should be bound with the other species in one bundle. However, you could say in response: Does it say: The fruit of a beautiful tree and branches of a date palm, with the conjunction joining them? Doesn’t it say only “branches of a date palm,” without a conjunction? That indicates that the etrog is taken separately from the other three species, which are joined in the verse by conjunctions: Branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, are taken together. And from where is it derived that failure to take each of the species prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others?h The verse states: “And you shall take [ulkaĥtem],” from which it is derived based on the etymological similarity that it shall be a complete taking [lekiĥa tamma] consisting of all the species.

‫ימין‬ ִ ‫ ִאי ׁ ְש ֵל‬: ְ‫ ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשך‬,‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ‫ ִאי ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי‬,ּ‫יב ֵעי נַ ִמי ּכו ְּּלהו‬ ּ ָ ‫ָ ּב ֵעי – ִל‬ ּ ‫ימין – ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ַחד נַ ִמי ָלא! ָא ַמר‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ֵל‬ ‫ ָחזַ ר ּבֹו ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ִ ּב ָיר ָאה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ .‫יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who deems the lulav fit even if the tops of two of the myrtle branches were severed, whichever way you look at it, his statement is problematic. If he requires whole myrtle branches, and those whose tops are severed do not fill the criterion of beauty, let him require all of them to be whole. And if he does not require whole myrtle branches, even one branch should not be required to be whole either, as Rabbi Tarfon said. The Sage Bira’a said that Rabbi Ami said: Rabbi Yishmael retractedn his statement. He concedes that, fundamentally, only one myrtle branch is required, and that branch must be whole.

‫ ֲה ָל ָכה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָאזְ ָדא ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬.‫ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬ ‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ָהנְ ה ּו דִּ ְמזַ ְ ּבנִי‬ ‫ישנָ א‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ִאי ָלא – דָּ ֵר‬,ּ‫ ַא ׁ ְשו ּו וְ זַ ִ ּבינו‬:‫ָא ָסא‬ .‫ְלכ ּו ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. And Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said to those who were selling myrtle branches: Equate the price that you demand for myrtle branches to their value and sell your myrtle branches. And if you do not do so and overcharge, I will teach the halakha in public for you in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who allows the use of myrtle branches whose tops are severed.

– ‫ימא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֵמ ֵיקל‬ ָ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ִא ֵיל‬ !‫רֹוש ְלה ּו ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא דְּ ֵמ ֵיקל ְט ֵפי‬ ׁ ‫וְ ִל ְיד‬ ‫ ַחד וְ ל ֹא‬,‫יחי‬ ִ ‫ְּת ָל ָתא ְקט ּו ֵמי – ׁ ְש ִכ‬ .‫ָקטוּם – ל ֹא ׁ ָש ִכ ַיח‬

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shmuel said that to them? If you say it is because Rabbi Tarfon is lenient in his ruling, let him say to them that he will teach the halakha in public for them in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who is even more lenient in his ruling, as he requires only one myrtle branch. The Gemara answers: That is not the case, as three myrtle branches whose tops are severed are common, but one com­plete myrtle branch whose top is not severed is not common. In practical terms, Rabbi Tarfon’s ruling is the more lenient.n



halakha

The four species – ‫א ְר ַ ּב ַעת ַה ִּמינִים‬:ַ One takes one lulav, two willow branches, three myrtle branches, and one etrog ab initio. If he took one willow branch, he is required to bring a second one and repeat the blessing (Birkei Yosef; Knesset HaGedola). In exigent circumstances, one fulfills his obligation with one myrtle branch, provided it is complete, in accordance with the understanding of Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion after his retraction (Rema; Beit Yosef, citing Ritva; Mordekhai ; Rabbi Eliezer ben Natan; and others). The later authorities disagreed whether it is appropriate to recite a blessing in that case. The Peri Megadim and Yeshuat Ya’akov wrote that one recites a blessing. According to Magen Avraham one may, in exigent circumstances, rely on the Ramban, who says that one may take even one severed myrtle branch, although in that case one certainly does not recite a blessing (Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:1). Adding species – ‫הֹוס ָפה ׁ ֶשל ִמינִים‬: ָ It is prohibited to add a fifth species to the other four, due to the prohibition against adding to mitzvot. Similarly, one may not take more than one lulav or etrog. However, it is permitted to add as many willow branches and myrtle branches as one chooses (Tosafot, and apparently the Jerusalem Talmud, and some say this is the opinion of the Rambam as well). Some prohibit adding a wild myrtle branch, as it is considered a separate species (Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot). However, more authorities permit doing so (ge’onim and others). It was the custom of the ge’onim in Babylonia to add multiple myrtle and willow branches (see Me’iri, Tur, Haggahot Maimoniyyot, and others). The Shulĥan Arukh wrote that those who perform mitzvot fastidiously do not add to the amounts in the mishna (see Levush). However, there were those who would add multiple myrtle branches, even as many as sixty-eight, the numerological value of the word lulav; sixty nine, the numerical value of hadas, myrtle; or seventy, corresponding to the number of bulls sacrificed over the course of Sukkot. In the Yemenite community, it is a widespread custom to add myrtle branches to enhance the beauty of the four species (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:14–15). Failure to take each of the species prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others – ‫מ ַע ְּכ ִבין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה‬:ְ Failure to take the four species prevents fulfillment of the mitzva as per the baraita and the Gemara in tractate Menaĥot. If one of the species is missing, one does not recite a blessing over the others. However, one should take the other ones to commemorate the mitzva, both on the first day as well as the other days (Rosh; Rabbeinu Yeruĥam; Rabbi Yosef Colon ben Shlomo). If one has all four species and takes them individually and not together, he fulfills his obligation, as long as they are all in front of him at the time (Rema, based on the Rambam). In that case, one takes the lulav first and recites the blessing over it (Rosh; Ran; Rashba). If he interrupts by speaking between taking of the species, he must recite the blessing over each (Haggahot Maimoniyyot; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:12). notes

Severed – ‫קטו ִּמים‬:ְ The talmudic commentaries and the halakhic authorities dealt with the relationship between this mishna and those that preceded it. Due to apparent redundancy, they explained that in this context the word severed is not referring to the top being severed; rather, it refers to the fact that the branch did not grow directly from the ground but was an offshoot of a branch that grew in the ground (Ra’avad; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; see Ritva and others). Rabbi Yishmael retracted – ‫חזַ ר ּבֹו ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬:ָ The early authorities disagreed whether the meaning here is that he originally required three myrtle branches and now requires only one, or that he originally required complete myrtle branches and now permits severed myrtle branches as well (Rashi; Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Ritva). The halakha of severed with regard to a myrtle branch – ‫קטו ִּמים ַ ּב ֲה ַדס‬:ְ The Sages permitted use of a severed myrtle branch, since at times it grows that way naturally, e.g., when a berry grows on top (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). ‫דל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 34b 

169

halakha

An etrog that was stolen – ‫א ְתרֹוג ַה ָ ּגזוּל‬: ֶ A stolen etrog is unfit, as is the case with the other species (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:1). An etrog that…is completely dry – ‫רֹוג…ה ֵּיָב ׁש‬ ַ ‫א ְת‬:ֶ An etrog that is completely dry is unfit. It is unfit when no moisture remains in the etrog. This can be tested by passing a needle and thread through the etrog. If the thread comes out moist, the etrog is fit. This should be performed on the side of the etrog, not through the middle (Taz). An etrog from a previous year is considered completely dry and is unfit (Rema, citing Terumat HaDeshen; others). Some say that if one kept that etrog in a cool place it may be fit, as long as it passes the test (Bikkurei Ya’akov; see Baĥ, Eliya Rabba, and Taz; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:1). An etrog…from a tree worshipped as idolatry or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry – …‫ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ‫של ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ׁ ֶשל ִעיר ַה ּנִדַּ ַחת‬: ֶ ׁ An etrog from a tree worshipped as idolatry or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit on all the days of Sukkot (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:3). An etrog…that is green – ‫רֹוג…הּיָ רֹוק‬ ַ ‫א ְת‬: ֶ An etrog that is green like the color of grass is unfit. Most authorities hold that if it is clear that, left alone, its color will eventually change to the standard color, it is fit even while green. However, one should ensure that there is at least some yellow in it (see Taz, Magen Avraham, and Vilna Gaon). The optimal and most beautiful color is yellow like wax, though some insist that the etrog have at least some green, in accordance with the Zohar (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:21). Size of the etrog – ‫ ּג ֶֹדל ָה ֶא ְתרֹוג‬: An etrog smaller than an egg is unfit, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion in disputes with Rabbi Meir. The etrog is measured by volume, so a long, thin etrog is fit, though some rule stringently in this regard. One should take an etrog larger than an egg-bulk ab initio. An egg-bulk is slightly more than 58 g (Rav Ĥayyim Na’e), or approximately 100 g (according to the Ĥazon Ish). There is no maximum limit for the size of an etrog, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion in disputes with Rabbi Yehuda (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:22).

.‫מתני׳ ֶא ְתרֹוג ַה ָ ּגזוּל וְ ַהּיָ ֵב ׁש – ּ ָפסוּל‬ .‫ׁ ֶשל ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ׁ ֶשל ִעיר ַה ִּנדַּ ַחת – ּ ָפסוּל‬ – ‫ ׁ ֶשל ְּתרו ָּמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬.‫ׁ ֶשל ָע ְר ָלה – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ,‫הֹורה – ל ֹא יִ ּטֹול‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶשל ְּתרו ָּמה ְט‬.‫ּ ָפסוּל‬ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬,‫ ׁ ֶשל דְּ ַמאי‬.‫נָטל – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ַ ‫וְ ִאם‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬.‫ֹוס ִלין ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬ ְ ‫ּפ‬ – ‫נָטל‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִאם‬,‫ׁ ֵשנִי ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם – ל ֹא יִ ּטֹול‬ .‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬

,‫ נִ ְּט ָלה ּ ִפ ְט ָמתֹו‬,‫ָע ְל ָתה ֲחזָ זִ ית ַעל רו ּּבֹו‬ ּ ַ ,‫נִסדַּ ק‬ – ‫נִיקב וְ ָח ֵסר ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ְ ,‫נִ ְק ַלף‬ ‫ נִ ַּטל‬,‫ ָע ְל ָתה ֲחזָ זִ ית ַעל ִמיעוּטֹו‬.‫ּ ָפסוּל‬ ּ ַ ,‫עו ְּקצֹו‬ .‫נִיקב וְ ל ֹא ָח ַסר ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ וְ ַהּיָ רֹוק ַּכ ַּכ ְר ִּתי‬.‫ֶא ְתרֹוג ַה ּכו ׁ ִּשי ּ ָפסוּל‬ ‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר‬.‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ֵמ ִאיר ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ּפ‬ ,‫ ָּכ ֶאגֹוז‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג ַה ָ ּק ָטן ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ ו ְּבגָ דֹול – ְּכ ֵדי‬,‫ ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ .‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ֹאחז ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ַ ‫ׁ ֶשּי‬ .‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֶא ָחד ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי יָ ָדיו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬

mishna 

An etrog that was stolenh or is completely dryh is unfit. One from a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatryh is unfit. An etrog that is fruit that grew on a tree during the three years after it was planted [orla] is unfit, because it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from it. An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. With regard to an etrog of pure teruma,b one may not take it ab initio, and if one took it, it is fit, and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. With regard to an etrog of demai,b which is produce acquired from an am ha’aretz, who does not reliably tithe his produce, Beit Shammai deem it unfit, and Beit Hillel deem it fit. With regard to an etrog of second titheb in Jerusalem, one may not take it ab initio; and if he took it, it is fit.

If boil-like blemishes arose on the majority of the etrog; if its pestle-like protuberance on the upper, blossom end was removed; if the etrog was peeled, split, or pierced and is missing any amount, it is unfit. However, if boil-like blemishes arose only on its minority; if its stem, which connects it to the tree, was removed; or it was pierced but is not missing any amount, it is fit. A Cushite etrog, which is black like a Cushite, is unfit. And with regard to an etrog that is leek green,h Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit. What is the minimum measure of a small etrog? Rabbi Meir says: It may be no smaller than a walnut-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be no smaller than an egg-bulk. And in a large etrog, the maximum measure is so that one could hold two in his one hand;n this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is fit even if it is so large that he can hold only one in his two hands.h

notes

Two in his one hand – ‫שנַיִ ם ְ ּביָ דֹו‬: ְ ׁ The ge’onim and many others had a variant reading: Both of them in his hand (Rav Hai Gaon and others). The version in the Gemara is referring to two etrogim, which is difficult. Why would one need two? The version of the ge’onim is referring to the etrog and the lulav held together in one hand (see Ran).

background

Teruma – ‫תרו ָּמה‬:ְּ Whenever the term teruma appears without qualification, it refers to the great teruma. The Torah commands: “The first fruit of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil” (Deuteronomy 18:4) should be given to the priest (see also Numbers 18:12). The Sages extended the scope of this mitzva to include all produce. This mitzva applies only in Eretz Yisrael. After the first fruits have been separated, a certain portion of the produce must be separated for priests. The Torah does not specify the amount of teruma that must be separated; one may theoretically fulfill one’s obligation by separating even a single kernel of grain from an entire crop. The Sages instituted a recommended measure: One-fortieth for a generous gift, one-fiftieth for an average gift, and one-sixtieth for a miserly gift. One may not separate the other tithes before separating teruma. Teruma is sacred and may be eaten only by a priest and his household while they are in a state of ritual purity (see Leviticus 22:9–15). If teruma becomes ritually impure, it may no longer be eaten and must be burned. Nevertheless, it remains the property of the priest and he may benefit from its burning. Today, teruma is not given to the priests, because they can provide no definite proof of their priestly lineage. Nevertheless, the obligation to separate teruma remains. However, only a minuscule portion of the produce is separated.

having separated the various tithes as required by halakha. The literal meaning of the word demai is suspicion, as it refers to produce about which there is suspicion that tithes were not taken. In the Second Temple period, the Sages decreed that produce of that kind should be accorded uncertain status. Although the owner claims that he separated the tithes, the buyer must tithe it himself. Nevertheless, since the presumptive status of the produce is that it was in fact tithed, certain leniencies were permitted with regard to eating and using doubtfully tithed produce.

Second tithe – ‫מ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬:ַ This tithe is set aside after the teruma is given to the priests and the first tithe had been given to the Levites. Second tithe was given during the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle. After second tithe was separated, it was brought to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner. If the journey to Jerusalem was long, rendering the transport of the produce there difficult, or if the produce became ritually impure, it could be redeemed for an equivalent sum of money. If the owner redeemed his own produce, he was obligated to add one-fifth of its value to the price of redemption. He then took the money to Jerusalem, where it was spent on food to be eaten within the city walls. Today, second tithe is still redeemed, but only for a nominal sum. In the absence of the Temple, purification is impossible. Since it may not be eaten in Doubtfully tithed produce [demai] – ‫דְּ ַמאי‬: This is produce impurity, it is no longer brought to Jerusalem. The halakhot of that was purchased from an am ha’aretz, who is suspect of not second tithe are discussed in tractate Ma’aser Sheni.

170 

Perek III . 34b . ‫דל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

Perek III Daf 35 Amud a ‫״פ ִרי ֵעץ ָה ָדר״ – ֵעץ ׁ ֶש ַּט ַעם‬ ְ ּ :‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ .‫אֹומר זֶ ה ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ֵ ‫ ֱהוֵ י‬,‫ֵעצֹו ו ִּפ ְריֹו ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬

gemara 

The Sages taught that the verse states: “Fruit of a beautiful tree,”bn meaning, a tree that the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike.n What tree is that? You must say it is the etrog tree.

‫ ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ימא ּ ִפ ְל ּ ְפ ִלין? ִּכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵא‬ ‫ ִמ ַּמ ׁ ְש ַמע ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״וּנְ ַט ְע ֶּתם ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוד ַע ׁ ֶשהוּא ֵעץ ַמ ֲא ָכל? ַמה‬ ֵ ‫ֵעץ״ ֵאינִי‬ ‫״עץ ַמ ֲא ָכל״ – ֵעץ ׁ ֶש ַּט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫אֹומר זֶ ה ּ ִפ ְל ּ ְפ ִלין‬ ֵ ‫ ֱהוֵ י‬,‫ֵעצֹו ו ִּפ ְריֹו ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬.‫ְל ַל ֶּמ ְדךָ ׁ ֶש ַה ּ ִפ ְל ּ ְפ ִלין ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ָע ְר ָלה‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֲח ֵס ָרה ְּכלוּם‬ !‫ֶת ְח ַסר ּכֹל ָ ּב ּה״‬

The Gemara asks: And say that it is referring to the pepper tree,b since the taste of its trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as orla” (Leviticus 19:23). Rabbi Meir would say that by inference from that which is stated “and plant any tree,” don’t I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: “Any tree for food”? It is to include a tree that the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike. And which tree is this? You must say this is the pepper tree. This comes to teach you that the peppers, and even its trunk, are edible, and therefore the tree is obligated in the prohibition of orla. And Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: “A land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing” (Deuteronomy 8:9). From where, then, is it derived that the Torah commands the taking of an etrog as one of the four species? Perhaps the verse is referring to peppers.

?‫נַע ֵביד‬ ֲ ‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫ָה ָתם ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬ ‫ נִ נְקֹוט‬,‫יח ָת ּה‬ ָ ‫נִ נְקֹוט ֲח ָדא – ָלא ִמינְ ְּכ ָרא ְל ִק‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫(א ָחד) ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ֶ – ‫ְּת ֵרי אֹו ְּת ָל ָתא‬ .‫ ִה ְל ָּכךְ ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ׁ ְּשל ׁ ָֹשה ּ ֵפירֹות‬

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the four species, it is clear that the Torah is not referring to peppers, due to the fact that it is not possible to utilize peppers for this purpose. How shall we proceed? If we take one pepper, its taking is not noticeable due to its small size. If we take two or three peppers, the Torah said one fruit and not two or three fruits. Therefore, it is impossible. The verse “the fruit of a beautiful tree” cannot be referring to peppers.

,‫״הדִּ יר״‬ ַ ‫״ה ָדר״ ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫ ַאל ִּת ְק ֵרי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫דֹולים ּו ְק ַט ּנִים‬ ִ ‫ַמה דִּ יר זֶ ה – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ְ ּג‬ ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬,‫ימים ו ַּב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין‬ ִ ‫ְּת ִמ‬ .‫ימים ו ַּב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין‬ ִ ‫דֹולים ו ְּק ַט ּנִים ְּת ִמ‬ ִ ‫ְ ּג‬ ‫דֹולים ו ְּק ַט ּנִים‬ ִ ‫ַא ּט ּו ׁ ְש ָאר ּ ֵפירֹות ֵלית ְ ּבה ּו ְ ּג‬ :‫ימין ו ַּב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין? ֶא ָּלא ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ִ ‫ְּת ִמ‬ .‫ימים‬ ִ ָ‫דֹולים ַקּי‬ ִ ‫ַעד ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ִאין ְק ַט ּנִים ֲע ַדיִ ין ְ ּג‬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Do not read the verse as it is written, hadar, meaning beautiful, but rather read it hadir, meaning the sheep pen. And it means, just as in this pen there are large and small sheep, unblemished and blemished sheep, so too, this tree has large and small fruits, flawless and blemished fruits. The Gemara wonders: Is that to say that among other fruits there are not large and small fruits, flawless and blemished fruits? How does this description identify the etrog specifically? Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: Just as in a pen, there are both large and small sheep together, so too, on an etrog tree, when the small ones come into being, the large ones still exist on the tree, which is not the case with other fruit trees.

‫״ה ָדר״ ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫ ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו ָא ַמר‬ .‫״הדָּ ר״ – דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשדָּ ר ְ ּב ִא ָילנֹו ִמ ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ְל ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ ַ ‫״ה ָדר״ ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫ ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֶ ּבן ַעּזַ אי‬ ‫קֹורין ַל ַּמיִ ם‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְ ּב ָל ׁשֹון יְ וָ ונִי‬,‫״אידוּר״‬ ִ – ‫״אידוּר״ וְ ֵאיזֹו ִהיא ׁ ֶש ָ ּג ֵדל ַעל ָּכל ַמיִ ם‬ ִ .‫אֹומר זֶ ה ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ֵ ‫ֱהוֵ י‬

background

Fruit of a beautiful tree – ‫פ ִרי ֵעץ ָה ָדר‬:ְ ּ In the Jerusalem Talmud, the following homiletic interpretation is cited: Only in the etrog tree are both its tree and its fruit beautiful in appearance. However, in some trees, the tree is beautiful but the fruit is not, as in the case of the carob tree. In others, the fruit is beautiful but the tree is not, as in the case of the pomegranate. Pepper tree – ‫פ ְל ּ ְפ ִלין‬:ִ ּ The ordinary pepper mentioned by the Sages is the Piper nigrum, black pepper. The pepper tree is a climber that reaches a height of 5–7 m. In its general form, it is similar to the grapevine in that it spreads its leaves on the ground when there is no place for it to climb. At the ends of the branches, white blossoms grow from which fruits the shape and size of a pea sprout grow. These fruits turn red when ripe. The pepper is native to the islands of Indonesia, and some exist in southern India. Apparently, in the talmudic era, this tree was grown in a few select locations in Israel as well.

Branch of the pepper tree language

Water [idur] – ‫אידוּר‬:ִ The reference is to the Greek ὕδωρ, udor, or hydor, meaning water.

Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read it hadar, but rather read it haddar, meaning one that dwells, referring to an item that dwells on its tree from year to year. Ben Azzai says: Do not read it hadar, but rather read it idur, as in the Greek language one calls water idur.l And which is the fruit that grows on the basis of all water sources, and not exclusively through irrigation or rainwater? You must say it is an etrog.

notes

The fruit of a beautiful tree – ‫פ ִרי ֵעץ ָה ָדר‬:ְ ּ The Ritva wrote that the Sages were clearly not discussing whether or not the etrog is in fact the fruit of a beautiful tree, as throughout the generations, the mitzva was performed with an etrog. The discussion here is whether the etrog can be identified based solely on the verse itself, or whether it can be identified only through reliance on halakhic tradition (see the introduction to the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna).



That the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike – ‫ש ַּט ַעם ֵעצֹו ו ִּפ ְריֹו ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬: ֶ ׁ Through this indicator, the etrog is distinguished from other citrus fruits, like the lemon and the orange, and identified as the fruit of a beautiful tree. In the etrog, the inner fruit is very small and most of the fruit itself is a thick peel. The taste of its fruit is thereby more similar to the taste of wood than other species (Kappot Temarim). ‫הל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 35a 

171

notes

Of orla is unfit – ‫של ָע ְר ָלה ּ ָפסוּל‬: ֶ ׁ The early commentaries were troubled: Given that it is prohibited to derive benefit from orla produce and it is burned, its status is the same as the items from which one may not derive benefit cited previously. Why then does the Gemara provide additional reasons that an etrog of orla is unfit? Tosafot explain: Although the issue is moot with regard to orla, it was raised because there is a practical difference with regard to second tithe. The Rid explains that since orla is mentioned unmodified, it includes orla outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. It is not prohibited to derive benefit from orla outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the Gemara provided other reasons why orla produce may not be used (see Rid the Younger).

172 

Perek III . 35a . ‫הל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

.‫״של ֲא ׁ ֵש ָרה וְ ׁ ֶשל ִעיר ַה ִּנדַּ ַחת ּ ָפסוּל״‬ ֶ ׁ The mishna continues: An etrog from a tree worshipped as idol‫ ְּכתו ֵּתי‬,‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִל ְ ׂש ֵר ָפה ָק ֵאי‬atry or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is .‫יה‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara anּ ‫יכ ַּתת ׁ ִשיעו ֵּר‬ swers: Since the etrog is fated for burning, its requisite measure was crushed. Although it has not yet been burned, its legal status is that of ashes. ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬.‫״וְ ׁ ֶשל ָע ְר ָלה ּ ָפסוּל״‬ ‫ ַחד‬.‫ָ ּב ּה ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ָא ִבין וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬ ‫ וְ ַחד‬,‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ֵּ ‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ֶה‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה דִּ ין ָממֹון‬:‫ָא ַמר‬

The mishna continues: An etrog of orla is unfit.n The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Avin and Rabbi Asi disagree about this matter. One said: It is unfit because there is no permission to eat orla. Anything that may not be eaten is not one’s property, and it is therefore unfit for use in this mitzva. And one said: It is unfit because it has no monetary value. Since it is prohibited to benefit from orla, it has no value, and one cannot own an item that has no value. Therefore, it does not fulfill the requirement of taking an etrog from one’s own property.

‫יתר‬ ֵּ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָב ֵעי ֶה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָקא ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ֵת‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָב ֵעי‬,‫ֲא ִכ ָילה – ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי דִּ ין ָממֹון‬ :‫ ְּתנַן‬.‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ֵּ ‫דִּ ין ָממֹון – ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֶה‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא‬.‫ׁ ֶשל ְּתרו ָּמה ְט ֵמ ָאה – ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫יתר‬ ֵּ ‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ֶה‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ֲא ִכ ָילה – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬ ‫ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה דִּ ין ָממֹון – ַא ַּמאי? ֲה ֵרי‬ !‫ַמ ִּס ָיק ּה ַּת ַחת ַּת ְב ׁ ִשילֹו‬

The Gemara asserts that it may enter one’s mind to say: The one who requires permission to eat the etrog to render it fit does not require that it have monetary value, and the one who requires that it have monetary value does not require permission to eat it. On that basis, the Gemara raises a difficulty from what we learned in the mishna: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. Granted, according to the one who says that an etrog of orla is unfit because there is no permission to eat it, it works out well that an etrog of impure teruma is unfit, as it too may not be eaten. However, according to the one who says that it is unfit because it has no monetary value, why is the etrog of impure teruma unfit? Although eating it is prohibited, a priest burns it as fuel under his cooked food. Since one may benefit from it, impure teruma has monetary value.

‫ ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא‬,‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ֵּ ‫ ְ ּב ֶה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ָמר‬.‫ ִּכי ְפ ִליגִ י – ְ ּב ִדין ָממֹון‬,‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ ָב ֵעינַן‬ ‫ דִּ ין ָממֹון ָלא‬,‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬ ֵּ ‫ ֶה‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ .‫ דִּ ין ָממֹון נַ ִמי ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬.‫ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן‬ ?ּ‫ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬

Rather, contrary to the previous assumption, with regard to permission to eat it, everyone agrees that we require that it be permitted to eat the etrog. When they disagree is with regard to monetary value. One Sage holds: We require permission to eat it, but we do not require that it have monetary value. And one Sage holds: We also require that it have monetary value. The Gemara asks: If so, according to this understanding, what is the practical halakhic difference between them?

‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי ׁ ֶש ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְל ִפי‬.‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ּ ָ ‫ַא ִּל‬ ‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה – ֲה ֵרי יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה‬ ֵּ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ֶה‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ֵּ ‫ֶה‬ ‫בֹוה‬ ַּ ‫ָ ּב ּה דִּ ין ָממֹון – ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי ָממֹון ָ ּג‬ .‫הוּא‬

There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha of an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the legal status of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem is that of consecrated property. Although its owner has the right to eat it, just as he may eat from offerings that he sacrifices, it is the property of God, and he has no monetary rights to the produce. According to the one who said: An etrog of orla is unfit because there is no permission to eat it, there is permission to eat second tithe; therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, a second-tithe etrog in Jerusalem is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. And according to the one who said: An etrog of orla is unfit because it has no monetary value, second tithe in Jerusalem is consecrated property of God and has no monetary value to its owner. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, it is not fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva.

‫ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי דְּ ָא ַמר ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬,‫דִּ ין ָממֹון‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר – ֵאין ָא ָדם‬ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי‬,‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ ָ ‫יֹוצֵ א ּבֹו יְ ֵדי‬ ‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּביֹום‬ ָ ‫ֲח ָכ ִמים – ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ּבֹו יְ ֵדי‬ .‫ ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים‬,‫טֹוב‬

In an attempt to attribute the opinions to the amora’im, the Gemara suggests: Conclude that Rabbi Asi is the one who said that the reason is because there is no monetary value, as Rabbi Asi said: With an etrog of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on the Festival. That is precisely the manner in which the dispute with regard to the need for the etrog to have monetary value is presented above. The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Asi is the one who holds that the etrog must have monetary value as well.

‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬,‫ּגו ָּפא‬ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר – ֵאין ָא ָדם‬,‫ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי‬,‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ ָ ‫יֹוצֵ א ּבֹו יְ ֵדי‬ ‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ֲח ָכ ִמים – ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ּבֹו יְ ֵדי‬ ‫ ִד ְב ֵרי‬,‫ ַמ ָ ּצה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬.‫ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר – ֵאין ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה יְ ֵדי‬ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ֲח ָכ ִמים – ָא ָדם‬,‫חֹובתֹו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫יסה ׁ ֶשל‬ ָּ ‫ ִע‬.‫חֹובתֹו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה יְ ֵדי‬ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר – ּ ְפטו ָּרה‬,‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫יבת‬ ֶ ֶ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ֲח ָכ ִמים – ַחּי‬,‫ִמן ַה ַח ָּלה‬ .‫ַ ּב ַח ָּלה‬ – ‫יסה‬ ָּ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִע‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬,‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫יסֹות‬ ֵ ‫אשית ֲע ִר‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵ״ר‬:‫ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫״ל ֶכם״ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ :‫נַ ִמי – ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫״מ ַ ּצ ְת ֶכם״?! ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ַ ‫ ִמי ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ‫ימר ַ ּבר‬ ָ ֵ‫ימא ַרב י‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫״ל ֶחם״‬ ֶ ‫״ל ֶחם״‬ ֶ ‫ ָא ְתיָ א‬:‫ׁ ְש ָל ְמיָ א‬ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬,‫״ל ֶחם עֹונִי״‬ ֶ :‫ָה ָכא‬

§ With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Asi said: With an etrog

of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on the Festival. With matza of second tithe,h according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on Passover because it is not his. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on Passover. Similarly, according to Rabbi Meir, dough of second titheh is exempt from the obligation of separating ĥalla.b According to the Rabbis, it is subject to the obligation of separating ĥalla. In all of these cases, the dispute is whether second tithe is the property of the owner or the property of God. Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Granted, with regard to dough, it is written: “The first of your dough, ĥalla you shall offer as a gift” (Numbers 15:20). “Your dough” indicates that one is obligated to separate ĥalla only from dough that belongs to him and not consecrated dough. With regard to the etrogn too it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves,” indicating that it must be from your own property. However, with regard to matza, why does he not fulfill his obligation with second tithe? Is it written: Your matza? Rabba bar Shmuel said, and some say it was Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya who said: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between bread written with regard to matza and bread written with regard to ĥalla. It is written here, with regard to matza: “Bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is written there, with regard to ĥalla:

Perek III Daf 35 Amud b

halakha

Matza of second tithe – ‫מ ָ ּצה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬:ַ One fulfills his obligation with matza of second tithe in Jerusalem, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 6:8). Dough of second tithe – ‫יסה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ָּ ‫ע‬:ִ Dough of the second tithe in Jerusalem is obligated in ĥalla, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 6:4). background

Ĥalla – ‫ח ָּלה‬:ַ The Torah commands the giving of a portion of dough to the priests (Numbers 15:20). This portion is called ĥalla and is governed by all the halakhot pertaining to teruma, the priests’ portion of the crop. The Torah does not specify a measure for ĥalla. The Sages required a private individual to separate one twenty-fourth of his dough, and a commercial baker one forty-eighth. Ĥalla must be taken from dough made from any of the five species of grain, provided that the quantity of flour is at least one-tenth of an ephah in volume. If ĥalla is not taken, the dough is considered untithed produce and may not be eaten. Today, since all Jews are ritually impure, ĥalla, like ritually impure teruma, must be burned. Accordingly, the measures mentioned above no longer apply; only a small portion is separated from the dough and burned, and the rest of the dough may be used. A blessing is recited for the separation of ĥalla. Ĥalla is considered one of the mitzvot practiced particularly by women. The halakhot governing this mitzva are discussed comprehensively in tractate Ĥalla. notes

Ĥalla and etrog – ‫ח ָּלה וְ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:ַ Some ask: Once ĥalla and etrog are equated, once with regard to ĥalla the fact that dough belonging to partners is obligated in ĥalla is derived from the plural language [arisoteikhem], why not derive that one fulfills his obligation on the first day of the Festival with an etrog belonging to two partners, as there too it is written in the plural [lakhem]? They answer that there is a difference between the plural lakhem written with regard to an etrog, which refers to all of the people of Israel who are obligated in the mitzva, and the plural arisoteikhem written with regard to ĥalla. With regard to ĥalla, the noun, doughs, and the pronoun, your, are both plural. The verse could have stated: Your dough. The Gemara derives from the double plural form that dough belonging to partners is also obligated in ĥalla (Ritva).

‫ ַמה‬,‫“ ״וְ ָהיָ ה ַ ּב ֲא ָכ ְל ֶכם ִמ ֶּל ֶחם ָה ָא ֶרץ״‬And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land you shall ‫ ְּל ַה ָּלן ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם וְ ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר – ַאף‬offer up a gift unto the Lord” (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, with .‫ ָּכאן ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם וְ ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬regard to ĥalla, one is obligated only if the dough is from yours and not from second tithe, here too, with regard to matza, one fulfills his obligation only if it is from yours and not from second tithe. ‫יסה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ ָּ ‫ ִע‬:‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ׁ ֵשנִי – ּ ְפטו ָּרה ִמן ַה ַח ָּלה‬ .‫ ַחּיֶ ֶיבת ַ ּב ַח ָּלה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ֵמ ִאיר‬ !‫יה?! ִהיא ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita supports the statement of Rabbi Asi: Dough of the second tithe is exempt from ĥalla; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is subject to the obligation of separating ĥalla. The Gemara wonders about the tentative nature of the Gemara’s suggestion. Let us say it supports his opinion. The baraita is not similar to the statement of Rav Asi; it is precisely the statement itself.

‫ ִמדִּ ְ ּב ָהא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ְ ּב ָהא נַ ִמי‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫יסה דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ָּ ‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ִע‬:‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬,‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ‫יכם״ ְּת ֵרי‬ ֶ ‫יסֹות‬ ֵ ‫״ע ִר‬ ֲ ‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫יסֹות‬ ֵ ‫״ע ִר‬ ֲ ‫ְק ָרא‬ .‫ימנֵי‬ ְ ִ‫ז‬

Rather, this is what the Gemara is suggesting: Do we say that from the fact that they disagree with regard to this case of ĥalla, they disagree with regard to that case of matza as well? Or perhaps, dough is different because the verse states: “Your dough… your dough” (Numbers 15:20–21) twice. Perhaps this duplication indicates that ownership is required in order for dough to be obligated in the mitzva of ĥalla; however, with regard to matza, where there is no such duplication, perhaps one would be obligated, even in the case of second tithe in Jerusalem, according to Rabbi Meir. Therefore, no proof can be cited from here in support of Rav Asi’s statement.



‫הל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 35b 

173

halakha

Etrog of pure teruma – ‫הֹורה‬ ָ ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶשל ְּתרו ָּמה ְט‬: ֶ An etrog of pure teruma may not be taken to fulfill the mitzva ab initio, lest one render it susceptible to impurity. However, if one used it to fulfill the mitzva, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 8:2). Etrog of demai – ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶשל דְּ ַמאי‬:ֶ An etrog of demai is fit for use in performing the mitzva because, theoretically, one could declare his possessions ownerless or consecrate them, rendering himself a pauper, for whom it is permitted to eat demai (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 8:2). One may feed the impoverished demai – ‫ַמ ֲא ִכ ִילין ֶאת ָה ֲענִּיִ ים‬ ‫דְּ ַמאי‬: It is permitted to feed demai to the impoverished and to soldiers traveling from place to place. However, one must inform them that it is demai, in order to enable them to separate the tithes if they choose to adopt a stringency (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Ma’aser 10:11). notes

Because one renders it susceptible – ‫מ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ׁ ִש ָיר ּה‬:ִ The question was raised: Doesn’t everyone agree that it is prohibited to impurify teruma? How could anyone disagree? The answer is that here the Gemara is not referring to impurifying teruma; it is merely discussing rendering it susceptible to impurity. In that case, there is room for dispute. On the one hand, one could assert that it is prohibited even to render teruma susceptible to impurity, as that leads to impurity. On the other hand, one could assert that since one is not actually impurifying the teruma, it is not prohibited at all (Kappot Temarim). Nevertheless, apparently, once teruma is rendered susceptible to impurity, it is immediately impurified. Since the Sages issued a decree of second-degree ritual impurity on one’s hands, when one touches the teruma, he disqualifies it (Arukh LaNer). Etrog of demai – ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶשל דְּ ַמאי‬:ֶ Some explain that the reason an etrog of demai is unfit is simply because it may not be eaten until it is tithed. Others explain that since one is required to tithe and separate teruma of the tithe that belong to Levites and priests respectively, the etrog is jointly owned and therefore unfit. Alternatively, because demai contains teruma of the tithe, its legal status is like that of an etrog of teruma that may not be used because use renders it susceptible to impurity (Ritva). Some explain that taking an etrog of demai is a mitzva that is fulfilled by means of a transgression (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). Soldiers – ‫א ְכ ַסנְיָא‬:ַ There are three explanations for this term. Some say the Gemara is referring to guests staying in a place where they have no food of their own. The Sages did not impose the decree prohibiting the consumption of demai upon them (see Tosafot). Others explain that the Gemara is referring to soldiers of a Jewish king, who are garrisoned in private houses at the order of the king (Rashi and others). In the Jerusalem Talmud, there is an opinion that it is referring to gentile guests or soldiers, and the novel element here is not that they may eat the food, as the prohibition does not apply to gentiles. Rather, the novel element is that one may use demai to pay debts to the government, and it is not considered stealing Levites’ property.

‫ דְּ ֵלית ָ ּב ּה‬.‫״של ְּתרו ָּמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ּ ְפסו ָּלה״‬ ֶ ׁ § The mishna continues: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. .‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ֵּ ‫ ֶה‬The reason is, as explained above, that there is no permission to eat it. ‫ ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬.‫הֹורה ל ֹא יִ ּטֹול״‬ ָ ‫ ״וְ ׁ ֶשל ְּתרו ָּמה ְט‬The mishna stated: And with regard to an etrog of pure teruma,h ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬:‫ ָ ּב ּה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי; ַחד ָא ַמר‬one should not take it ab initio. However, if he did, it is fit .‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְפ ִס ָיד ּה‬:‫ וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ׁ ִש ָיר ּה‬for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed about this. Why may one not take it ab initio? One of them said: It is because one renders it susceptiblen to impurity. All vegetation cannot become ritually impure, even if it came into contact with a source of impurity, unless it was moistened by one of seven liquids (see Leviticus 11:37–38). However, once one touches the etrog with wet hands, which are wet because he removed the other three species from the water in which they were kept to preserve their freshness, he renders the etrog susceptible to impurity. The Sages prohibited taking an etrog of teruma, lest it become impure, as it is prohibited to impurify teruma. And one said: It is because he damages it. By handling the etrog, the peel is rendered disgusting, and it is prohibited to damage teruma. ‫יה ׁ ֵשם חוּץ‬ ָ ‫ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ָרא ָע ֶל‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬.‫יפ ָת ּה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬ ָ ּ ‫ִמ ְּק ִל‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ׁ ִש ָיר ּה – ִא‬ .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְפ ִס ָיד ּה – ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case where one accorded the entire etrog the status of teruma, to the exclusion of the peel, whose status remains non-sacred. According to the one who said: Because one renders it susceptible to impurity, there is a prohibition, as failure to sanctify the peel as teruma does not prevent the fruit from becoming susceptible to impurity. However, according to the one who said: Because he damages the teruma, there is no prohibition, as the peel that might be damaged was never teruma.

‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬.‫״וְ ִאם נָ ַטל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה״‬ ‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה – ֲה ֵרי יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה‬ ֵּ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ֶה‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ֵּ ‫ֶה‬ .‫ָ ּב ּה דִּ ין ָממֹון – ֲה ֵרי יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה דִּ ין ָממֹון‬

The mishna continues: And if he took an etrog of teruma, it is fit, and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. The Gemara explains: According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation because there is no permission to eat the etrog, there is permission to eat it. According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation because it has no monetary value, it has monetary value.

?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ַמיְ יה ּו דְּ ֵבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫״וְ ׁ ֶשל דְּ ַמאי״‬ ‫ וְ ָהוֵ י‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי ַמ ְפ ַקר ְלה ּו ְלנִ ְכ ֵס‬ ‫״ל ֶכם״ ָק ֵרינָ א‬ ָ ‫יה – ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא נַ ִמי‬ ּ ‫ָענִי וַ ֲחזֵ י ֵל‬ ‫ ַמ ֲא ִכ ִילין ֶאת ָה ֲענִּיִ ים דְּ ַמאי‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ .‫וְ ֶאת ַא ְכ ַסנְיָא דְּ ַמאי‬

§  The mishna cites a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit

language

Soldiers [akhsanya] – ‫א ְכ ַסנְיָא‬:ַ According to most commentaries, this word should be pronounced afsanya, from the Greek ὀψώνιον, opsonion, meaning food supply to the army and wage for the soldiers, among other definitions.

174 

Perek III . 35b . ‫הל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫ ָענִי ָלא ָא ֵכיל דְּ ַמאי‬:‫ו ֵּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫ילין ַה ֲענִּיִ ים דְּ ַמאי וְ ֶאת‬ ִ ‫(אין) ַמ ֲא ִכ‬ ֵ ,‫ ָּתנָ א‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫ָה ַא ְכ ְסנָ ִאים דְּ ַמאי‬ ‫ ֵאין ַמ ֲא ִכ ִילין ֶאת‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫ ו ֵּבית‬,‫ָה ֲענִּיִ ים וְ ֶאת ָה ַא ְכ ְסנָ ִאים דְּ ַמאי‬ ‫ילין ֶאת ָה ֲענִּיִ ים‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ֲא ִכ‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ִה ֵּלל‬ .‫דְּ ַמאי וְ ֶאת ָה ַא ְכ ְסנָ ִאים דְּ ַמאי‬

Shammai with regard to an etrog of demai.nh The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Hillel, who deem it fit? It is prohibited to eat demai, due to the concern that it is actually untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Because, if one wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless, and he would be a pauper, in which case the demai would be fit for his consumption. Now too, even though he did not declare it ownerless, it is considered to meet the criterion of “and you shall take for yourselves.” As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the impoverished demai,h and one may feed soldiers [akhsanya]nl whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. The Gemara asks: And why, then, do Beit Shammai deem it unfit? The Gemara answers: A pauper may not eat demai, as we learned in a mishna: One may not feed the impoverished demai and one may not feed soldiers demai. And Rav Huna said: It was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished demai and one may not feed soldiers whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished demai and one may feed soldiers whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. On that basis, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to an etrog of demai is clear.

‫ ְל ַמאן‬.‫״של ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי ׁ ֶש ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם״‬ ֶ ׁ §  The mishna continues: With regard to an etrog of second h .‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ׁ ִש ָיר ּה – ֲה ֵרי ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ָיר ּה‬tithe in Jerusalem, one may not take it, ab initio. The Gemara ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְפ ִס ָיד ּה – ֲה ֵרי‬explains: According to the one who says that an etrog of pure teruma is unfit because one renders it susceptible to ritual im.‫ַמ ְפ ִס ָיד ּה‬ purity, here too, he renders it susceptible. According to the one who says it is unfit because one damages the peel, here too, he damages the peel. ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬.‫״וְ ִאם נָ ַטל ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה״‬ ,‫יתר ֲא ִכ ָילה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ ֵּ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ֶה‬ ,‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה דִּ ין ָממֹון‬ .‫ָהא ַמ ּנִי – ַר ָ ּבנַן ִהיא‬

The mishna continues: And if one took an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, it is fit. The Gemara explains: According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla because there is no permission to eat the etrog, everyone, i.e., Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, agrees that one fulfills his obligation, because in Jerusalem one may eat second tithe. However, according to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla because it has no monetary value, in accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not consider second tithe the property of God; it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

‫ דָּ ָבר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬.‫״ע ְל ָתה ֲחזָ זִ ית״‬ ָ ‫ ַה ָּמקֹום יִ ְהיֶ ה‬,‫זֶ ה ַר ֵ ּבינ ּו ַה ָ ּגדֹול ֲא ָמרֹו‬ ,‫ְ ּב ֶעזְ רֹו; ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬ .‫ֲא ָבל ִ ּב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ׁ ְּשל ׁ ָֹשה ְמקֹומֹות – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ׁ ְּשל ׁ ָֹשה‬,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ ו ָּפסוּל‬,‫יה ִּכ ְמנו ָּּמר‬ ּ ‫ְמקֹומֹות ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬

§ The mishna continues: If boil-like blemishes

‫ ַעל‬:‫יפא ִא ְּת ַמר‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִאי ִא ְּת ַמר ַא ֵּס‬ ‫ דָּ ָבר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬.‫ִמיעוּטֹו – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫ וְ ַה ָּמקֹום יִ ְהיֶ ה‬,‫זֶ ה ַר ֵ ּבינ ּו ַה ָ ּגדֹול ֲא ָמרֹו‬ ,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬.‫ְ ּב ֶעזְ רֹו‬ ‫ֲא ָבל ִ ּב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ׁ ְּשל ׁ ָֹשה ְמקֹומֹות – ֲהוָ ה‬ ‫ ּכֹל וְ ַעל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ ו ָּפסוּל‬,‫יה ִּכ ְמנו ָּּמר‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ּ‫יל‬ ּ .‫ וַ ֲא ִפ ּו ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ֶשה ּו נַ ִמי ּ ָפסוּל‬,‫חֹוטמֹו‬ ְ

Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated concerning the latter clause of the mishna: If boil-like blemishes arose only on its minority, it is fit. Rav Ĥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only if the blemishes are concentrated in one place. However, if they are distributed in two or three places throughout the etrog, even if their total remains a minority, it is as if the etrog were speckled, and it is unfit. Rava said: If there is a blemish on its upper, blossom end, which is clearly visible and comprises the essence of the beauty of the etrog, even if the blemish is of any size, the etrog is unfit.

arose on the majority of the etrog, it is unfit. Rav Ĥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the blemishes are concentrated in one place; however, if they are distributed in two or three places throughout the etrog, it is fit. Rava said to Rav Ĥisda: If the blemishes are distributed in two or three places, it is as if the etrog were speckled with different colors in different places; it lacks beauty and is certainly unfit.

notes

Boil-like blemishes – ‫חזָ זִ ית‬:ֲ The authorities disagreed as to the reason that this renders the etrog unfit. Some hold that an etrog with boil-like blemishes is unfit because it lacks beauty (Tosafot; Me’iri; Rosh; and others). Others hold that it is unfit because it is incomplete, as the growth diminishes the etrog itself (see Rosh and others). Its pitam and its pestle-like protuberance – ‫פ ְט ָמא וּבו ְּכנָ תֹו‬:ִ ּ Many commentaries and authorities debated this matter. Some say that the pitam is the rounded protrusion at the upper end of the etrog, while the pestle-like protuberance is the stem with which it was connected to the tree, which is located within the body of the fruit (ge’onim; Rav Hai Gaon; see Rashi, Rif, and Rambam). Others say that the pitam is the pestle-like protuberance, and both terms refer to part of the stem. The pitam is the thick portion around the point that the stem enters the fruit, while the pestle-like protuberance is the part of the stem within the fruit (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Rabbeinu Gershom; Meor HaGola; and others). Yet others say that the pitam is the part of the knob at the top of the etrog within the fruit (see Tur and others). A summary of the various opinions is provided in the Me’iri.

n

background

h

The etrog and its parts – ‫ה ֶא ְתרֹוג וַ ֲח ָל ָקיו‬:ָ A. Woody growth [shoshanta] existing in certain, but not most, species of etrog B. Pitma, pitam, according to most commentaries C. Upper, blossom end [ĥotem] D. Pestle-like protuberance [bukhna], according to some opinions E. Stem [oketz] that was connected to the tree

‫ ָּתנָ א ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן‬.‫ § ״נִ ְּט ָלה ּ ִפ ְט ָמתֹו״‬The mishna continues: If its pitamb was removed,h it is unfit. .‫נִט ָלה ּבו ְּכנָ תֹו‬ ְּ :‫ ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Elazar taught a baraita: This means if its pestle-like protuberancen at its upper end was removed.h ‫ ַהאי ֶא ְתרֹוגָ א‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ ״נִ ְק ַלף״‬The mishna continues: An etrog that was peeled is unfit. Rava .‫ דְּ ַאגְ ִליד ְּכ ַא ִהינָ א ס ּו ָּמ ָקא – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬said: This etrog that was peeled like a red date so that only its ;‫ נִ ְק ַלף ּ ָפסוּל! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬:‫ וְ ָהא ֲאנַן ְּתנַן‬thin, outer peel is removed but the rest remains intact, is fit. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: If the etrog was peeled it is unfit? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;

Parts of the etrog

halakha

Etrog of the second tithe – ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬: ֶ An etrog of second tithe may not be taken to fulfill the mitzva ab initio, lest one render it susceptible to impurity or lest one damage it and render it inedible. If one takes it in Jerusalem, he fulfills the mitzva of the four species (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 8:2). Outside of Jerusalem, the early authorities disagreed. According to Rashi, one did not fulfill his obligation, while the Ran says that he fulfills his obligation after the fact. According to the Ritva, it is permitted ab initio.

HaDeshen). If the blemish can be removed without leaving the body of the etrog incomplete and without changing its appearance, the etrog is fit (Rosh). With regard to blemishes in several places on the etrog, some say that if it is speckled on only one side and the speckled area constitutes a minority of its surface, the etrog is fit (Tur, citing Ra’avad and Rosh). Others deem it unfit even in that case (see Tur). In a case where there are growths on one half but not the other half of an etrog, some deem it unfit and others deem it fit (Tur). If the growths are on the upper, blossom end, which is the point where the etrog If boil-like blemishes arose on the majority of the etrog – narrows until it culminates in the pitam, it is unfit even with ‫ע ְל ָתה ֲחזָ זִ ית‬:ָ If boil-like blemishes that protrude from the etrog the smallest growth, in accordance with the opinion of Rava arose on most of the etrog or in two or three places on it, the (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:9–15). etrog is unfit, in accordance with the mishna and the opinions ְּ If the top stem of the of Rav Ĥisda and Rava. Blemishes on an etrog that do not pro- If its pitam was removed – ‫נִט ָלה ּ ִפ ְט ָמתֹו‬: trude from the surface do not render it unfit (Rema; see Terumat etrog, from which a small, woody knob occasionally grows, is



removed, it is unfit. Some are stringent even if the knob alone is removed (Ran) and optimally, one should adopt that stringency when possible. Nevertheless, the etrog is not thereby rendered unfit (Maggid Mishne). If the knob was not removed but it never grew in the first place, as is the case with most etrogim, it is fit even ab initio (Rosh). This entire discussion is in accordance with the opinion that the pitam is located at the top of the etrog (Rif; Rambam; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:7). If its pestle-like protuberance is removed – ‫נִט ָלה ּבו ְּכנָ תֹו‬: ְּ If the stem at the bottom of the etrog, where it connected to the tree, was completely removed, leaving a hole in its place, it is unfit (Rif; Rambam). However, if any part of the stem remains filling the hole, it is fit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:8, and in the comment of the Rema, citing Tur). ‫הל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 35b 

175

Perek III Daf 36 Amud a notes

This is in a case where all of it was peeled, that is in a case where only part of it was peeled – ‫ ָהא ְ ּב ִמ ְקצָ ָת ּה‬,‫הא ְ ּבכו ָּּל ּה‬:ָ The commentaries and halakhic authorities disagreed with regard to the explanation of this matter. Some say that if the etrog is completely peeled it is fit, while if it is partly peeled it is unfit, as it is like a speckled etrog (Rashi; Ritva). Most authorities explain it to the contrary: If it is partly peeled it is fit, while if it is completely peeled it is unfit (ge’onim; Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rif; Rambam). With regard to the analogy between the halakhot of the etrog and the halakhot of tereifa, this particular flaw in the etrog was likened to the halakha of geluda, where the skin of the animal is torn or the animal was skinned due to a wound or disease. Based on the ruling with regard to the skin of a tereifa, if a piece of the peel the size of a sela coin remains, the etrog is fit (based on Rabbeinu Ĥananel). ַּ Pierced with a hole that completely goes through – ‫נִיקב נֶ ֶקב‬ ‫מפו ָּּל ׁש‬:ְ The commentaries and authorities disagreed about this issue, as there was no consensus with regard to which clause in the mishna Ulla bar Ĥanina was referring. According to the opinion that he was referring to the clause: Or pierced and is missing any amount, it is unfit, Ulla bar Ĥanina restricted the case where the etrog is unfit to one where the hole goes through the etrog (ge’onim; Ra’avad; Rid; Ritva). However, if he was referring to: Or it was pierced but is not missing any amount, it is fit, then Ulla bar Ĥanina was adding a stringency: The etrog is fit only if the hole does not go through the etrog (Rashi; Sefer Hashlama; Rid).

.‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ִמ ְקצָ ָת ּה‬,‫ ָהא – ְ ּבכו ָּּל ּה‬this mishna, where it states that if the etrog was peeledh it is unfit, is in a case where all of it was peeled. That statement of Rava that if it was peeled it is fit is in a case where only part of it was peeled.n ּ ַ ‫ ״נִ ְסדַּ ק‬The mishna continues discussing the halakha of an etrog that was :‫ ָּתנֵי עו ָּּלא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א‬.‫נִיקב״‬ splith or pierced.h Ulla bar Ĥanina taught: An etrog that was ַּ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬,ּ‫נִיקב נֶ ֶקב ְמפו ָּּל ׁש – ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשהו‬ n .‫יסר‬ ָּ ‫ ְמפו ָּּל ׁש – ִ ּב ְכ ִא‬pierced with a hole that completely goes through its body is unfit with any size hole. If the hole does not completely go through the etrog, it is unfit only with a hole the size of an issarlb coin. ‫ימנֵי ְט ֵר ָפה‬ ָ ‫נֹולד ּו ָ ּב ֶא ְתרֹוג ִס‬ ְ :‫ָ ּב ֵעי ָר ָבא‬ – ‫יה? ִאי נִ ְק ַלף‬ ּ ַ ‫ַמהוּ? ַמאי ָק ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ֵל‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִאי‬,‫נִסדַּ ק – ָּתנֵינָ א‬ – ‫נִיקב‬ ְ ‫ ִאי‬,‫ָּתנֵינָ א‬ .‫ָּתנֵינָ א‬

Rava raised a dilemma: If signs of a tereifa developed in the etrog, what is its halakhic status? The Gemara clarifies: What is the dilemma that he is raising? There are similarities between the halakhot of the etrog in the mishna and some of the halakhot of a tereifa, a bird or animal with a condition that will lead to its death within a year. If it is the case where the etrog was peeled, we already learned that case. If it is the case where the etrog was split, we learned that case as well. And if it is the case where the etrog was pierced, we learned that too. After ruling out those defects, the question remains: With regard to what is Rava’s dilemma?

language

Issar – ‫יסר‬ ָּ ‫א‬:ִ From the Greek ἀσσάριον, assarion, referring to the Roman issar coin. background

Issar coin – ‫יסר‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬

halakha

An etrog that was peeled – ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶש ִנ ְּק ַלף‬:ֶ An etrog whose thin outer peel is completely removed is unfit, even if the body of the fruit itself remains intact. If any of the peel remains, it is fit, in accordance with the opinion of Rava (Rif; Rambam). Some say that it is fit only if the remaining part of the peel is at least the size of a sela coin (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; see Beit Yosef; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:6).

ּ ַ ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶש ּנ‬: A pierced etrog – ‫ִיקב‬ ֶ If an etrog is pierced with a hole that completely goes through it, it is unfit regardless of the diameter of the hole. If the hole does not completely go A split etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִסדַּ ק‬:ֶ An etrog that is split lengthwise, through the etrog, the etrog is unfit only if the hole is the size of from its pestle-like protuberance to its stem, is unfit even if an issar coin. If any part of the etrog is missing it is unfit, regardnone of the fruit itself is missing. However, if some of the etrog less of how minute the hole, in accordance with the opinion remains intact at the top and at the bottom, it is fit even if it is of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rosh, who hold that Ulla bar split on both of its sides (Rashi; Rosh; others). Ĥanina’s statement relates to the first clause of the mishna: Some say that if the crack is in the upper, blossom end Or pierced and is missing any amount, it is unfit. However, in of the etrog, the etrog is unfit regardless of the length of the exigent circumstances, if the etrog is missing less than an issar, crack (Ritva; Ran; others). Others rule stringently when the and the hole does not completely go through the etrog, one majority of the etrog is split, even if the above criteria are met may rule leniently (Rema) and even recite the blessing over it (Rema, based on the second opinion of Ritva and Ran). If the (Shulĥan Arukh HaRav). Even the matter of the hole going completely through the etrog is split widthwise, it is unfit only if the split completely encompasses the etrog; however, if even the smallest space etrog is subject to dispute. Some say that it means the hole remains intact, it is fit (Magen Avraham and Shulĥan Arukh passes through to the opposite side (Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot; HaRav, based on the opinion of Ritva and Ran). Rif; Rosh), while others say it means that the hole penetrates In terms of the depth of the split, the etrog is unfit if most the section of the fruit where the seeds are located (Rosh; Ri; of the thick rind is cut through. The Rema and others, based Ran; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:2–3).

Roman issar from the time of Tiberius Caesar

176 

Perek III . 36a . ‫ול ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

on those who interpret the opinion of the Ran stringently, hold that in terms of the depth of the split, the etrog is unfit if most of the thick rind is cut through (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:5).

‫׳ג‬

‫יה – ִּכ ְד ע ּו ָּלא‬ ּ ַ ‫ִּכי ָקא ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ֵל‬ ‫יאה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ׁ ְש ּ ְפ ָכה‬ ָ ‫ ֵר‬:‫יֹוח נָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ וְ הוּא‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ַּכ ִּקיתֹון – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ ‫ימי‬ ִ ְ‫ ָהא ָלא ָקי‬,‫ימ ּפֹונָ ָהא‬ ְ ‫ימא ִס‬ ָ ְ‫דְּ ָקי‬ ‫ ָה ָכא ַמאי? דִּ ְל ָמא‬.‫ימ ּפֹונָ ָהא – ְט ֵר ָפה‬ ְ ‫ִס‬ – ‫ָה ָתם הוּא דְּ ָלא ׁ ַש ִּליט ָ ּב ּה ֲאוִ ָירא‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא דְּ ׁ ַש ִּליט ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ֲה ַדר ָ ּב ִריא‬ ‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬,‫רֹוחי ַמ ְס ַר ַחת‬ ֵ ‫ֲאוִ ָירא – ַס‬ ?‫ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א‬

,‫ ָּכבו ּׁש‬,‫ ָסרו ַּח‬,‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ָּתפו ַּח‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ .‫ ו ְּמנו ָּּמר – ּ ָפסוּל‬,‫ ָל ָבן‬,‫ ּכ ּו ׁ ִשי‬,‫ׁ ָשלוּק‬ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬,‫ֶא ְתרֹוג ַּכ ַּכדּ וּר – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬,‫ֹוסר‬ ֶ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ַה ּב‬.‫ַאף ַה ְּתיֹום‬ ּ ‫ ִגדְּ לֹו ַ ּבדְּ פוּס‬.‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬,‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ .‫וַ ֲע ָ ׂשאֹו ְּכ ִמין ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ַא ֶח ֶרת – ּ ָפסוּל‬

The Gemara answers: When he raises the dilemma, it is with regard to a case like that which Ulla said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: A lung whose contents can be poured like a pitcher,h i.e., whose tissue dissolved to the point of liquefaction, is not a sign of tereifa, and the animal is kosher. And Rava said: And that is the halakha only where the bronchia are intact. However, if the bronchia are not intact, it is a sign of tereifa. The dilemma here is with regard to a comparable situation in an etrog, i.e., an etrog that liquefied from within:h What is its halakhic status? Perhaps it is there, in the case of the lung, where the air does not affect it since it is completely enclosed in the body, that the lungs can recover, and that is why it is not a tereifa. However, here, in the case of the etrog, where the air affects it, it inevitably decays and spoils and therefore it is a tereifa. Or, perhaps the case of the etrog is no different.

notes

And some say even a twin, conjoined, etrog – ‫אֹומ ִרים ַאף‬ ְ ‫וְ ׁיֵש‬ ‫ה ְּתיֹום‬:ַ Some question the precise case here (Kappot Temarim). Is it with regard to one who wishes to use the conjoined etrog as is for the performance of the mitzva? In that case, the question would be whether it is considered a single etrog fit for use or whether it is considered two etrogim and therefore unfit. Alternatively, is might be referring to a case where one separated the two etrogim, and the question then is whether each is deemed to be incomplete at the point where the two were connected (see Arukh LaNer). background

A twin etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג ַה ְּתיֹום‬:ֶ

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on that which was taught in a baraita. An etrog that is tafuaĥ, saruaĥ,h pickled,h boiled,h a black Cushiteh etrog, a white etrog, or a speckledh etrog is unfit. An etrog shaped like a ballh is unfit, and some say even a twin, conjoined, etrog nbh is unfit. With regard to an etrog that is unripe, Rabbi Akiva deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If he grew the etrog in a mold and shaped it to appear like a different entity, and it is no longer shaped like an etrog, it is unfit.

Twin etrog

halakha

A lung whose contents can be poured like a pitcher – ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫ֵר‬ ‫ש ּנ ׁ ְִש ּ ְפ ָכה ַּכ ִּקיתֹון‬: ֶ ׁ If an animal’s lung tissue dissolves to the point of liquefaction, but the exterior membrane remains intact and none of the bronchia dissolved, the animal is not a tereifa, in accordance with the Gemara in tractate Ĥullin (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 36:7). An etrog that liquefied from within – ‫נִימ ַֹוח ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬ ּ ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶש‬:ֶ An etrog whose inner pulp liquefies but whose outer peel and seed pockets remain intact is fit according to some authorities (Rif ). Others deem it unfit (Tur), as its status was never explicitly determined in the Gemara. Since different halakhic authorities rule differently on this issue, it is appropriate in practice to rule stringently when possible (Mishna Berura, citing Shulĥan Arukh HaRav; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:4).

The term in the Gemara is referring to boiling for an extended period; however, it is fit if cooked only briefly (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:15). A Cushite etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג ַה ּכו ׁ ִּשי‬:ֶ In locales where etrogim are dark, they are fit. However, etrogim that are extremely dark are unfit everywhere, in accordance with the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam with regard to a Cushite etrog and one that is like a Cushite etrog (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:17).

A white or speckled etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג ָל ָבן ו ְּמנו ָּּמר‬:ֶ With regard to an etrog that is white, black, or speckled with colors atypical for an etrog, the following distinction applies: If the discoloration is concentrated in one place, the etrog is unfit only if the discoloration covers most of the etrog. If it is speckled in two or three places, it is unfit even if the discoloration covers only An etrog that is tafuaĥ or saruaĥ – ‫א ְתרֹוג ָּתפו ַּח וְ ָסרו ַּח‬‎ֶ : An etrog a minority of the etrog. On the upper, blossom end of the etrog, on which water spilled and which began to swell as the start even the slightest discoloration renders it unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, of the decaying process, or an etrog that is decayed at all, alOraĥ Ĥayyim 648:16). though its peel remains intact, is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:15). An etrog shaped like a ball – ‫א ְתרֹוג ַּכ ַּכדּ וּר‬: ֶ An etrog that is

A pickled etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג ָּכבו ּׁש‬:ֶ An etrog that is pickled in vinegar or in any other pungent substance is unfit. Some rule that even an etrog pickled in honey is unfit (Taz). Others rule that it is unfit even if it is pickled in water, provided that it remained there for twenty-four hours (Magen Avraham). Yet others rule that it is unfit if the appearance of the etrog changes at all as a result of pickling, regardless of the substance in which it was pickled (Bikkurei Ya’akov; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:15).

round like a ball is unfit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:18).

A twin, conjoined etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג ַה ְּתיֹום‬:ֶ Two etrogim that were conjoined from their inception, or one etrog that split while growing so that it appears like two conjoined etrogim, is fit according to most authorities (Rambam; Rashba; Tur). Some deem it unfit (Rif; Sefer Mitzvot Gadol). Later authorities ruled that one should rule stringently if possible and refrain from using a conjoined etrog (Eliya Rabba; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim A boiled etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ָשלוּק‬: ֶ An etrog that is boiled is unfit. 648:20).



‫ול ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 36a 

177

:‫ ַמאי ָלאו‬,‫ ָסרו ַּח״‬,‫״תפו ַּח‬ ָּ :‫יהת‬ ַ ‫ָק ָתנֵי ִמ‬ !‫ וְ ָסרו ַּח – ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬,‫ָּתפו ַּח – ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬ :‫ וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬,‫ ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ,‫ָהא – דְּ ָת ַפח ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ל ֹא ָס ַרח‬ .‫ָהא – דְּ ָס ַרח ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ל ֹא ָּת ַפח‬

In any event, it teaches that an etrog that is tafuaĥ or saruaĥ is unfit. What, is it not that tafuaĥ means that it decayed on the outside and saruaĥ means that it decayed on the inside? The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, both this and that are referring to decay on the outside. And this apparent redundancy is not difficult, as this case, tafuaĥ, is where it swelled even though it did not decay, and that case, saruaĥ, is where it decayed even though it did not swell.

:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬.‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ּכו ׁ ִּשי ּ ָפסוּל‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫ֹומה ְלכו ׁ ִּשי ּ ָפסוּל! ָא ַמר‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬,‫ּכו ׁ ִּשי – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫ֹומה‬ ֶ ּ‫נִיתין – ד‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ְּתנַ ן נַ ִמי ַמ ְת‬:‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫ְלכ ּו ׁ ִשי ְּתנַ ן‬ .ּ‫ָהא – ָלן וְ ָהא – ְלהו‬

The Master said in the baraita cited above: A Cushite etrog is unfit. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: A Cushite etrog is fit, but an etrog that is similar to a Cushite etrogn is unfit. Abaye said: When we learned this halakha in the mishna that it is unfit, too, we learned it not in reference to an actual Cushite etrog, but rather in reference to one that is similar to a Cushite etrog. Rava said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a Cushite etrog, and nevertheless, it is not difficult; this, the halakha that it is unfit, is for us in Babylonia because our etrogim are typically light, and the dark Cushite etrogim are conspicuously different. And that, the halakha that it is fit, is for themn in Eretz Yisrael, whose etrogim are typically dark. In Eretz Yisrael the dark Cushite etrog is not conspicuously different, and it is therefore fit.

‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫יבא ּפ‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬,‫ֹוסר‬ ֶ ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג ַה ּב‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬ .‫ֲע ִק ָיבא וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָא ְמר ּו דָּ ָבר ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ ‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ּפ‬:)‫ַמאי ִהיא – (דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ .‫קֹוטנָן‬ ְ ‫ֶאת ָה ֶא ְתרֹוגִ ים ְ ּב‬

It was also taught in the baraita: With regard to an unripe etrog,n Rabbi Akiva deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. Rabba said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon said one and the same statement. The Gemara elaborates: The statement of Rabbi Akiva is that which we said; an unripe etrog is unfit. Rabbi Shimon, what is his statement? It is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts etrogim from the requirement to be tithed while in their small state. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon, too, holds that an unripe etrog is not a fruit.

‫ ַעד‬,‫ דִּ ְל ָמא ל ֹא ִהיא‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ – ‫ָּכאן ָלא ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ָה ָכא‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָתם‬.‫יכא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָב ֵעינַ ן‬ ָּ ‫״ה ָדר״ וְ ֵל‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַן ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬

Abaye said to Rabba: Perhaps that is not the case and they do not share the same opinion. Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion only here, with regard to an unripe etrog, as we require beauty [hadar] in an etrog and there is none in the case of an unripe etrog due to its color or small size; however, there, with regard to tithes, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one is obligated to tithe even a half-ripe etrog.

‫ ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬:‫ִאי נַ ִמי‬ ‫״ע ּ ֵ ׂשר ְּת ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר ֶאת‬ ַ :‫ָה ָתם ֶא ָּלא דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ָּכל ְּתבו ַּאת זַ ְר ֶעךָ ״ – ְּכ ֶד ֶרךְ ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא – ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫יעה‬ ָ ‫יאין ִלזְ ִר‬ ִ ִ‫מֹוצ‬ .‫יה‬ ‫ל‬ ֵ ‫א‬ ‫ְס ִב ָיר‬ ּ

Alternatively, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion only there with regard to the exemption of an unripe etrog from tithes, as it is written: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your planting, which is brought forth in the field year by year” (Deuteronomy 14:22). From that verse it is derived that the obligation to tithe applies only to produce that has developed to the point where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing; one is not obligated to tithe unripe fruit that is not suitable for planting. However, perhaps here he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and would deem an unripe etrog fit.

notes

A Cushite etrog and one similar to an Cushite etrog – ‫דֹומה‬ ֶ ְ‫ּכו ׁ ִּשי ו‬ ‫לכו ׁ ִּשי‬:ְ The difference between the two has been explained in different ways. Some explain that a Cushite etrog is one that grows in Cush or in any other country where the natural hue of the etrog is a darker rather than a lighter shade. Since that is the natural color of the fruit in those countries, it is fit for use. However, one similar to a Cushite etrog is a dark etrog that grew in a country where the typical shade of the etrog is much lighter (Rashi; Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). Others explain that a Cushite etrog is a dark etrog. It is so called because just as a Cushite has a dark color, this etrog is darker than other etrogim. An etrog that is similar to a Cushite is one that is physically similar to a Cushite; not only is it darker than other etrogim, but it is virtually black. In that case, the great difference between this etrog and typical etrogim renders it unfit (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh).

the etrog is fit for us in Babylonia and unfit for them in Eretz Yisrael or vice versa. Indeed, Rabbi Shimshon of Saens explains that the expression has a different meaning here. The phrase: This is for us, is referring to those who do not live in Cush, for whom the etrog is therefore unfit. The phrase: This is for them, is referring to those who live in Cush, for whom the etrog is fit.

An unripe etrog – ‫ֹוסר‬ ֶ ‫א ְתרֹוג ַה ּב‬:ֶ Some say that this etrog is the size of the unripe grape, which the Sages estimated to be approximately the size of a white bean. Accordingly, there are three opinions with regard to the size of the etrog: An egg-bulk (Rabbi Yehuda), an olive-bulk (Rabbi Meir), or the size of a white bean (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh; Sefer Hashlama). Others say that an unripe etrog is most certainly larger than a white bean, and they explain the discussion in the Gemara as related to the degree of ripeness of the fruit rather than to its size. As long as This is for us and that is for them – ‫הא ָלן וְ ָהא ְלה ּו‬:ָ The exact it has not ripened, Rabbi Akiva certainly deems it unfit, and his meaning of this expression in this context is not clear. Already in students, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, ruled in accordance with the geonic period, the question was raised whether it means that his opinion (Rid; Me’iri).

178 

Perek III . 36a . ‫ול ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

Perek III Daf 36 Amud b .‫ וְ ת ּו ָלא ִמידֵּ י‬The Gemara notes: And there is nothing moren to discuss here. Clearly, the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon do not necessarily coincide. ‫ִ ּגדְּ לֹו ַ ּבדְּ פוּס וַ ֲע ָ ׂשאֹו ְּכ ִמין ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה‬ ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ַא ֶח ֶרת ּ ָפסוּל‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ִמין ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ‫ ְּכ ִמין‬,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫ִּכ ְב ִרּיָ יתֹו – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫(תנַ ן)! ָלא צְ ִר‬ ְּ ‫ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ .‫דַּ ֲע ִב ָידא ַד ּ ֵפי ַד ּ ֵפי‬

The baraita continues: If he grew the etrog in a moldh and shaped it to appear like a different species,n it is unfit. Rava said: The Sages taught that it is unfit only if he shaped it to appear like a different species; however, if he shaped the etrog so it still appears like its own species, it is fit. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; the phrase: Like a different species, is explicitly taught in the baraita. If it shaped like its own species, it is fit. The Gemara answers: No, Rava’s statement is necessary to deem fit an etrog that is shaped into the shape of many planks,bn i.e., pieces of wood attached to each other. Although its shape is not precisely that of a regular etrog, it sufficiently resembles a regular etrog and is fit.

.‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶש ְּנ ָקבוּה ּו ַע ְכ ָ ּב ִרים‬,‫ § ִא ְּית ַמר‬It was stated that the amora’im disagree with regard to an etrog h n ‫ ִאינִי? וְ ָהא‬.‫ ֵאין זֶ ה ָה ָדר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬that mice pierced. Rav said: That is not beautiful. Is that so? n But wouldn’t Rabbi Ĥanina dip his etrog, eat part of it, and !‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַמ ְט ִ ּביל ָ ּב ּה וְ נָ ֵפיק ָ ּב ּה‬ fulfill his obligation with what remained of it? The Gemara asks: ;‫נִיתין‬ ִ ‫ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ַמ ְת‬ And for Rabbi Ĥanina, the mishna is difficult, as it states that an incomplete etrog is unfit. ‫נִיתין ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ָלא‬ ִ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַמ ְת‬ ,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ִר‬,‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַרב‬.‫ָּכאן – ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי‬:‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א! – ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב‬ .‫יסי‬ ִ ‫ַע ְכ ָ ּב ִרים דִּ ְמ ִא‬

The Gemara explains: Granted, for Rabbi Ĥanina, the mishna is not difficult, as it can be explained that here, when the mishna prohibits one from using an incomplete etrog, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, when a complete taking of the species is required; and there, when Rabbi Ĥanina’s conduct leads to the conclusion that an incomplete etrog is fit, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the second day of the Festival or thereafter. However, according to Rav, who said an etrog that was pierced by mice is unfit, Rabbi Ĥanina’s conduct is difficult, as the requirement of beauty applies on all seven days. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as Rav could have said to you: Mice are different, as they are repulsive. When mice pierce an etrog, what remains is antithetical to beauty. When a person bites an etrog, what remains can still be considered beautiful.

halakha

If he grew the etrog in a mold – ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶש ִ ּגדְּ לֹו ַ ּבדְּ פוּס‬:ֶ If one grows an etrog inside a mold and alters its shape to the point where it no longer resembles an etrog, it is unfit. However, if it retains the basic shape of an etrog despite slight modifications due to the mold, e.g., protrusions on either side of the fruit, it is fit, in accordance with the opinion of Rava (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:19). An etrog that is incomplete – ‫א ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶש ָח ַסר‬:ֶ An etrog that is incomplete is unfit for use on the first day of Sukkot but may be used during the rest of the Festival. An etrog pierced by mice is unfit throughout the Festival until one removes the section that the mice gnawed, because it is repulsive (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:5, and in the comment of the Rema). background

Many planks – ‫דַּ ּ ֵפי ַד ּ ֵפי‬: The image depicts an etrog that is in the shape of many planks attached to each other. It is still fit for use since it sufficiently resembles a regular etrog.

Etrog in the shape of many planks

notes

But wouldn’t Rabbi Ĥanina dip – ‫וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַמ ְט ִ ּביל‬: The early commentaries asked: How could Rabbi Ĥanina eat from the etrog with which he would fulfill the mitzva? Since it is designated for use in the performance of the mitzva, isn’t it set aside from use for any other purpose? Many answered Like a different species – ‫כ ִמין ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬:ְּ Some authorities that Rabbi Ĥanina had several etrogim, and each day he explain that the prohibition applies only where the mold would use a different one. Each one was designated for the causes the etrog to resemble a different species. However, mitzva on a particular day, and this allowed it to be used for the etrog is fit if it does not resemble any particular item, other purposes, including eating, on the other days. Then, if even if it does not resemble a typical etrog. he so desired, he could use the partially-eaten etrog for the Many planks – ‫ד ּ ֵפי ַד ּ ֵפי‬:ַ According to Rashi, he shaped the mitzva (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi; Sefer Hashlama; others). etrog with ridges that protrude on all sides, like those which The Me’iri wondered about this practice of Rabbi Ĥanina, appear in many etrogim naturally. According to the Ri and the Arukh, he shaped the etrog with angles, so that it is no which was apparently not a single incident: Even if it is permitted, why would he do so? Is it appropriate for one so longer spherical but polyhedral. prominent and pious to fulfill his obligation with a flawed That is not beautiful – ‫אין זֶ ה ָה ָדר‬: ֵ Numerous commentaries etrog? The Me’iri answers that Rabbi Ĥanina would in fact and authorities attempted to determine the relationship recite the blessing and perform the mitzva using a whole, between the statement of Rabbi Ĥanina and the statement of Rav. Many explained that the Gemara begins discussing beautiful etrog. However, when he observed the custom of the matter of an incomplete etrog, which is unfit for use only the early generations of pious men and carried the four speon the first day of the Festival but may be used during the cies with him throughout the Festival, he would occasionally rest of the Festival. However, the Gemara goes on to discuss eat from the etrog that he was carrying. In any event, it may whether or not that etrog is considered beautiful; if not, it be learned from his practice that one may recite a blessing is unfit for the entire Festival, as that is a flaw in the very over an incomplete etrog, even though Rabbi Ĥanina himself essence of the etrog (see Ĥiddushei Rabbi Yisrael MiKozhnitz). did not actually do so. And there is nothing more – ‫וְ ת ּו ָלא ִמידֵּ י‬: This expression, which appears in the Gemara in several places, apparently means that the rationales cited on this matter are sufficient and there is no point in discussing the matter further, as the conclusion is clear.



‫ול ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 36b 

179

‫ דְּ ָהא‬,‫ זֶ ה ָה ָדר‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַמ ְט ִ ּביל ָ ּב ּה וְ נָ ֵפיק ָ ּב ּה‬ :‫נִיתין! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ִ ‫ֲחנִינָ א ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ַמ ְת‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּביֹום‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָּכאן – ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ִר‬ .‫טֹוב ׁ ֵשנִי‬

§ Some say this exchange differently. Rav said with regard to

an etrog that mice pierced: That is beautiful, as Rabbi Ĥanina would dip his etrog, eat part of it, and fulfill his obligation with what remained of it, indicating that an incomplete etrog is fit. The Gemara asks: And for Rabbi Ĥanina, the mishna is difficult, as it states that an incomplete etrog is unfit. The Gemara answers: The mishna is not difficult; here, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the first day of the festival of Sukkot; there, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the second day of the Festival or thereafter.

:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ְפ ָרם ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬.‫״א ְתרֹוג ָק ָטן״ וכו׳‬ ֶ ‫לֹוקת ַ ּב ֲא ָבנִים‬ ֶ ‫לֹוקת ָּכאן ָּכךְ ַמ ֲח‬ ֶ ‫ְּכ ַמ ֲח‬ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ֲא ָבנִים‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ְמקו ְּרזָ לֹות‬ ,‫ְמקו ְּרזָ לֹות מו ָּּתר ְל ַה ְכנִיס ְל ֵבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא‬ ,‫ ָּכ ֱאגֹוז‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַכ ָּמה ׁ ִשיעו ָּרן? ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ .‫ ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬

A dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is cited in a mishna with regard to the minimum measure of a small etrog. Rafram bar Pappa said: Like the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to the matter of rounded stones,n as it was taught in a baraita: On Shabbat three rounded stonesh may be taken into the bathroom in order to clean oneself with them. Although generally one may not move stones on Shabbat because they are set aside from use, the Sages permitted doing so in the interest of human dignity. However, they disagreed, with regard to the size of these stones. And what is their measure? Rabbi Meir says: A walnut-bulk; Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk. Clearly the rationales for these disputes are different; however, since the respective measures are identical, the analogy can serve as a mnemonic.

‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ַּתנְיָא‬.‫ֹאחז״ כו׳‬ ַ ‫״ו ְּבגָ דֹול ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּי‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫נֶסת וְ ֶא ְתרֹוגֹו ַעל ְּכ ֵתפֹו‬ ֶ ‫ְל ֵבית ַה ְּכ‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם ְר ָאיָ ה?! ַאף ֵהם‬:‫לֹו ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ .‫ ֵאין זֶ ה ָה ָדר‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬

The mishna continues: And in a large etrog,h the maximum measure is so that one could hold two in his one hand; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is fit even if it is so large that he can hold only one in his two hands. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who came to the synagogue, and his etrog was so large that he carried it on his shoulder.n Apparently, one can fulfill his obligation with a large etrog. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is there proof from there? In that case, too, the Sages said to him: That is not beauty.

notes

Like the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to rounded stones – ‫לֹוקת ַ ּב ֲא ָבנִים ְמקו ְּרזָ לֹות‬ ֶ ‫לֹוקת ָּכאן ָּכ ְך ַמ ֲח‬ ֶ ‫כ ַמ ֲח‬:ְּ According to Rashi in tractate Shabbat, Rafram bar Pappa said this as a mnemonic. The dispute of the matter of rounded stones is a baraita that is lesser known, and he sought to link it to a mishna that is better known to ensure that each opinion will be accurately attributed to the tanna who said it. Others say that this analogy comes to teach that even in the case of the rounded stones, the measures provided are

minimum and not maximum measures (see Arukh LaNer; Sefat Emet). His etrog on his shoulder – ‫א ְתרֹוגֹו ַעל ְּכ ֵתפֹו‬: ֶ Although it was never stated that one holds the etrog specifically in his hand and that an amputee takes it in his arm, apparently Rabbi Akiva did not intend to fulfill the mitzva by holding the etrog on his shoulder. Rather, he intended to take it in his hands to perform the mitzva, and he carried it on his shoulder because it was heavy (Rav Ya’akov Emden).

halakha

Rounded stones on Shabbat – ‫א ָבנִים ְמקו ְּרזָ לֹות ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬: ֲ In order to maintain human dignity, the Sages permitted carrying rounded stones to the bathroom on Shabbat to clean oneself. If one is going to a designated bathroom, he may take a handful of stones. If it is not a designated bathroom, then he may take a stone the size of a small mortar (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 312:1).

180 

Perek III . 36b . ‫ול ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

A large etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג ָ ּגדֹול‬:ֶ There is no maximum measure of an etrog; even an exceedingly large one is fit. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as the halakha is ruled in his favor in disputes with Rabbi Yehuda (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 648:22).

‫מתני׳ ֵאין אֹוגְ ִדין ֶאת ַהלּ ו ָּלב ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ְ ּב ִמינֹו‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫יחה‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ְ ּבחוּט ִ ּב ְמ ׁ ִש‬ ֵ ‫נְשי יְ ר ּו ׁ ָש ַליִ ם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַא‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ימֹונִּיֹות‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו אֹוגְ ִדין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ּ ִ‫יהן ְ ּבג‬ ‫ ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָהי ּו אֹוגְ ִדין‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬.‫ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב‬ .‫אֹותֹו ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ִסיב ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ּ ָ ‫ְ ּב ִע‬ ‫ ַמאי‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫יק ָלא‬ ְ ‫יק ָרא דְּ ִד‬ ‫ לו ָּלב‬:‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ָק ָס ַבר‬ ּ ‫ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫יתי ִמינָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ִ ְ‫ וְ ִאי ַמי‬,‫יך ֶאגֶ ד‬ ְ ‫צָ ִר‬ .‫ֲהוָ ה ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ִמינֵי‬

‫ ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה דְּ ִסיב‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִע‬ – ‫יק ָרא דְּ ִד ְיק ָלא ִמינָ א דְּ לו ָּל ָבא הוּא‬ ‫״ב ּסו ּּכֹות ֵּת ׁ ְשבוּ״ – סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶשל‬ ּ ַ :‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ָּכל דָּ ָבר‬ ‫נֹוהגֶ ת ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֶ ‫ ֵאין סו ָּּכה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ו ַּמה לּ ו ָּלב‬:‫נֹותן‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַהדִּ ין‬.‫ִמינִים ׁ ֶש ַ ּבלּ ו ָּלב‬ ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ֵּלילֹות ְּכ ַבּיָ ִמים – ֵאינֹו‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ‫ סו ָּּכה‬,‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמינִין‬ ֵ ‫ֹוהגֶ ת ַ ּב ֵּלילֹות ְּכ ַבּיָ ִמים – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין‬ ֶ ּ‫ׁ ֶשנ‬ ?‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְּת ֵהא ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמינִין‬

mishna 

One may bind the lulavh only with its own species; i.e., one of the four species taken with the lulav. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may do so even with a string or with a cord.n Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the men of Jerusalem who would bind their lulavim with gold rings. The Sages said to him: They would bind it with its own species beneath the rings, which serve a merely decorative purpose and not a halakhic one.

background

Fibers around the date palm – ‫סיב‬:ִ The trunk of a date palm is surrounded by a small net of fibers. During the talmudic era, these fibers were woven into baskets or used for wrapping various objects.

gemara 

Rava said: One may bind the lulav even with fibers that grow around the trunk of the date palm,b and even with a piece of the trunk of the date palm. And Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? He holds that a lulav requires binding, and if one brings another species to bind the lulav, there will be five species and he will violate the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot.

And Rava further said: From where do I say this halakha that fibers and the trunk of the date palm are the species of the lulav? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “You shall reside in sukkot for seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), which means a sukka of any material, as the Torah was not particular about the material to be used for the roofing; any species may be used as long as it grew from the ground and it is not susceptible to impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The mitzva of sukka is practiced only with the four species of the lulav as roofing. And, he claims, logic dictates that it is so, as it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as the mitzva of lulav, which is not practiced at night as it is during the day, is practiced only with the four species, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, which is practiced at night as it is during the day, is it not right that its roofing should be only from the four species?

Trunk of a date palm and the fibers growing around it

‫ ָּכל דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה דָּ ן ְּת ִח ָּלתֹו‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬The Rabbis said to him: That is not an a fortiori inference, as any n ,‫ ְל ַה ְח ִמיר וְ סֹופֹו ְל ָה ֵקל – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין‬a fortiori inference that you infer initially to be stringent, but ultimately it is to be lenient, is not a legitimate a fortiori inference. If ultimately the stringency leads to a leniency, the entire basis of the inference is undermined.

halakha

Binding of the lulav – ‫אגֶ ד ַה ּלו ָּלב‬: ֶ Based on the principle: Beautify yourself before Him in the performance of mitzvot, there is a mitzva to bind three of the species together with at least one double knot. One may use any material to tie them,

but the custom for many generations has been to tie them with the leaf of a lulav. Some tie the species together with five knots, based on kabbalistic teachings (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:1).

notes

With a cord – ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫ב ְמ ׁ ִש‬:ּ ִ A cord is mentioned here specifically because it is certainly less aesthetic (Melekhet Shlomo). Some explain this term as referring to a red, silk string (Rav Natan, Head of the Yeshiva).

explained that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis is not only in this particular instance; rather, it is much broader. Is an a fortiori inference whose initial conclusion is a stringency, but may ultimately lead to a leniency, a legitimate Any a fortiori inference that you infer initially to be strin- inference or not? As the result runs counter to the objective of gent, etc. – ‫כל דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה דָּ ן ְּת ִח ָּלתֹו ְל ַה ְח ִמיר וכו׳‬:ָּ See Tosafot the inference, perhaps the inference is negated (see Kappot and elsewhere (Torat Kohanim, Parashat Tazria), where it is Temarim and others).



‫ול ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 36b 

181

Perek III Daf 37 Amud a notes

And the Torah states: You shall reside in sukkot for seven days – ‫ ַ ּב ּסו ּּכֹות ֵּת ׁ ְשב ּו ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים‬,‫וְ ַה ּת ָֹורה ָא ְמ ָרה‬: This appears redundant; as the Sages questioned the validity of an a fortiori argument that leads to leniency, why was it necessary to cite the verse (Korban Aharon)? Perhaps it is this verse that is the basis of their opinion that an a fortiori argument that leads to leniency is not legitimate (Kappot Temarim). Ten types of erez – ‫ע ָ ׂש ָרה ִמינֵי ֶא ֶרז‬:ֲ There are different opinions as to the meaning of the term erez and its use in different contexts. Some understand that erez is not the name of a botanical category of tree, but rather a name applied to many very different species of tree that have one attribute in common, e.g., large trees, denseleaved trees, or evergreen trees. With regard to business transactions, erez refers to specific types of wood used for construction and does not include all ten species mentioned in the Gemara. Erez as a specific type of tree is a separate matter altogether (see Rosh HaShanah 23a and Tosafot there). An incident involving the prominent residents of Jerusalem – ‫מ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּביַ ִּק ֵירי יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬:ַ The commentaries asked: Why did the Gemara cite this baraita here, given that it merely repeats the mishna? Some noted the substantial difference between all the men of Jerusalem mentioned in the mishna and the prominent men of Jerusalem mentioned in the baraita. It is only in the latter case that it can be asserted to a degree of certainty that they bound the lulav with its own species beneath the gold bands (Kappot Temarim; Arukh LaNer). Personalities

Rabba – ‫ר ָ ּבה‬:ַ Rav Abba bar Naĥmani, commonly referred to as Rabba throughout the Babylonian Talmud, was a priest and a third-generation Babylonian amora. Rabba was a student of Rav Huna, who was a student of Rav. Therefore, Rabba’s approach to halakha was consistent with Rav’s teachings. Rabba was considered the sharpest among his peers, to the extent that he was referred to as: One who uproots mountains, in contrast to his colleague, Rav Yosef, whose talent was in his comprehensive knowledge and was referred to as Sinai. In virtually every dispute between them, the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. Rabba had many students, and virtually all of the Sages of the following generation studied with him. His personal life was tragic; his children apparently died during his lifetime. He was poverty stricken throughout his life, barely subsisting on agricultural work. When his nephew Abaye was orphaned at a young age, Rabba took him into his home and raised him.

,‫יֹושב ו ָּב ֵטל‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ל ֹא ָמצָ א ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמינִין – יְ ֵהא‬ ‫״ב ּסו ּּכֹות ֵּת ׁ ְשב ּו ׁ ִש ְב ַעת‬ ּ ַ :‫וְ ַה ּת ָֹורה ָא ְמ ָרה‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵכן ְ ּב ֶעזְ ָרא‬.‫יָ ִמים״ – סו ָּּכה ׁ ֶשל ָּכל דָּ ָבר‬ ‫״צְ א ּו ָה ָהר וְ ָה ִביא ּו ֲע ֵלי זַ יִ ת וַ ֲע ֵלי ֵעץ ׁ ֶש ֶמן וַ ֲע ֵלי‬ )ּ‫ֲה ַדס וַ ֲע ֵלי ְּת ָמ ִרים וַ ֲע ֵלי ֵעץ ָעבֹות (וַ ֲע ׂשו‬ .‫סו ּּכֹות ַּכ ָּכתוּב״‬

According to your reasoning, if one did not find any of the four species to roof his sukka, he will sit idly and fail to fulfill the mitzva of sukka; and the Torah states: “You shall reside in sukkot for seven days” (Leviticus 23:42),n meaning a sukka of any material. Likewise, in the book of Ezra, which can refer also to the book of Nehemiah, it says: “Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, to make sukkot, as it is written” (Nehemiah 8:15). Apparently, a sukka may be constructed even with materials other than the four species.

‫ ֲע ֵלי ֲה ַדס‬,‫ ָהנֵי – ִל ְד ָפנֹות‬:‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר‬ :‫ ו ְּתנַן‬. ְ‫וַ ֲע ֵלי ְּת ָמ ִרים וַ ֲע ֵלי ֵעץ ָעבֹות – ַל ְּס ָכך‬ :‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ְמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ִ ּבנְ ָס ִרין‬ ּ ָ ‫ִסיב וְ ִע‬ ,‫יק ָרא דְּ ִד ְיק ָלא ִמינָ א דְּ לו ָּל ָבא הוּא‬ .‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: These olive branches and pine branches mentioned in the verse were for the walls of the sukka, which need not be built from the four species. Myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, i.e., again myrtle, all of which are among the four species, were for the roofing. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one may roof the sukka only with the four species. And we learned in a mishna: One may roof the sukka with boards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. As boards can be produced from one of the four species only if the trunk of the date palm is considered a lulav, apparently, fibers and the trunk of the date palm are the species of the lulav. The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

‫ ִמידֵּ י‬,‫ו ִּמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמינִין – ִאין‬ ‫נְס ִרים ׁ ֶשל‬ ָ ‫יכ ָכ ּה ִ ּב‬ ְּ ‫ ִס‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬,‫ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָלא‬ ‫ֶא ֶרז ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ְט ָפ ִחים – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ ‫ ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ְט ָפ ִחים – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬ ‫ּמֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ֶ ‫ ו‬.‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ ‫נֶסר – ׁ ֶש ַּמ ּנ ִַיח‬ ֶ ‫נֶסר ִּכ ְמל ֹא‬ ֶ ‫נֶסר ְל‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ִאם יֵ ׁש ֵ ּבין‬ !‫ינֵיהן ו ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָירה‬ ֶ ‫ּ ֶפ ֶסל ֵ ּב‬

The Gemara wonders: And did Rabbi Yehuda say with regard to the materials fit for roofing a sukka that the four species, yes, they are fit, but other materials, no, they are not fit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one roofed the sukka with cedar [erez] boards that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit. If they do not have four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress between the boards and the sukka is fit. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda permits one to roof the sukka with cedar wood, which is not one of the four species.

‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ַמאי ֶא ֶרז – ֲה ַדס; ִּכ ְד ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ִמינֵי‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵ ּבי ַרב‬,‫ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫יטה‬ ָּ ‫״א ֵּתן ַ ּב ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר ֶא ֶרז ׁ ִש‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֲא ָרזִ ים ֵהן‬ .‫וַ ֲה ַדס״ וגו׳‬

The Gemara responds: What is the erez to which the mishna refers? It is in fact a myrtle tree, in accordance with that which Rabba bar Rav Huna said, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said that they say in the school of Rav: There are ten types of erez,n as it is stated: “I will place in the wilderness the cedar [erez], the acacia-tree, the myrtle, and pine tree; I will set in the plain the juniper, the box-tree, and the cypress all together” (Isaiah 41:19). All the trees listed in this verse are types of cedar, and the myrtle is one of them.

,‫ ַּתנְיָא‬.‫יחה״ כו׳‬ ָ ‫אֹומר ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִ ּב ְמ ׁ ִש‬ ֵ ‫ַ״ר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּביַ ִּק ֵירי יְ ר ּו ׁ ָש ַליִ ם‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ימֹונִּיֹות ׁ ֶשל‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו אֹוגְ ִדין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ּ ִ‫יהן ְ ּבג‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם ְר ָאיָה?! ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָהי ּו אֹוגְ ִדין‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬,‫זָ ָהב‬ .‫אֹותֹו ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬

§ The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir says: One may tie the

halakha

A lulav with a handgrip – ‫לו ָּלב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ֵ ּבית יָ ד‬: If one fashions a handle for his lulav out of a different species and grips the lulav with it, if it is performed in a deferential manner, he fulfills his obligation, in accordance with the opinion of Rava (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim, 651:7).

‫הֹוש ְענָ א דְּ ֵבי‬ ַ ׁ ‫ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַר ָ ּבה ְל ָהנְ ה ּו ְמגַ דְּ ֵלי‬ ‫הֹוש ְענָ א דְּ ֵבי ֵר ׁיש‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ִּכי ָ ּג ְד ִלית ּו‬:‫ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬ ‫יכי דְּ ָלא‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ֵה‬,‫יה ֵ ּבית יָ ד‬ ּ ‫ָ ּגלו ָּתא – ׁ ַשיְ ִירי ֵ ּב‬ .‫יהוֵ י ֲחצִ יצָ ה‬ ֱ ‫ֶּת‬

182 

Perek III . 37a . ‫זל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

lulav even with a cord. It is taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the prominent residents of Jerusalemn who would bind their lulavim with gold rings. The Sages said to him: Is there proof from there? They would bind it with its own species beneath the rings, which serve a merely decorative purpose and not a halakhic one. Rabbap said to those who would bind the four species [hoshana] of the house of the Exilarch: When you bind the four species of the house of the Exilarch, leave room for a handgriph on it where there is neither binding nor decoration so that there will not be an interposition between the lulav and the hand of the person taking it.

.‫ ּכֹל ְלנַ אֹותֹו ֵאינֹו חֹוצֵ ץ‬:‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ָלא ִלינְ ֵקיט ִא ינִ ׁיש‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָב ֵעינָ א ְל ִק‬,‫הֹוש ְענָ א ְ ּבסו ָּד ָרא‬ ַׁ ‫יחה ַעל‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִק‬:‫ וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫ַּת ָמה‬ .‫יחה‬ ָ ‫יְ ֵדי דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ְל ִק‬

Rava said: That is unnecessary, as any addition whose purpose is to beautify does not interpose. And Rabba said: Let a person not take the four species with a cloth [sudara]lh around his hand, since I require a complete taking, and there is none in this case due to the interposition between his hand and the lulav. And Rava said: That is not a problem, as taking by means of another objectn is considered taking.

‫יחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה דִּ ְל ִק‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ – ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫ַעל יְ ֵדי דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ְל ִק‬ ‫ ֵאזֹוב ָקצָ ר ְמ ַס ּ ְפקֹו ַ ּבחוּט ו ַּב ּכו ּׁש‬:‫דִּ ְתנַן‬ .‫אֹוחז ָ ּב ֵאזֹוב ו ַּמּזֶ ה‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫טֹובל ו ַּמ ֲע ֶלה‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ !‫ַא ַּמאי? וְ ָל ַקח וְ ָט ַבל ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ‫יחה ַעל יְ ֵדי‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִק‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫יחה‬ ָ ‫דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ְל ִק‬

Rava said: From where do I say that taking by means of another object is considered taking? It is as we learned in a mishna: One undergoing purification from impurity imparted by a corpse must be sprinkled with purification water with the ashes of the red heifer. If the hyssop used to sprinkle the water was shorth and did not reach the water in the receptacle, one renders it sufficiently long by attaching a string or a spindle,b and then he dips the hyssop into the water, removes it,n grasps the hyssop, and sprinkles the water on the one undergoing purification. And why may he do so? Doesn’t the Merciful One say in the Torah: “And a ritually pure person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it” (Numbers 19:18), indicating that one must take the hyssop while dipping it? Rather, may one not conclude from this that taking by means of another object is considered taking?

language

Cloth [sudara] – ‫סו ָּד ָרא‬: From the Greek σουδάριον, soudarion, and the Latin sudarium, meaning kerchief or towel. background

Spindle – ‫כו ּׁש‬:ּ

‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ ִמ ַּמאי? דִּ ְל ָמא ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬This proof is rejected: From where can that be proven? Perhaps it :‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ָה ָכא‬.‫יה דָּ ֵמי‬ ּ ‫יה – ְּכגו ֵּפ‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ַח ְ ּב ֵר‬is different there; since he attached the string to the hyssop, its ,‫פֹופ ֶרת ַל ׁ ּש ֶֹוקת – ּ ָפסוּל‬ ֶ ‫ נָ ַפל ִמ ׁ ּ ְש‬legal status is like that of the hyssop itself. However, the legal status of the cloth is not like that of the lulav, since it is not attached to the lulav. Rather, the fact that taking by means of another object is considered taking can be learned from here: If the ashes of the red heifer fell from the tube in which they were held into the trough in which the spring water was located, the water is unfit, since taking the ashes and placing them in the water must be performed intentionally.h

halakha

A lulav with a cloth – ‫לו ָּלב ְ ּב ּסו ָּד ָרא‬: One who wraps a cloth around the lulav and takes it in this manner has not fulfilled his obligation (Tosafot; Mordekhai; Ran), and he must take the four species again (Magen Avraham). If he wraps his hands in a scarf or wears gloves while taking the lulav, some say he has fulfilled his obligation (Magen Avraham; see Ran). The custom is to avoid any form of interposition, including rings on one’s fingers (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:7 and in the comment of the Rema, based on the Maharil). The hyssop was short – ‫אזֹוב ָקצָ ר‬:ֵ If the hyssop branch used to

sprinkle the purification waters is too short to reach the water, one may attach a string to it, or he may insert it into the top of a spindle, dip it into the water, and then hold the hyssop and sprinkle the water, in accordance with the mishna cited here (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 11:4). Sanctifying the purification waters – ‫קדּ ו ּׁש ֵמי ַח ַּטאת‬:ִ One who is sanctifying purification waters must place the ashes into the water with his hand intentionally. If the ashes fell from the vessel into the water accidentally, it is unfit (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 9:2).

notes

To beautify…taking by means of another object – …‫ְלנַ אֹותֹו‬ ‫יחה ַעל יְ ֵדי דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ ָ ‫ל ִק‬:ְ The commentaries discuss the difference between these cases. First, there are methods of beautifying the lulav which do not involve interposition, e.g., gold bands not placed at the point where one grips the lulav. Therefore, it was necessary to ascertain whether there is a problem of interposition when the intention is to beautify. A separate problem involves taking by means of another object when it is clear that the beauty is not enhanced, e.g., in the case of a cloth. In that case, the issue is that on the one hand, taking by means of another object could be a display of contempt for the lulav, as one does not want to dirty his hands by touching it; on the other hand, it could be in deference to the lulav



that he dare not grip it with his bare hands. Therefore, Rava says that taking by means of another object is considered taking, provided that it is motivated by deference and performed in a deferential manner. If one does so, it is considered taking. This is also the proper manner to treat a Torah scroll (Kappot Temarim).

Spindle from the talmudic period

Dips and removes – ‫טֹובל ו ַּמ ֲע ֶלה‬: ֵ According to the explanation of Rashi and the Me’iri, the water was transported from place to place in vessels in order to preserve its purity. To avoid certain impurities, the water was placed in sealed reed tubes. Since these tubes were long and narrow, not every hyssop branch was long enough to reach the water in the tube. ‫זל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 37a 

183

Perek III Daf 37 Amud b halakha

Interposition in a bound lulav – ‫חצִ יצָ ה ְ ּבלו ָּלב ָה ָאגוּד‬:ֲ Leaves of the four species that fall from their branches and are within the binding do not constitute an interposition, in accordance with Rava’s opinion (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:1). To smell a myrtle branch and an etrog – ‬‫ל ָה ִר ַיח ֲה ַדס וְ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:ְ It is prohibited to smell the myrtle branch being used for the mitzva of the four species. Technically, one may smell the etrog being used for the four species; however, since there is a dispute (Ra’avya; Rabbeinu Simĥa in the Mordekhai) whether one recites a blessing when smelling the etrog, one should refrain from smelling it due to the uncertainty (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 653:1). Smelling vegetation attached to the ground – ‫ְל ָה ִר ַיח‬ ‫ב ְמחו ָ ּּבר ַל ַ ּק ְר ַקע‬:ּ ְ On Shabbat, it is permitted to smell a myrtle branch or any other fragrant tree while it remains attached to the ground. However, it is prohibited to smell fruits still attached to a tree on Shabbat, lest one come to pick them in order to eat them, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 336:10).

‫ ַא ַּמאי? ״וְ ָל ְקח ּו‬,‫ָהא ִה ּ ִפילֹו הוּא – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫וְ נָ ַתן״ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א! ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫יחה ַעל יְ ֵדי דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִק‬:‫ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫יחה‬ ָ ‫ְל ִק‬

By inference, if he spilled the ashes intentionally from the tube into the water, it is fit. Why? Doesn’t the Merciful One say in the Torah: “And for the impure they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin, and he places running water upon them in a vessel” (Numbers 19:17). Apparently, one must mix the water and the ashes intentionally. Rather, may one not conclude from it that taking by means of another object is considered taking?

‫ינִיש לו ָּל ָבא‬ ׁ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה – ָלא ָלדוּץ ִא‬ ‫ דְּ ִד ְל ָמא נָ ְת ִרי ַט ְר ּ ֵפי וְ ָהוֵ י‬,‫הֹוש ְענָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ְ ּב‬ ‫ ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ֵאינֹו‬:‫ וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫ֲחצִ יצָ ה‬ .‫חֹוצֵ ץ‬

And Rabba said with regard to the lulav: After binding the myrtle branches and willow branches, let a person not insert the lulav into the binding of the four species, as perhaps as a result the leaves will fall from the branches and the leaves will constitute an interposition between the various species.h And Rava said: An object of one species does not interpose before an object of the same species.

‫ינִיש לו ָּל ָבא‬ ׁ ‫ ָלא ֵליגוּז ִא‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ וְ ָהוֵ י‬,‫ דְּ ִמ ׁ ְש ַּתיְ ִירי ה ּוצָ א‬,‫הֹוש ְענָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ְ ּב‬ ‫ ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ֵאינֹו‬:‫ וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫ֲחצִ יצָ ה‬ .‫חֹוצֵ ץ‬

And Rabba said: Let a person not cutn the lulav in order to shorten it while it is in the binding of the four species, as perhaps as a result leaves will become detached and will constitute an interposition between the various species. And Rava said: An object of one species does not interpose before an object of the same species.

‫ ֲה ַדס ׁ ֶשל ִמצְ וָ ה ָאס ּור‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ׁ ֶשל ִמצְ וָ ה – מו ָּּתר‬,‫ְל ָה ִר ַיח ּבֹו‬ ‫יחא‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ֲה ַדס דִּ ְל ֵר‬.‫ְל ָה ִר ַיח ּבֹו‬ ,‫יה‬ ָ ‫יה – ֵמ ֵר‬ ּ ֵ‫יחא ַא ְקצִ י‬ ּ ֵ‫ ִּכי ַא ְקצִ י‬,‫ָק ֵאי‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג דְּ ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה ָק ֵאי – ִּכי ַא ְקצִ י‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ֵמ ֲא ִכ ָילה ַא ְקצִ י‬

§ And Rabba said: It is prohibited to smell the myrtle branch

‫ ֲה ַדס ִ ּב ְמחו ָ ּּבר – מו ָּּתר‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ִ ּב ְמחו ָ ּּבר – ָאסוּר‬,‫ְל ָה ִר ַיח ּבֹו‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ֲה ַדס דִּ ְל ָה ִר ַיח‬.‫ְל ָה ִר ַיח ּבֹו‬ ,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫יה – ָלא ָא ֵתי ְל ִמגְ זְ י‬ ּ ‫ ִאי ׁ ָש ֵרית ֵל‬,‫ָק ֵאי‬ – ‫יה‬ ‫ל‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ‫ר‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ ָ ׁ ‫י‬ ‫א‬ ִ ,‫י‬ ‫א‬ ֵ ‫ק‬ ָ ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג דְּ ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ּ .‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ָא ֵתי ְל ִמגְ זְ י‬

And Rabba said: With regard to a myrtle branch, while it is attached to the tree, it is permitted to smell it on Shabbat.h With regard to an etrog, while it is attached to the tree, it is prohibited to smell it. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the difference between them? With regard to a myrtle branch, which exists primarily to smell it, if you permit him to smell it, he will not come to cut it. Once he has smelled it, he has no further use for it. With regard to an etrog, which exists primarily for eating, one may not smell it because if you permit him to do so, the concern is that he will come to cut it from the tree to eat it.

used in fulfillment of the mitzva. However, it is permitted to smell the etroghn used in fulfillment of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the distinction between them? The Gemara answers: With regard to a myrtle branch, which exists primarily for its fragrance, when he sets it aside exclusively for the mitzva, he sets it aside from enjoying its fragrance. With regard to an etrog, on the other hand, which exists primarily for eating, when he sets it aside exclusively for the mitzva, he sets it aside from eating. However, he never intended to prohibit this ancillary pleasure.

notes

Let him not insert…let him not cut – ‫ּץ…לא ֵליגוּז‬ ָ ‫לא ָלדו‬:ָ These two issues disputed by Rabba and Rava are apparently one and the same; why does the Gemara cite them separately? The difference between them is that in the first case, the concern is that leaves of a myrtle branch or a willow branch will end up out of place and constitute an interposition. However, in the second case, each of the species remains in place and therefore, even if it is severed it is merely a case of the same species interposing, which does not constitute an interposition (Kappot Temarim).

Zeraĥya HaLevi; others) according to which the ruling is the opposite. It is prohibited to smell the myrtle branch because its primary appeal is its smell, and if one is permitted to smell it, he might come to cut it. For the same reason, it is prohibited on Shabbat to smell myrtle branches attached to a tree. However, with regard to the etrog, the assumption is that one is aware that he may not eat it, which is its primary function. Therefore, even if he smells it on Shabbat, he will be careful not to detach it from the tree. See the Me’iri, who cites a dispute between the early authorities as to whether the allowance to smell the myrtle branch includes permission to pull down the branches To smell a myrtle branch and an etrog – ‫ל ָה ִר ַיח ֲה ַדס וְ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:ְ to render them more easily accessible, or whether it is permitThere is a version of the Gemara (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rabbi ted only to smell the myrtle branch but not actually to touch it.

184 

Perek III . 37b . ‫זל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

.‫ וְ ֶא ְתרֹוג ַ ּב ּ ְ ׂשמֹאל‬,‫ לו ָּלב ַ ּבּיָ ִמין‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי‬,‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָהנֵי ְּת ָל ָתא ִמצְ ו‍ֹת‬ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ֲח ָדא ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ַעם ָלא ְמ ָב ְר ִכינַ ן ֶא ָּלא‬:‫זְ ִר ָיקא‬ .‫בֹוה ִמ ּכו ָּּלן‬ ַּ ָ‫הֹואיל וְ ג‬ ִ ?‫ַעל נְ ִט ַילת לו ָּלב‬ :‫יה‬ ְ ‫ ו ְּל ָב ֵר‬,‫יה ְל ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ּ ‫יך! ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫וְ ַלגְ ְ ּב ֵה‬ .‫בֹוה ִמ ּכו ָּּלן‬ ַּ ‫הֹואיל ו ְּב ִמינֹו ָ ּג‬ ִ

‫נְעין? ְ ּב״הֹוד ּו ַלה׳״‬ ִ ‫נַע‬ ְ ‫מתני׳ וְ ֵה ָיכן ָהי ּו ְמ‬ ,‫יעה ָּנא״‬ ָ ‫הֹוש‬ ִ ׁ ‫״א ָּנא ה׳‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּב‬,‫ְּת ִח ָּילה וָ סֹוף‬ :‫אֹומ ִרין‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יחה נָ א״‬ ָ ‫״א ָּנא ה׳ ַהצְ ִל‬ ָ ‫ַאף ְ ּב‬ ‫יאל וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫יתי ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ִ ִ‫צֹופה ָהי‬ ֶ :‫ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּכל ָה ָעם ָהי ּו ְמנַ ְענְ ִעין ֶאת‬,‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ‫״א ָּנא‬ ָ ‫נִענְע ּו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵהם ל ֹא‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫לו ְּל ֵב‬ .‫יעה ָּנא״‬ ָ ‫הֹוש‬ ִ ׁ ‫ה׳‬

§ And Rabba said: One takes the lulav bound with the other

two species in the right hand and the etrog in the left. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for that arrangement? These species constitute three mitzvot, and this etrog is only one mitzva. One accords deference to the greater number of mitzvot by taking the three species in the right hand. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: What is the reason that we recite the blessing only with the formula: About taking the lulav, with no mention of the other species? Rabbi Zerika said to him: Since it is highest of them all and the most conspicuous, the other species are subsumed under it. Rabbi Yirmeya asks: And if that is the only reason, let him lift the etrogn higher than the lulav and recite the blessing mentioning it. Rabbi Zerika said to him that he meant: Since the tree of its species is the tallest of them all, it is the most prominent, and therefore it is appropriate for the formula of the blessing to emphasize the lulav. h

mishna 

And where in the recitation of hallel would they wavehn the lulav? They would do so at the verse: “Thank the Lord, for He is good” (Psalms 118:1, 29) that appears at both the beginning and the end of the psalm, and at the verse: “Lord, please save us” (Psalms 118:25); this is the statement of Beit Hillel. And Beit Shammain say: They would wave the lulav even at the verse: “Lord, please grant us success” (Psalms 118:25). Rabbi Akiva said: I was observing Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua and saw that all the people were waving their lulavim, and the two of them waved their lulav only at: “Lord, please save us,” indicating that this is the halakha.

halakha

Holding the species when reciting the blessing – ‫ַה ְחזָ ַקת‬ ‫ה ִּמינִים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬:ַ One holds the lulav and the species bound with it in his right hand and the etrog in his left, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. There is a dispute among later authorities with regard to which he lifts first. Some rule that one lifts the etrog first (Shenei Luĥot HaBerit; Magen Avraham), while others say the lulav should be lifted first (see Sha’arei Teshuva). There is also a dispute with regard to a left-handed person. Some say that he should fulfill the mitzva in the same manner as one who is right-handed (Tur), while others hold that he reverses the species and lifts the lulav in his left hand and the etrog in his right, similar to the practice with regard to phylacteries (Rosh; Rabbeinu Yeruĥam; Rabbi Ya’akov Weil). This latter view is the prevalent custom (Rema). One who takes the species in the inappropriate hand fulfills his obligation (Rema, based on the Maharil). Nevertheless, it is preferable in that case to take the species a second time without repeating the blessing (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 681:2–3). And where would they wave – ‫נְעין‬ ִ ‫נַע‬ ְ ‫יכן ָהי ּו ְמ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵה‬: One waves the lulav after reciting the blessing over the mitzva. One also waves the lulav during the recitation of hallel, when reciting: “Thank the Lord, for He is good,” both at the beginning and at the end of the psalm. At the end of the psalm, one waves the lulav twice because the verse is repeated. One also waves the lulav twice when reciting: “Lord, please save us,” as the verse is repeated. The Rema cites the Rosh, who says that one waves the lulav each time the congregation recites: “Thank the Lord, for He is good,” and some adopted that practice (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 681:8).

gemara 

The Gemara asks about the premise of :‫יה? ָה ָתם ָק ֵאי‬ ְ ‫גמ׳‬ ּ ‫נִענו ַּע ַמאן דְּ ַכר ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ the mishna. With regard to waving, ‫ָּכל לו ָּלב ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְט ָפ ִחים ְּכ ֵדי‬ who mentioned it? As no previous mention was made of wav.‫נְעין‬ ִ ‫נַע‬ ְ ‫ ֵה ָיכן ְמ‬:‫ וְ ָק ָא ַמר‬.‫נַע ַנֵע ּבֹו – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ְ ‫ ְל‬ing the lulav, it is a non sequitur when the tanna begins discussion of the details of the custom. The Gemara answers: The tanna is basing himself on the mishna there (29b), which states: Any lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. As the custom of waving the lulav was already established there, here the tanna is saying: Where would they wave the lulav? ‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם ו ׁ ְּשנֵי ִכ ְב ֵ ׂשי ֲע ֶצ ֶרת‬:‫ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬ ‫עֹושה? ַמ ּנ ִַיח ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם ַעל‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ֵּכיצַ ד הוּא‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫נִיח יָ דֹו ַּת ְח ֵּת‬ ַ ‫ ו ֵּמ‬,‫ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ׁ ְשנֵי ַה ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשין‬ ,‫ּמֹוריד‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶלה ו‬,‫יך ו ֵּמ ִביא‬ ְ ‫ּמֹול‬ ִ ‫ ו‬,‫ו ֵּמנִיף‬ .‫״א ׁ ֶשר הוּנַ ף וַ ֲא ׁ ֶשר הו ָּרם״‬ ֲ :‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬

We learned in a mishna there (Menaĥot 61a): With regard to the two loaves and the two lambs offered on the festival of Shavuot, how does he perform their waving before the altar? He places the two loaves atop the two lambs, and places his hand beneath them, and waves to and fro to each side, and he raises and lowers them, as it is stated: “Which is waved and which is lifted” (Exodus 29:27), indicating that there is waving to the sides as well as raising and lowering. notes

And let him lift the etrog – ‫יה ְל ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ּ ‫וְ ַלגְ ְ ּב ֵה‬: Some add a rationale for this suggestion. Since the etrog is the first of the species listed in the verse, it stands to reason that the blessing would be recited over it (Rabbi Shmuel Shmelke Taubes).

variant reading that appears in many of the early commentaries (Or Zarua) with the opinions cited in the standard order, i.e., the opinion cited first is that of Beit Shammai. According to that version, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua attribute the first opinion cited in the mishna to Beit Hillel. Waving the lulav – ‫נִענו ַּע ַהלּ ו ָּלב‬: ְ Several reasons were provided With regard to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi for the practice of waving the lulav. On the simplest level, it is Yehoshua, Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura suggests that they waved a means of inspiring happiness (Me’iri ). Therefore, one should the lulav only when reciting the verse: “Lord, please save us,” not wave the lulav in a despondent manner; rather, one should and they did not wave at all when reciting the verse: “Thank do so with energy and alacrity, in fulfillment of the verse: “All the Lord, for He is good.” That opinion is based on another my bones shall say: Lord, who is like You” (Psalms 35:10; Rabvariant reading of the mishna (see also Tosefot Yom Tov). Othbeinu Manoaĥ). Waving the lulav is also a display of love for Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai – ‫בית ִה ֵּלל ו ֵּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬: ּ ֵ In tan- ers explain that proof can be cited from here that the practice the mitzva (Rosh). The commentaries cite the Jerusalem Tal- naitic literature it is atypical for the opinion of Beit Hillel to be of different customs in the same congregation is not a cause mud: Why shake the lulav? It is in order to shake, undermine, cited before the opinion of Beit Shammai (see Eduyyot ch. 4–5). for concern, as Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua acted and overthrow the authority of the Satan. The reason that the Apparently, Beit Hillel’s opinion is cited first here because Beit differently from the rest of the congregation and yet they waving is performed while reciting: “Lord, please save us,” is in Shammai add to their statement and do not merely dispute did not reprimand the congregation for following a different fulfillment of the verse: “Then shall the trees of the forest sing the opinion of Beit Hillel (Tosefot Yom Tov). However, there is a custom (Benayahu).



for joy…Give thanks unto the Lord; for He is good…Save us, God of our salvation” (I Chronicles 16:33–35). That alludes to the fact that when one recites: Save us, one shakes the lulav in the manner that the trees of the forest shake with joy (see Tosefot Yom Tov). In terms of the manner of waving, the early authorities dispute whether it involves merely moving the lulav to and fro (Rav Hai Gaon) or whether it requires shaking and rustling the leaves of the lulav (see Tosafot, based on the Jerusalem Talmud).

‫זל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 37b 

185

background

In the West, Eretz Yisrael – ‫ב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא‬: ּ ְ In the Babylonian Talmud, Eretz Yisrael is referred to as the West, since it is southwest of Babylonia. In later periods, the customs in Eretz Yisrael were referred to as Western ones, as opposed to the Eastern customs in Babylonia. notes

In order to halt harmful winds – ‫כ ֵדי ַל ֲעצֹור רוּחֹות ָרעֹות‬:ְּ The waving of the lulav is a form of prayer to God imploring Him to halt harmful winds and dew (Benayahu).

‫יך ּו ֵמ ִביא – ְל ִמי‬ ְ ‫מֹול‬ ִ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ – ‫ּמֹוריד‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶלה ו‬,‫ׁ ֶש ָה ַא ְר ַ ּבע רוּחֹות ׁ ֶש ּלֹו‬ ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא ַמ ְתנ ּו‬.‫ְל ִמי ׁ ֶש ַה ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָח ָמא ַ ּבר עו ְּק ָבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָה ִכי‬ ‫יך ו ֵּמ ִביא – ְּכ ֵדי‬ ְ ‫מֹול‬ ִ :‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ֵ ‫ּמֹוריד – ְּכ ֵדי‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶלה ו‬,‫ַל ֲעצֹור רוּחֹות ָרעֹות‬ ,‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַל ֲעצֹור ְט ָל ִלים ָר ִעים‬ ‫אֹומ ֶרת‬ ֶ ‫ זֹאת‬:‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ִזְב ָילא‬ ֵ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫וְ ִא ֵית‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said: He moves them to and fro to dedicate them to He Whom the four directions are His. He raises and lowers them to He Whom the heavens and earth are His.h In the West, Eretz Yisrael,b they taught it as follows. Rabbi Ĥama bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, said: He moves them to and fro in order to request a halt to harmful winds,n storms and tempests that come from all directions; he raises and lowers them in order to halt harmful dews and rains that come from above. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yosei bar Zevila who said: That is to say,

halakha

In which direction does one wave – ‫נַע ַנֵע‬ ְ ‫ ְ‬ל ֵאיזֶ ה צַ ד ְמ‬: The vast majority of authorities agree that one waves the lulav in the four directions and up and down; however, they disagree with regard to the sequence. Some say that the correct sequence is: East, south, west, north, up, and down, which is the custom prevalent among Ashkenazic communities. However, according to Rabbi Yitzĥak Luria the sequence is: South, north,

east, up, down, west, which is the custom of Sephardic and some Hassidic communities. According to most opinions, when waving the lulav downward, one does not point the top of the lulav down. In addition, some turn to face each direction as they wave the lulav, while others continue facing east. This is dependent on local custom (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 681:10).

Perek III Daf 38 Amud a notes

And likewise with a lulav – ‫וְ ֵכן ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬: Practically speaking, some say that it is sufficient to wave the lulav to and fro in two directions as well as up and down. They added that one who waves the lulav to and fro in four directions is suspected of heresy (see Ran and Rashba). Others say that on the contrary, one must make certain to wave the lulav to and fro in all four directions, as then it does not appear that he is forming a cross because the four directions plus up and down total six sides (Rosh). That is the common practice in recent generations. An arrow in the eye of Satan – ‫ינֵיה דְּ ִס ְטנָ א‬ ּ ‫ג ָירא ְ ּב ֵע‬:ּ ִ Although the waving of the lulav is to negate aspects of evil in the world, e.g., harmful winds and dew, it is inappropriate to say so explicitly (Maharsha). It is noted elsewhere that Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov was a pious, holy man who was accustomed to miracles, so he was able to speak in that manner. However, it would be inappropriate for others to do so. Furthermore, one who expresses himself in this manner is portraying himself as one who successfully overcame his evil inclination, when in fact God is assisting him (see HaBoneh).

‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי‬.‫ׁ ְשיָ ֵרי ִמצְ וָ ה ְמ ַע ְּכ ִבין ֶאת ַה ּפו ְּר ָענוּת‬ ‫עֹוצ ֶרת רוּחֹות‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ְּתנו ָּפה ׁ ְשיָ ֵרי ִמצְ וָ ה ִהיא‬ ‫ ַרב‬.‫ וְ ֵכן ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ו ְּט ָל ִלים ָר ִעים‬ :‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ו ַּמיְ ֵיתי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב ַמ ְמ ֵטי ֵל‬ ,‫ וְ ָלאו ִמ ְּל ָתא ִהיא‬.‫ינֵיה דְּ ִס ְטנָ א‬ ּ ‫דֵּ ין ִ ּג ָירא ְ ּב ֵע‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָא ֵתי ְל ִאיגְ רוּיֵ י ֵ ּב‬

non-essential aspects of a mitzva avert calamity, as waving is a non-essential aspect of the mitzva, since even if one failed to wave the loaves he fulfilled his obligation, and nevertheless it halts harmful winds and dews. And Rava said: And likewise one should conduct himself the same way with a lulav,n i.e., one should wave it to and fro and raise and lower it for the same reasons.h When Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov would move the lulav to and fro, he would say: This is an arrow in the eye of Satan,n as despite his best efforts, the Jewish people continue to joyously fulfill mitzvot. The Gemara notes: That is not a proper manner of conduct, as it will induce Satan to come to incite him to sin. Gloating due to his victory over the evil inclination will lead Satan to redouble his efforts to corrupt him.

halakha

The manner of waving – ‫‬דֶּ ֶר ְך ַה ִנ ְּענו ַּע‬: There are numerous opinions and varying customs with regard to the manner in which one waves the lulav. According to the Shulĥan Arukh, he waves the lulav to, i.e., away from his body, and fro, i.e., back toward his body, three times in each direction. That is the prevalent custom in Sephardic and some Hassidic communities. The Rema, based on the Ran and other early authorities, says that while waving the lulav to and fro one also shakes it and rustles the leaves. This is the prevalent custom in Ashkenazic communities.

186 

Perek III . 38a . ‫חל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

There are additional opinions among the early authorities, to the point that the author of Bikkurei Ya’akov writes that one who wishes to fulfill his obligation according to all the opinions must wave the lulav in three broad to and fro movements in each direction, with each broad movement consisting of three smaller to and fro movements. In addition, during each movement one rustles the lulav. The later authorities (Baĥ; Taz; Rabbi Shlomo Luria) wrote that one who seeks to observe that custom should do so in private and not in the synagogue (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 681:9).

mishna 

With regard to one who was coming ‫מתני׳ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ַ ּבדֶּ ֶר ְך וְ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ along the way and did not have a lulav ּ ‫לו ָּלב ִל‬ ‫יטֹול – ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּכנֵ ס ְל ֵביתֹו יִ ּטֹול‬ in his hand to take and fulfill the mitzva while traveling, when ‫נָטל ׁ ַש ֲח ִרית – יִ ּטֹול ֵ ּבין‬ ַ ‫ ל ֹא‬.‫ ַעל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחנֹו‬he enters his house to eat, he should take the lulav at his table.h .‫ ׁ ֶש ָּכל ַהּיֹום ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ַללּ ו ָּלב‬,‫ ָה ַע ְר ַ ּביִ ם‬He interrupts his meal to fulfill the mitzva of lulav. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it in the afternoon, as the entire day is suited for fulfilling the mitzva of lulav.

gemara 

– ‫ימ ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ְל ֵמ‬,‫נֹוטלֹו ַעל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחנֹו‬ ְ :‫גמ׳ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ ‫ ִאם ִה ְת ִחיל ּו – ֵאין‬:‫ ו ְּר ִמינְ ִהי‬.‫דְּ ַמ ְפ ִסיק‬ :‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬:‫יקין! ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְפ ִס‬ ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ֵל‬,‫יכא ׁ ָשהוּת ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ָּ ‫ָהא – דְּ ִא‬ .‫ׁ ָשהוּת ַ ּבּיֹום‬

The Gemara analyzes the mishna. On one hand, you said that if he did not take the lulav before the meal then he takes it at his table. That is to say that if remembers that he did not yet take the lulav, he interrupts his meal, takes the lulav, and then continues his meal. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Shabbat 9b): One may not begin to eat before he recites the afternoon prayer; however, if they started a meal, they need not interrupt the meal in order to pray. Rav Safra said: This is not difficult, as this mishna, where one need not interrupt his meal, is referring to a case where there is opportunity to pray later in the day; that mishna, where one must interrupt his meal, is referring to a case where there is no opportunity to take the lulav later in the day. In that case, one must fulfill the mitzva immediately.

‫יל ָמא ָהא‬ ְ ִּ‫ ַמאי ק ּו ׁ ְשיָ א? ד‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ :‫ ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ ָהא דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ד‬ ‫ ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּכנֵס ְל ֵביתֹו‬:‫ִאי ַק ׁ ְשיָ א – ָהא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר‬.‫ ַא ְל ָמא דְּ ַמ ְפ ִסיק‬,‫נֹוטלֹו ַעל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחנֹו‬ ְ ,‫נָטל ׁ ַש ֲח ִרית – יִ ּטֹול ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ְר ַ ּביִ ם‬ ַ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ָּתנֵי‬ !‫ ל ֹא ַמ ְפ ִסיק‬:‫ַא ְל ָמא‬

Rava said: What is the difficulty? The two cases are different, and there is no contradiction at all. Perhaps this mitzva of lulav is a mitzva by Torah law, and therefore one must interrupt his meal to take the lulav, while that mitzva to recite the afternoon prayer is a mitzva by rabbinic law, and therefore one need not interrupt his meal to pray. Rather, Rava said: If there is a difficulty, i.e., a contradiction, this is the difficulty: In the first clause in the mishna it says that when he enters his house to eat, he should take the lulav at his table. Apparently, one must interrupt his meal. And then in the latter clause of the mishna it is taught: If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it in the afternoon. Apparently, he need not interrupt his meal.

halakha

Eating before taking the lulav – ‫נְט ַילת לו ָּלב‬ ִ ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫א ִכ ָילה‬:ֲ It is prohibited to eat prior to taking the lulav. If one forgets and begins eating, then on the first day, when the mitzva of taking the lulav is by Torah law, he is required to interrupt his meal and take the lulav, even if there remains sufficient time to do so later in the day. On all the other days of the Festival if sufficient time remains to do so later in the day following the conclusion of his meal, he need not interrupt his meal. If he began his meal more than half an hour prior to the time when the lulav may be taken, he need not interrupt his meal (Rema, based on Ran), in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira in his final explanation (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 652:2). notes

Here we are dealing with the second day of the Festival when the mitzva is by rabbinic law – ‫ָה ָכא ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬: In this context, the term: Second day of the Festival, is referring to all the intermediate days of the Festival. From here it is clear that the Sages occasionally refer to the intermediate days as Festival days, based on the language of the Torah. The fact that this is not manifest in the prayers on the intermediate days is due to the fact that labor is not prohibited on those days. If they were referred to as Festivals, it could lead to a situation where people take the actual Festival days lightly (Ritva).

‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ִא‬:‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬Resolving the contradiction, Rav Safra said: This is not diffi.‫יכא ׁ ָשהוּת ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ָּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ֵל‬,‫ ׁ ָשהוּת ַ ּבּיֹום‬cult. This clause, where one need not interrupt his meal, is referring to a case where there is opportunity to take the lulav later in the day; that clause, where one must interrupt his meal, is referring to a case where there is no opportunity to take the lulav later in the day. ‫ ַמאי ק ּו ׁ ְשיָ א? דִּ ְל ָמא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ‫ וְ ִאי ָלא ּ ָפ ֵסיק – יִ ּטֹול‬,‫סֹוקי‬ ֵ ‫ִמצְ וָ ה ְל ַא ְפ‬ .‫ ׁ ֶש ָּכל ַהּיֹום ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ַל ּלו ָּלב‬,‫ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ְר ַ ּביִ ם‬ ‫עֹולם ִּכ ְד ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ו ְּד ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָל ְך ָהא ד‬,‫יק ָרא‬ ‫ָהא דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ָה ָכא ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ׁ ֵשנִי דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ .‫ָע ְס ִקינַן‬

Rabbi Zeira said: What is the difficulty? There is no contradiction, as perhaps the mishna is teaching that there is a mitzva to interrupt one’s meal and take the lulav; but if he did not interrupt his meal he should take it in the afternoon, as the entire day is suited for fulfilling the mitzva of lulav. Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: Actually, the contradiction is as we said initially, between the ruling with regard to lulav and the ruling with regard to the afternoon prayer. And as to that which you found difficult, i.e., there is no contradiction at all, as this mitzva of lulav is a mitzva by Torah law and that mitzva to recite the afternoon prayer is a mitzva by rabbinic law, that is not difficult; as here, in the case of lulav, we are dealing with the second day of the Festival and beyond, during the intermediate days, when the mitzva of lulav is by rabbinic law.n The contradiction is therefore between the rulings pertaining to two mitzvot by rabbinic law.

‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ַ ּבדֶּ ֶרךְ וְ ֵאין‬:‫ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ דַּ יְ ָקא נַ ִמי‬The language of the mishna is also precise and indicates that it ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬,‫ ְ ּביָ דֹו לו ָּלב‬is dealing with the intermediate days of the Festival from the ?‫אשֹון – ִמי ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ׁ ‫ ִר‬fact that it teaches: One who was coming along the way and does not have a lulav in his hand. As, if it enters your mind to say that the mishna is referring to the first day of the Festival, is it permitted to travel a long distance on that day? Rather, it is referring to the intermediate days. 

‫חל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 38a 

187

halakha

Customs of reciting hallel – ‫יאת ַה ֵּלל‬ ַ ‫מנְ ֲהגֵ י ְק ִר‬:ִ There are many different customs with regard to the verses that are customarily repeated when reciting hallel, as well as the verses that the prayer leader recites and the congregation responds. Each community observes its own traditions, in accordance with the opinion of Rava (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 652:3). One for whom others recite blessings on his behalf – ‫ִמי‬ ‫ש ְמ ָב ְר ִכין לֹו‬: ֶ ׁ One who does not know how to recite the Grace after Meals can fulfill his obligation to do so if another person who ate with him recites the blessings aloud and he answers amen at the conclusion of each blessing. A son may recite the Grace after Meals for his father, a woman for her husband, and a slave for his master; however, the Sages said: May a curse come to a man who, due to his ignorance, requires his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 5:15).

notes

Actually they said – ‫ב ֱא ֶמת ָא ְמר ּו‬:ּ ֶ This expression indicates a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Alternatively, it introduces the practical halakha. In both cases, it is a clear and accepted halakha.

‫מתני׳ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ֶע ֶבד אֹו ִא ׁ ּ ָשה אֹו‬ ‫יהן ַמה‬ ֶ ‫ָק ָטן ַמ ְק ִרין אֹותֹו – עֹונֶ ה ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ‫ ִאם‬.‫ וְ ָתבֹא לֹו ְמ ֵא ָירה‬.‫אֹומ ִרין‬ ְ ‫ׁ ּ ֶש ֵהן‬ ‫ָהיָ ה ָ ּגדֹול ַמ ְק ֵרא אֹותֹו – עֹונֶ ה ַא ֲח ָריו‬ – ‫ ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ָּנ ֲהג ּו ִל ְכ ּפֹול‬,‫״ה ְלל ּויָ ּה״‬ ַ , ְ‫ ְל ָב ֵרךְ – ָיְב ֵרך‬,‫ ִל ְפ ׁשֹוט – יִ ְפ ׁשֹוט‬,‫יִ ְכ ּפֹול‬ .‫ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ִמנְ ַהג ַה ְּמ ִדינָ ה‬

ְ‫ ֶ ּבן ְמ ָב ֵרך‬:ּ‫ ֶ ּב ֱא ֶמת ָא ְמרו‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ וְ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬,‫ וְ ֶע ֶבד ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ְל ַר ּבֹו‬,‫ְל ָא ִביו‬ :‫ ֲא ָבל ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ְמ ָב ֶר ֶכת ְל ַב ְע ָל ּה‬ ‫ָּתבֹא ְמ ֵא ָירה ָל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ו ָּבנָיו‬ .‫ְמ ָב ְר ִכין לֹו‬

mishna 

With regard to one for whom a Canaanite slave, a woman, or a minor was reciting hallel, he repeats after them what they are saying word for word. The mishna notes: And may a curse come to him for being so ignorant that he needs them to recite it for him. If an adult male was reciting hallel on his behalf, he need not repeat each word, as the adult male can fulfill the obligation to recite hallel on his behalf. Rather, he simply answers: Halleluya, to each phrase that is recited. In a place where they were accustomed to repeat certain verses, he, too, should repeat them. If the custom is to recite them plainly, without repetition, he should recite them plainly. In a place where the custom is to recite a blessing before hallel, he should recite a blessing. Everything is in accordance with the local custom in these matters.h

gemara 

The Sages taught: Actually, they saidn that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father, and a slave may recite a blessing on behalf of his master, and a woman may recite a blessing on behalf of her husband, but the Sages said: May a curse come to a man who, due to his ignorance, requires his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf.h

:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said:

Perek III Daf 38 Amud b notes

From the custom of hallel – ‫מ ִּמנְ ָהגָ א דְּ ַה ֵּל ָילא‬:ִ Already in the time of Rava, everyone was familiar with the text of hallel, but they still maintained certain customs in the synagogue. From those customs he learned several old halakhot that had led to the establishment of these customs. Although the halakhot were no longer necessary, they continued to recite hallel according to those customs. From here, one who hears it is equivalent to one who recites it – ‫ֹומ ַע ָּכעֹונֶ ה‬ ֵ ‫מ ָּכאן ַל ׁ ּש‬:ִ Tosafot say that optimally one should perform the mitzva by reciting the blessing himself. However, at times when it is prohibited for him to recite it, e.g., when he is in the middle of the Amida prayer, he should hear the blessing or the passage recited by another and thereby fulfill his obligation. Similarly, the early authorities said that one can learn this halakha from the conduct of the royal court, where servants do not interrupt one task to engage in another (see Me’iri and the ge’onim). halakha

One who hears it is equivalent to one who recites it – ‫ֹומ ַע ָּכעֹונֶ ה‬ ֵ ‫ש‬:ׁ If one is unable to answer amen, he concentrates silently on what he hears and thereby fulfills his obligation. This is because the halakhic status of one who hears a passage recited is equivalent to that of one who recites it (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 25:10, 104:7, 109:3, 213:2).

188 

Perek III . 38b . ‫חל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

‫יכא ְל ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ּ ָ ‫ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ִ ּג‬ ָּ ‫יב ָר ָתא ִא‬ ‫אֹומ ר‬ ֵ ‫יל א; ה ּו א‬ ָ ‫ִמ ִּמ נְ ָה גָ א דְּ ַה ֵּל‬ – ‫״ה ְללוּיָ ּה״‬ ַ ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫״ה ְללוּיָ ּה״ וְ ֵהן‬ ַ .‫״ה ְללוּיָ ּה״‬ ַ ‫ִמ ָּכאן ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ ה ַל ֲענֹות‬

Many significant halakhot can be learned from the custom of hallel n based on the manner in which it was recited. In reciting hallel there are allusions to several halakhic matters and customs that the Sages instituted due to circumstances extant at the time. Although due to increased literacy and familiarity with the hallel liturgy the reasons no longer apply, these customs remain in practice. The prayer leader recites: “Halleluya” (Psalms 113:1), and the congregation recites: Halleluya, in response. From here is the source that there is a mitzva to respond: Halleluya.

‫״ה ָּלל ּו ַע ְב ֵדי ה׳״ וְ ֵהן‬ ַ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הוּא‬ ‫״ה ְלל ּויָ ּה״ – ִמ ָּכאן ׁ ֶש ִאם‬ ַ :‫אֹומ ִרין‬ ְ ‫ָהיָ ה ָ ּגדֹול ַמ ְק ֵרא אֹותֹו עֹונֶ ה ַא ֲח ָריו‬ ‫אֹומר ״הֹוד ּו ַלה׳״ וְ ֵהן‬ ֵ ‫ הוּא‬.‫״ה ְללוּיָ ּה״‬ ַ ‫אֹומ ִרים ״הֹוד ּו ַלה׳״ – ִמ ָּכאן ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ ה‬ ְ ‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ִא ְּת ַמר נַ ִמי‬.‫אשי ְפ ָר ִקים‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ַל ֲענֹות ָר‬ ‫אשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ִמצְ וָ ה ַל ֲענֹות ָר‬:‫ַרב ָחנָן ַ ּבר ָר ָבא‬ .‫ְפ ָר ִקים‬

Likewise, the prayer leader recites: “Give praise, servants of the Lord” (Psalms 113:1), and the congregation recites: Halleluya, in response. From here is the source of the halakha cited in the mishna that if an adult male was reciting hallel on his behalf, he answers: Halleluya. He recites: “Thank the Lord, for He is good” (Psalms 118:1), and they respond: “Thank the Lord, for He is good.” From here is the source that there is a mitzva to respond by reciting the beginnings of chapters. It was also stated that Rav Ĥanan bar Rava said: There is a mitzva to respond by reciting the beginnings of chapters.

‫יעה ָּנא״ וְ ֵהן‬ ָ ‫הֹוש‬ ִ ׁ ‫״א ָּנא ה׳‬ ָ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הוּא‬ ‫יעה ָּנא״ ִמ ָּכאן‬ ָ ‫הֹוש‬ ִ ׁ ‫״א ָּנא ה׳‬ ָ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש ִאם ָהיָ ה ָק ָטן ַמ ְק ֵרא אֹותֹו – עֹונִין‬ .‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַא ֲח ָריו ַמה ׁ ּ ֶשהוּא‬

Rava continued to cite the significant halakhot learned from hallel. The prayer leader recites: “Lord, please save us” (Psalms 118:25), and the congregation recites: “Lord, please save us,” in response. From here is the source of the halakha cited in the mishna that if a minor was reciting a portion that is not from the beginning of a chapter on one’s behalf, he recites after him precisely what he says.

‫יחה נָ א״‬ ָ ‫״א ָּנא ה׳ ַהצְ ִל‬ ָ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הוּא‬ – ‫יחה נָ א״‬ ָ ‫״א ָּנא ה׳ ַהצְ ִל‬ ָ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וְ ֵהן‬ ‫ הוּא‬.‫ֹופל‬ ֵ ‫ִמ ָּכאן ׁ ֶש ִאם ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ּפֹול ּכ‬ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫״ברו ְּך ַה ָ ּבא״ וְ ֵהן‬ ּ ָ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ֹומ ַע ָּכעֹונֶ ה‬ ֵ ‫״ב ׁ ֵשם ה׳״ ִמ ָּכאן ַל ׁ ּש‬ ְּ

The prayer leader recites: “Lord, please grant us success,” and the congregation recites in response: “Lord, please grant us success” (Psalms 118:25). From here is the source of the halakha that if one comes to repeat a particular verse in hallel twice, he may repeat it. The prayer leader recites: “Blessed is one who comes” (Psalms 118:26), and the congregation recites the rest of the verse: “In the name of the Lord” (Psalms 118:26), in response. From here is the source of the halakha that the halakhic status of one who hears a passage recited is equivalent to that of one who recites it,nh as the congregation fulfills its obligation even though it does not repeat the entire verse.

‫ ׁ ָש ַמע‬:‫ֵיה ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ ּ ‫ְ ּבע ּו ִמ ּינ‬ ‫ימּיָ א‬ ַ ‫ ַח ִּכ‬:‫וְ ל ֹא ָענָ ה ַמה ּו? ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו‬ :ּ‫ישי ַע ָּמא וְ ָד ְר ׁ ַשיָ א ָא ְמרו‬ ֵ ׁ ‫וְ ָס ְפ ַרּיָ א וְ ֵר‬ .‫ׁ ָש ַמע וְ ל ֹא ָענָ ה – יָ צָ א‬

Apropos this halakha, the Gemara relates that the Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba: If one heard a passage recited and did not recite it himself, what is the halakha? Did he fulfill his obligation or not? He said to them that the Sages, and the schoolteachers, and the heads of the nation, and the homiletic interpretersn said: One who heard a passage recited and did not recite it himself fulfilled his obligation.

‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ּ ָפזִ י‬,‫ִא ְּת ַמר נַ ִמי‬ ‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַ ּבר‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ :‫ֹומ ַע ָּכעֹונֶ ה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ַל ׁ ּש‬:‫ַק ּ ָפ ָרא‬ .‫ֹאשּיָ הוּ)״‬ ִ ׁ ‫(הדְּ ָב ִרים) ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָק ָרא (י‬ ַ ‫״את‬ ֶ ,‫ֹאשּיָ ה ּו ְק ָר ָאן? וַ ֲהל ֹא ׁ ָש ָפן ְק ָר ָאן‬ ִ ׁ ‫וְ ִכי י‬ ‫(את ָּכל ַהדְּ ָב ִרים‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּיִ ְק ָר ֵאה ּו ׁ ָש ָפן‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ָה ֵא ֶלה) ִל ְפ נֵ י ַה ֶּמ ֶל ְך ״ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ָּכאן‬ .‫ֹומ ַע ָּכעֹונֶ ה‬ ֵ ‫ַל ׁ ּש‬

It was also stated that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: From where is it derived that the halakhic status of one who hears a passage recited is equivalent to that of one who recites it? It is as it is written: “All the words of the book which the king of Judea has read” (II Kings 22:16).n And did King Josiah read them? Didn’t Shaphan read them, as it is written: “And Shaphan read it before the king” (II Kings 22:10)? Rather, from here it is derived that the halakhic status of one who hears a passage recited is equivalent to that of one who recites it, and it is as though Josiah read the words himself.

‫יל ָמא ָ ּב ַתר דִּ ְק ָר ַאנְ ה ּו ׁ ָש ָפן ָק ָרא‬ ְ ‫וְ ִד‬ ‫ ָלא‬:‫ֹאשּיָ הוּ? ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ִׁ ‫י‬ ָ‫ ״יַ ַען ַר ְך ְל ָב ְבך‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך‬ ‫(את ַהדְּ ָב ִרים‬ ֶ ָ‫וַ ִּת ָּכנַע ִל ְפנֵי ה׳ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ְמ ֲעך‬ . ָ‫״ב ׁ ָש ְמ ֲעךָ ״ וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ָק ְר ֲאך‬ ּ ְ ,‫ָה ֵא ֶּלה)״‬

The Gemara asks: And perhaps after Shaphan read them Josiah read them again? Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: It should not enter your mind to say so, as it is written: “Because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I spoke in this place” (II Kings 22:19). The Gemara infers: “When you heard” is written in the verse, and not: When you read. In other words, immediately upon hearing Shaphan read the text, King Josiah sent for Huldah the prophetess, which shows that he humbled his heart. Clearly, the halakhic status of one who hears a passage recited is equivalent to that of one who recites it.

‫״ברו ְּך‬ ּ ָ ‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ימא ִא‬ ָ ‫ ָלא ֵל‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫״ברו ְּך‬ ּ ָ ‫״ב ׁ ֵשם ה׳״ ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ְ ‫ַה ָ ּבא״ וַ ֲה ַדר‬ ‫יה ַרב‬ ָ .‫ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּב ׁ ֵשם ה׳״ ַ ּב ֲה ָד ֵדי‬ ּ ‫(א ַמר ֵל‬ :‫ָס ְפ ָרא‬

Apropos hallel, the Gemara cites additional halakhot. Rava said: Let a person not recite:n “Blessed is one who comes,” and then, after pausing, recite: “In the name of the Lord.” Rather, let him recite without pause: “Blessed is one who comes in the name of the Lord.” Rav Safra said to Rava:

notes

The Sages and the schoolteachers and the heads of the nation and the homiletic interpreters – ‫ישי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ימּיָא וְ ָס ְפ ַרּיָא וְ ֵר‬ ַ ‫ַח ִּכ‬ ‫ע ָּמא וְ ָד ְר ׁ ַשיָ א‬:ַ The author of the Arukh LaNer explains that all of these people must avail themselves of this halakha. The Sages sit silently and listen while the disseminator repeats and expands on the lecture. The schoolteachers listen while the children recite their lessons. Similarly, Similarly, the heads of the nation follow this principle because otherwise they would not have time to study Torah, as they are occupied with communal matters. The homiletic interpreters likewise require this principle in order to attract people to their public lectures, as without this principle people would question why they should go to a lecture if they can study Torah on their own. All of these people benefit from the fact that the reward of one who hears is equivalent to that of one who recites. The words of the book which the king of Judea has read – ‫ֹאשּיָ ה ּו‬ ִ ׁ ‫הדְּ ָב ִרים ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָק ָרא י‬:ַ Some note that the principle: The halakhic status of one who hears is equivalent to that of one who recites, could have been derived by comparing and contrasting the verse in II Kings with the verse “That they read before the king” (II Chronicles 34:24); however, the Gemara preferred to teach this concept based solely on the verses in II Kings (Kappot Temarim). Let a person not recite – ‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ימא ִא‬ ָ ‫לא ֵל‬:ָ Rava was particular with regard to this verse because it contains God’s name. Were one to pause in the middle of the verse, it would be tantamount to mentioning God’s name in vain. Rav Safra then comments that if one pauses merely to take a breath, it is not considered an interruption, despite the fact that he did not recite the verse all at once (Me’iri).

Perek III Daf 39 Amud a ‫ ָה ָתם‬,‫מ ׁ ֶֹשה ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת?! ֶא ָּלא‬ ְּ ‫וְ ָה ָכא ַא ּסו ֵּקי ִמ‬ ‫ וְ ֵלית ָלן‬,‫יל ָתא ִהיא‬ ‫ינִיש ״יְ ֵהא‬ ׁ ‫ימא ִא‬ ָ ‫ ָלא ֵל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.)‫ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ״יְ ֵהא‬,‫״מ ָב ַרךְ ״‬ ְ ‫יה ַר ָ ּבא״ וַ ֲה ַדר‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה ַר ָ ּבא ְמ ָב ַר ְך״ ַ ּב ֲה ָד ֵדי‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ :‫ ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת?! ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬:‫ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬ ‫ וְ ֵלית‬,‫ָה ָתם וְ ָה ָכא ַא ּסו ֵּקי ִמ ְּיל ָתא הוּא‬ .‫ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬

You, who are as great in this generation as Moses, did you speak well?n It is not so; rather, both there and here,n whether he recites it with or without pause, the latter part of the verse is the conclusion of the matter, and we have no problem with it, as it is clear that his intention is to recite the entire verse: “Blessed is one who comes in the name of the Lord.” Rava said: Let a person not recite in the kaddish prayer: May His great name, and then, after pausing, recite: Be blessed. Rather, let him recite without pause: May His great name be blessed.h Rav Safra said to Rava: You, who are as great in this generation as Moses, did you speak well? It is not so, rather, both there and here, whether he recites it with or without pause, the latter part of the verse is the conclusion of the matter, and we have no problem with it.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי ּכ ֵֹופל‬:‫ ָּתנָ א‬.‫״מקֹום ׁ ֶש ָּנ ֲהג ּו ִל ְכ ּפֹול״‬ ָ §  The mishna continues: In a place where they were accus‫מֹוסיף‬ ִ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ּ ְפ ָר ָטא‬,‫ ָ ּב ּה דְּ ָב ִרים‬tomed to repeat certain verses he too should repeat them. It was :‫מֹוסיף? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ִ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ָ ּב ּה דְּ ָב ִרים‬taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi repeats certain matters in hallel. Rabbi Elazar ben Perata adds certain matters .‫״אֹודךָ ״ ו ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬ ְ ‫מֹוסיף ִל ְכ ּפֹול ֵמ‬ ִ in hallel. The Gemara asks: What does he add? Abaye said: He continues repeating additional verses in hallel, those from: I will thank You, and onward until the end of the psalm, as is the custom even today. 

notes

Moses, did you speak well – ‫מ ׁ ֶֹשה ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬: Some explain that here the phrase is not a rhetorical question but rather a statement of support that Rav Safra agreed with Rava’s basic halakha. Nevertheless, he commented that an analysis of the language of the mishna indicates otherwise (Me’iri). Rashi explains here that Rav Safra called Rava Moses to indicate that he is the greatest Torah personality of the generation, or, as Rashi explains elsewhere, as a nickname for a Torah scholar. Others explain, however, that this expression is used as an oath and that Rav Safra was swearing by the honor of Moses (Rashi in tractate Beitza; Peirush Kadmon). There and here – ‫ה ָתם וְ ָה ָכא‬:ָ Some explained this to mean that both there, in Eretz Yisrael, and here, in Babylonia, the Sages are in agreement that it does not constitute an interruption (Peirush Kadmon). halakha

May His great name be blessed – ‫יה ַר ָ ּבא ְמ ָב ַר ְך‬ ּ ‫יְ ֵהא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬: One may not interrupt between: May His great name, and: Be blessed. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rav Safra did not dispute the basic halakha but only what constitutes an interruption (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 56:1).

‫טל ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 39a 

189

halakha

Blessing prior to the performance of mitzvot – ‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬ ‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫עֹובר ַל ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬: ֵ Blessings recited over the performance of mitzvot must be recited prior to the performance of the mitzva. With regard to the mitzva of lulav, there are several opinions as to when the blessing is recited. According to the Rambam, one recites the blessing before taking the lulav in hand (see Tosafot; Rosh; Ran). Many are accustomed to lift the lulav prior to the blessing, but they hold the etrog upside down. Following recital of the blessing, they restore the etrog to its upright position (Tosafot; Rashba; Roke’aĥ; Maharam; others). That is the common Ashkenazic practice. The Vilna Gaon holds that one stipulates in advance that he does not intend to fulfill his obligation until after he recites the blessing. Others say that one takes the lulav first, recites the blessing, and then takes the etrog. In practice, there are many different customs (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 25:8, 168:11, 651:5). One who purchases a lulav…during the Sabbatical Year – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ב…ב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ּ ַ ‫לֹוק ַח לו ָּל‬ ֵ ‫ה‬:ַ If one purchases the four species during the Sabbatical Year from an am ha’aretz, the seller gives the buyer the etrog as a gift. If the seller does not wish to give it to him as a gift, then the cost of the etrog should be incorporated into the price of the lulav, in accordance with the mishna and the opinion of Rav Huna in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 8:11). Transferring money used to purchase Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫מ ִס ַירת דְּ ֵמי ׁ ְש ִב‬:ְ One may not transmit money that was used to purchase Sabbatical-Year produce to an am ha’aretz due to the concern that he might not treat it with the required sanctity. It is permitted to purchase Sabbatical-Year produce from an am ha’aretz provided that it is worth no more than the value of three meals (see Kaftor VaFeraĥ; Pe’at HaShulĥan; Radbaz; Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 8:10, 12). background

Sabbatical Year – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ש ִב‬: ְ ּ ׁ The Sabbatical Year is the seventh year of the Sabbatical cycle. The first cycle began after the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. It is also known as Shemitta, meaning literally abandonment or release. The halakhot of the Sabbatical Year are based on Torah law (see Leviticus 25:1–7; Deuteronomy 15:1–6); however, most authorities maintain that the requisite conditions for the Sabbatical Year to be in effect by Torah law have lapsed, and its present-day observance is based on rabbinic decree. The particular regulations that apply to the discussion in the Gemara here are based on the halakha that all agricultural land must lie fallow. It is prohibited to work the land, except for work necessary to keep existing crops alive. All produce that grows is ownerless and must be left unguarded in the fields so that any creature, including wild animals and birds, can gain access to it. As long as produce remains in the fields it may be eaten, although it may not be bought and sold in the normal manner or used for purposes other than food. After the last remnants of a crop have been removed from the field, the crop may no longer be eaten unless a removal ceremony is performed promptly. It is prohibited by rabbinic decree to eat produce that grew from seeds during the Sabbatical Year, even if it grew uncultivated. According to some authorities, this is prohibited by Torah law.

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫״ל ָב ֵרךְ ָיְב ֵרךְ ״‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬. ְ‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ָפנָיו – ִמצְ וָ ה ְל ָב ֵרך‬,‫ְל ַא ֲח ָריו‬ ‫ ָּכל ַה ִּמצְ וֹת ּכו ָּּלן‬:‫ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ו ַּמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬.‫עֹובר ַל ֲע ִ ׂשּיָ ָיתן‬ ֵ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ֲע ֵל‬ – ‫ישנָ א דְּ ַא ְקדו ֵּמי הוּא‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫״עֹובר״ ִל‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ַהאי‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיָ ָרץ‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ .‫ימ ַעץ דֶּ ֶרךְ ַה ִּכ ָּכר וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹור ֶאת ַה ּכו ׁ ִּשי״‬ ַ ‫ֲא ִח‬ .‫נֵיהם״‬ ֶ ‫ ״וְ הוּא ָע ַבר ִל ְפ‬:‫ ֵמ ָה ָכא‬,‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹור ַמ ְל ָּכם‬:‫ ֵמ ָה ָכא‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ .‫ֹאשם״‬ ָ ׁ ‫נֵיהם וַ ה׳ ְ ּבר‬ ֶ ‫ִל ְפ‬

§ The mishna continues: In a place where the custom is to recite

a blessing, he should recite a blessing. Abaye said: The Sages taught that the obligation to recite a blessing is dependent on custom only with regard to the blessing recited after hallel. However, before hallel, there is a mitzva to recite a blessing, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to all the mitzvot, one recites a blessing over them prior to [over] their performance.h The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the word over is the language of priority? It is as Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said that it is written: “And Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain and overtook [vaya’avor] the Cushite” (II Samuel 18:23).n Abaye said: It is derived from here: “And he passed [avar] before them” (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, say instead that the proof is from here: “And their king passed [vaya’avor] before them and the Lord at their head” (Micah 2:13).

mishna 

In the case of one who purchases a lulav – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫לֹוק ַח לו ָּלב ֵמ ֲח ֵבירֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ַה‬ from another who is an am ha’aretz dur‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַר ׁ ּ ַשאי‬,‫נֹותן לֹו ֶא ְתרֹוג ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ ֵ ing the Sabbatical Year,hb the seller gives him an etrog along .‫יעית‬ ִ ‫לֹוקחֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ְ ‫ ְל‬with it as a gift, as he is not permitted to purchase the etrogn during the Sabbatical Year because it is prohibited to engage in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce.

gemara 

The Gemara asks: If, the seller did not ‫יתן לֹו ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה ַמהוּ? ָא ַמר‬ ֵּ ‫גמ׳ ל ֹא ָרצָ ה ִל‬ want to give him the etrog as a gift, what .‫יה דְּ ֵמי ֶא ְתרֹוג ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬ ּ ‫ ַמ ְב ִל ַיע ֵל‬:‫ַרב הוּנָ א‬ is the halakha? How should the buyer purchase the etrog? Rav !‫יה ְ ּב ֶה ְדיָ א‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵל‬Huna said: He incorporates the cost of the etrogn into the price ּ ‫יתיב ֵל‬ of the lulav. He should purchase the lulav at an inflated price to cover the cost of the etrog as well. The Gemara asks: And let the buyer give the seller the money for the etrog directly; why employ artifice in the transaction? ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫מֹוס ִרין דְּ ֵמי ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬ ְ ‫ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ‫מֹוס ִרין דְּ ֵמי‬ ְ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ְל ַעם ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫יֹותר ִמ ְמזֹון‬ ֵ ‫יעית ְל ַעם ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ִ ‫ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫ ֲה ֵרי‬:‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִאם ָמ ַסר – י‬.‫ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְסעוּדֹות‬ ‫ָמעֹות ַה ָּלל ּו יְ ה ּו ְמחו ָּּל ִלין ַעל ּ ֵפירֹות ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬ ,‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ִלי ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֵ ּב‬

The Gemara answers: That is necessary because one may not transfer money used to purchase Sabbatical-Year producehn to an am ha’aretz, lest he make improper use of money that has sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. As it is taught in a baraita: One may not transfer to an am ha’aretz money used to purchase Sabbatical-Year produce that is worth more than the value of food sufficient for three meals.n One may use money that has sanctity of the Sabbatical Year to purchase food for his personal use. If the money is sufficient for three meals, presumably the seller will use it in a permitted manner. And if the buyer transferred more money than that, he should say: This money is deconsecrated by my redeeming it in exchange for non-SabbaticalYear produce that I have in my house. notes

And overtook [vaya’avor] the Cushite – ‫וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹור ֶאת ַה ּכו ׁ ִּשי‬: The following question is raised: Why didn’t Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak cite proof from the same verse cited by Abaye, given that Abaye’s verse appears earlier in the Bible? The answer is that the verse: “And he passed [avar] before them” cannot be cited as proof that the root avr alone means: Before, as in that verse the word avar is accompanied by the word lifneihem, which itself means: Before them. Therefore, he cited the verse: “And he overtook [vaya’avor] the Cushite,” to prove that avr alone means before (Kappot Temarim).

One may not transfer money used to purchase Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫מֹוס ִרין דְּ ֵמי ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬ ְ ‫אין‬:ֵ Several explanations were offered for this prohibition. According to Rashi, the concern is that the seller will not remove this money from his house by the time that the relevant Sabbatical-Year produce in the house must be removed. According to Tosafot, the concern is that he will not treat the money consecrated with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year appropriately, given the numerous halakhot governing their use. According to the Me’iri, the concern is with regard to the general prohibition against engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce. As he is not permitted to purchase the etrog – ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַר ׁ ּ ַשאי‬ The indication in the Tosefta is that the primary concern is, as ‫לֹוקחֹו‬ ְ ‫ל‬:ְ According to Rashi and most early authorities, the probRashi stated, that the am ha’aretz will not remove the items at lem here, as explained later in the Gemara, is transmitting consethe appropriate time, as the Tosefta explains that the prohibition crated Sabbatical-Year money to an am ha’aretz. However, others applies only when one gives the seller items that will last; howexplain that it is prohibited to purchase a Sabbatical-Year etrog ever, if one is giving him perishable items then it is permitted to due to the general prohibition against engaging in commerce give him even more than three meals’ worth of Sabbatical-Year with Sabbatical-Year produce, regardless of what the seller might produce. do with the money he receives (see Tosafot and Ritva). He incorporates the cost of the etrog – ‫יה דְּ ֵמי ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ּ ‫מ ְב ִל ַיע ֵל‬:ַ Rashi indicates that the purchaser pays extra for the lulav to the point that the seller would be willing to give him the etrog as a gift. However, the Rambam holds that it is not necessary to pay extra for the lulav, as long as the buyer has in mind that he is paying only for the lulav and not the etrog (Sefat Emet).

190 

Perek III . 39a . ‫טל ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

Food for three meals – ‫מזֹון ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְסעוּדֹות‬:ְ Three meals’ worth is the amount of food required for Shabbat. In this case, due to the sanctity of Shabbat, the Sages permitted one to fulfill the seller’s Shabbat needs. Alternatively, perhaps they simply permitted one to provide him with the means to ensure his subsistence (see Rabbeinu Yehonatan).

Perek III Daf 39 Amud b .‫יעית‬ ִ ‫אֹוכ ָלן ִ ּב ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ׁ ְש ִב‬ ְ ְ‫ ו ָּבא ו‬And then he comes home and eats the produce in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time, due to the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce.b ‫לֹוק ַח ִמן‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ְ ּב‬The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said that it ,‫לֹוק ַח ִמן ַה ְמ ׁשו ָּּמר‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב‬.‫ ַה ּמו ְּפ ָקר‬is permitted to transfer money used to purchase Sabbatical-Year h .‫יסר – ָאסוּר‬ ָּ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ַכ ֲחצִ י ִא‬produce to an am ha’aretz as long as it does not exceed the value of three meals? It is specifically in a case where one purchases produce that came from a field that was declared ownerless as required during the Sabbatical Year. In that case, the am ha’aretz who gathered the produce is paid only for the act of harvesting and not for the produce. However, if he buys produce that came from a field that was safeguardedn for its owner in the manner that it is during the other years of the Sabbatical-Year cycle and was not declared ownerless, then even if one purchased produce worth half an issar,n it is prohibited to transfer the money to him, as it is prohibited to utilize fruits that were safeguarded during the Sabbatical Year. ‫ ו ִּמן ַה ּמו ְּפ ָקר ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬:‫ְמ ִתיב ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ ,‫ ַה ּ ֵפיגָ ם‬:‫ְסעוּדֹות וְ ת ּו ָלא? ו ְּר ִמינְ ִהי‬ ,‫ וַ ֲח ַלגְ לֹוגֹות‬,‫יטים‬ ִּ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ִש‬,‫וְ ַה ּיַ ְר ּב ּו זִ ין‬ ‫ וְ ַה ַּכ ְר ּ ַפ ס‬,‫וְ ַה ּכ ּו ְס ָ ּב ר ׁ ֶש ֶ ּב ָה ִר ים‬ – ‫ וְ ַה ַ ּג ְר ִ ּגיר ׁ ֶשל ֲא ָפר‬,‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ְּנ ָה רֹות‬ ּ ָ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ ‫נִיק ִחין ִמ ָּכל ָא ָדם‬ ‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ֶהן‬,‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ !‫נִש ָמר‬ ְׁ

Rav Sheshet raised an objection: And is it permitted to purchase produce from an ownerless field worth only the value of three meals and no more? He raised a contradiction from a mishna (Shevi’it 9:1): Rue and sorrel, two types of herbs, and vegetables such as asparagus, purslane, coriander that is found in the mountains, water parsley of the rivers, and garden-eruca are all exempt from the requirement of tithes in all years, and they may be purchased from any person during the Sabbatical Year because there is no plant of their species that is safeguarded. These plants are not cultivated but grow wild, rendering them ownerless. Apparently, these plants that grow wild may be purchased in any quantity, even from an am ha’aretz, with no three-meal limit.

‫ ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי‬:‫מֹותיב ָל ּה וְ הוּא ְמ ָפ ֵרק ָל ּה‬ ִ ‫הוּא‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר‬.ּ‫ָמן ׁ ָשנו‬ ‫ ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬.ּ‫ ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי ָמן ׁ ָשנו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ – ‫ישנָ א דִּ ְמזֹונֵי הוּא‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫״מן״ ִל‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַהאי‬ .‫ ״וַ יְ ַמן ָל ֶהם ַה ֶּמ ֶלךְ ״ וגו׳‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬

The Gemara continues. Rav Sheshet raised the objection, and he also resolved it: The Sages taught this halakha in the mishna with regard to food in the amount sufficient for his sustenance [man].n These plants that the mishna excludes from the prohibition against purchase from an am ha’aretz are still subject to the three-meal limit. And likewise, Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The Sages taught this halakha in the amount sufficient for his sustenance [man]. From where may it be inferred that man is a term meaning sustenance? It is as it is written: “And the king appointed [vayman] for them a daily portion of the king’s food” (Daniel 1:5).

background

Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫פירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬:ֵ ּ This inscription, found in a mosaic in the ancient city of Reĥov, near Beit She’an, is dated to the seventh century and contains a variety of halakhot pertaining to the Sabbatical Year. Some of the halakhot are a version of a baraita that appears in the Jerusalem Talmud. This inscription is therefore the oldest portion of the Oral Law to have been found.

Reĥov inscription halakha

Purchase Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫קֹונֶ ה ּ ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬: It is prohibited to purchase any amount of Sabbatical-Year produce from an am ha’aretz if it is produce that usually grows in a field that is typically safeguarded, e.g., figs and pomegranates. However, it is permitted to purchase Sabbatical-Year produce from an am ha’aretz if it is produce that typically grows in a field wild and ownerless, e.g., rue, sorrel, etc. He may purchase only small quantities, worth no more than the value of three meals, to enable the seller to subsist (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 8:12).

notes

Produce from a field that was safeguarded – ‫מן ַה ְמ ׁשו ָּּמר‬:ִ The early authorities disagreed with regard to the halakhic status of produce that grew in a safeguarded field. Some asserted that although one may not safeguard fields during the Sabbatical Year, once the fruits are declared ownerless it is not prohibited to eat them (Rashi; one opinion in Tosafot; Ramban; Rashba; Ritva; Rabbi Shimshon of Saens; Sefer HaĤinukh). Others say that produce from a field that was safeguarded during the Sabbatical Year is forbidden, and there is no remedy (Rashi’s teachers; Rabbeinu Tam; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi). The Ra’avad distinguishes between produce from a field that was safeguarded by a Jew, which is forbidden, and produce in a field that was safeguarded by a gentile, which is permitted. The later authorities also disagree with regard to this matter. Some rule that produce from a field that was safeguarded is prohibited (Rabbi Shlomo Surlau; Vilna Gaon; Pe’at HaShulĥan; Ĥazon Ish), while others permit one to use it (Rabbi Yosef Kurkus; see Arukh HaShulĥan). Worth half an issar – ‫יסר‬ ָּ ‫ב ַכ ֲחצִ י ִא‬:ּ ְ It appears that the Rambam holds that the coin mentioned here, half an issar, is not meant



as a specific amount. Even purchasing produce worth a peruta would be prohibited. However, according to the Ramban, the coin mentioned here, i.e., half an issar, is prohibited, and any less is permitted. Sufficient for his sustenance [man] – ‫ב ְכ ֵדי ָמן‬:ּ ִ In the Arukh LaNer the question is raised why the Gemara would use this obscure expression [man] instead of using a more conventional term. The author suggests a somewhat forced answer, that although the text of the mishna reads: And may be purchased from any [mikol ] person, the original text may have read: From any [min kol ] person. In that case, rather than read it as: From any person [min kol adam], it could be read: The sustenance of any person [man kol adam]. Others prove that the word man means food by citing the manna [man] that the Jewish people ate in the desert, as it is written: “And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another: It is man, for they knew not what it was” (Exodus 16:15). The people called the manna man, a general term for food, because there was no word in their vocabulary that could apply specifically to that unusual source of sustenance (Kappot Temarim; see Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes). ‫טל ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 39b 

191

notes

Lulav…of the sixth year – ‫ישית‬ ִ ּ ׁ ‫לו ָּלב ַ ּבר ׁ ִש‬: With regard to the halakhot of trees in the Sabbatical Year, there is a dispute as to the permitted use of the lulav during the Sabbatical Year. Is it permitted because it grew during the sixth year, or is it permitted because the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year do not apply to the lulav at all? There is a practical difference between these reasons with regard to use of a lulav in the year following the Sabbatical Year (see Kappot Temarim). An etrog tree and other fruit trees – ‫א ְתרֹוג וְ ִא ָילן‬:ֶ The difference between an etrog tree and other trees is that other trees grow primarily from rainwater, and therefore it takes a significant amount of time for them to grow and ripen. In contrast, the etrog grows from rainwater and from irrigation, rendering it similar to a vegetable in that sense. Furthermore, it is similar to a vegetable in the sense that an etrog, unlike fruit of other trees, continues to grow from one year to the next and does not have a fixed season when its growth is completed.

‫ לו ָּלב נַ ִמי! לו ָּלב ַ ּבר ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשית‬,‫ § ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, if one may not purchase produce from ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫יעית הוּא‬ ִ ‫ ַה ִּנ ְכנָס ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬an am ha’aretz lest he misuse the money, it should also be pro‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ נַ ִמי ַ ּבת ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשית ַה ִּנ ְכנֶ ֶסת ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬hibited to give him money and purchase a lulav from him during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing .‫יטה ָאזְ ִלינַן‬ ָ ‫ִהיא! ֶא ְתרֹוג ָ ּב ַתר ְל ִק‬ with a case where the lulav is of the sixth yearn that is entering the seventh year. As it grew during the sixth year, it is permitted, even though it was removed from the tree during the seventh year. The fact that it remained on the tree between Rosh HaShana and Sukkot does not render it Sabbatical-Year produce. The Gemara objects: If so, the etrog,b too, is an object of the sixth year that is entering the seventh year and should have the same status. The Gemara answers: With regard to an etrog, as opposed to a lulav, in determining its status we go according to its picking and not when it grew. Therefore, in that case, the etrog is considered to be Sabbatical-Year produce. ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יאל ו ֵּבין ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָהא ֵ ּבין ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫יעית ֶא ְתרֹוג ָ ּב ַתר ֲחנָ ָטה‬ ִ ‫ְל ִענְ יַ ן ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫יל ן‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ׁ ָשוֶ ה ָל ִא‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַ ן‬,‫ָאזְ ִלינַ ן‬ .‫ וְ ַלּיָ ָרק ְ ּב ֶד ֶרךְ ֶא ָחד‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָר ִכים‬

The Gemara objects: But both Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, who disagree about the status of an etrog that grew in one year and was picked in the following year in terms of determining its year for the halakhot of tithing, agree with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year that with regard to an etrog we go according to its ripening, as we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 2:6): The halakhic status of the fruit of an etrog tree is like that of a typical fruit treen in three manners and like that of a vegetable in one manner.h

,‫ ָל ָע ְר ָלה‬:‫ ׁ ָשוֶ ה ָל ִא ָילן ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָר ִכים‬The mishna elaborates: Its halakhic status is like that of a tree in ‫ וְ ַלּיָ ָרק ְ ּב ֶד ֶר ְך‬.‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬,‫ וְ ִל ְר ָב ִעי‬three manners: With regard to orla, i.e., it is prohibited to eat :‫ ֶא ָחד‬of its fruit during the first three years after its planting; with regard to fourth-year produce, i.e., fruits that grow during the fourth year after the tree’s planting, which may not be used outside of Jerusalem unless they are deconsecrated by means of redemption; and with regard to the Sabbatical Year. With regard to all those halakhot, the year to which the fruit is ascribed is determined by when it ripens. And its halakhic status is like that of a vegetable in one manner:

background

Etrog – ‫א ְתרֹוג‬:ֶ The majority of trees that grow in Eretz Yisrael are sustained primarily by rainwater. Even if they are irrigated, it is only to supplement the rainfall. However, the etrog requires frequent irrigation and in that regard it is similar to vegetables. Another aspect of the etrog that distinguishes it

from other fruits is the fact that it does not have a set season during which it blossoms, grows, and ripens. Rather, it can blossom at any point during the year. Additionally, the fruits themselves continue to grow on the tree until they are picked; they do not fall on their own.

halakha

The halakhot of etrog with regard to the Sabbatical Year and tithing – ‫דִּ ינֵי ֶא ְתרֹוג ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִמ ָּטה ו ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬: The etrog is different from other fruits, and its halakhic status is like that of vegetables in the sense that with regard to the halakhot of both tithing and the Sabbatical Year, its status is determined by the date it was picked from the tree. With regard to tithes, if it was picked before the fifteenth of Shevat during the third year of the Sabbatical-Year cycle, one is obligated to separate poor man’s tithe from it although the fruit ripened during the

192 

Perek III . 39b . ‫טל ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

second year. If it was picked prior to the fifteenth of Shevat during the fourth year, one is obligated to separate second tithe although it ripened during the third year. The same is true with regard to the Sabbatical Year. Even if the fruit ripened during the sixth year, if it was picked during the seventh year it is considered Sabbatical-Year produce. However, in that case, an additional stringency is imposed and one tithes that produce as if it were sixth-year produce (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 4:12, Hilkhot Ma’aser Sheni 1:5–6).

Perek III Daf 40 Amud a ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ָ ּבן‬,‫יש ּורֹו‬ ׂ ּ ‫יטתֹו ִע‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְל ִק‬It is like a vegetable in that at the time of its picking it is tithed; ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel. If it was picked in the !‫ ָל ִא ָילן ְל ָכל דָּ ָבר‬third year of the Sabbatical cycle, poor man’s tithe is separated although it ripened in the second year, when the obligation is to separate second tithe and not poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Eliezer says: The halakhic status of the fruit of an etrog tree is like that of a typical fruit tree in every matter. In any case, with regard to ascribing the status of Sabbatical-Year produce to the fruits, it is apparent from the mishna that the status of an etrog of the sixth year that was picked in the seventh year is that of sixth-year produce. ‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר ִּכי ַהאי ַּת ָּנא‬ ‫טֹולמֹוס ֵה ִעיד ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ְ ‫ ַא ְב‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫יטה ַל ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ַא ַחר ְל ִק‬:‫זְ ֵקנִים‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין‬: ‫ֹותינ ּו נִ ְמנ ּו ְ ּבא ּו ׁ ָשא וְ ָא ְמר ּו‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַר ּב‬ .‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ ֵ ּבין ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬,‫ַל ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬

The Gemara answers: It was the tanna of the mishna that distinguishes between the lulav and the etrog who stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said that Avtolemos, one of the Sages, testified in the name of five Elders: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking with regard to the halakhot of tithes.h And our Sages were counted in Usha,b reached a decision, and said: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking both with regard to the halakhot of tithes and with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.h

‫יה ?! ַח ּס ּו ֵרי‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִב‬ ּ ‫יעית ַמאן דְּ ַכר ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ַא ַחר ְל ִק‬:‫יח ְּס ָרא וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬ ַ ‫ִמ‬ ‫ וְ ַר ּב ֵֹותינ ּו‬.‫יעית‬ ִ ‫נָטה ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ַחר ֲח‬,‫ַל ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ ,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ָ ּב ַתר ְל ִק‬:ּ‫נִ ְמנ ּו ְ ּבאו ׁ ָּשא וְ ָא ְמרו‬ .‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ֵ ּבין ַל ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ֵ ּבין ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: With regard to the Sabbatical Year, who mentioned it? As no previous mention was made of the Sabbatical Year, the discussion of the status of an etrog during the Sabbatical Year is a non sequitur. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking with regard to the halakhot of tithes and determined by the time of its ripening with regard to the Sabbatical Year. And our Sages were counted in Usha and said: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking both with regard to the halakhot of tithes and with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.

‫ַט ְע ָמ א דְּ ל ּו ָלב ַ ּב ר ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִש ית ַה ִּנ ְכנָ ס‬ ,‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫יעית – ָק‬ ִ ‫ ָהא דִּ ׁ ְש ִב‬,‫יעית הוּא‬ ִ ‫ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫ וְ ֵעצִ ים ֵאין‬,‫ַא ַּמאי? ֵעצִ ים ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬ ‫ ֲע ֵלי‬:)‫ (דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫חֹובה ַעל ּ ְפנֵי‬ ָ ‫ָקנִים וַ ֲע ֵלי גְ ָפנִים ׁ ֶש ְ ּג ָב ָבן ְל‬ ‫ ִל ְּק ָטן ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה – יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ַה ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה‬ ‫ ִל ְּק ָטן ְל ֵעצִ ים – ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן‬,‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ׁ ְש ִב‬ !‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ׁ ְש ִב‬

§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the mishna: The reason

‫״ל ֶכם ְל ָא ְכ ָלה״‬ ָ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬ ‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ֲהנָ ָאתֹו‬ ְ ִּ‫״ל ֶכם״ דּ ו ְּמיָ א ד‬ ָ ‫ יָ צְ א ּו ֵעצִ ים ׁ ֶש ֲהנָ ָא ָתן ַא ַחר‬,‫ו ִּביעוּרֹו ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬ .‫ִ ּביעו ָּרן‬

that a lulav may be purchased from an am ha’aretz during the Sabbatical Year is specifically that it is a lulav of the sixth year that is entering the seventh. This indicates by inference that a lulav of the seventh year is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: Why is it sacred? It is merely wood, and wood is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to reed leaves and vine leavesb that one piled for storage upon the field,n if he gathered them for eating, they are subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year;h if he gathered them for use as wood, e.g., for kindling, they are not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Apparently, wood or any other non-food product is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of the reed and vine leaves, as the verse states: “And the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for you for food” (Leviticus 25:6). From the juxtaposition of the term: For you, and the term: For food, it is derived: For you is similar to for food; the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect on those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide.n Wood is excluded, as its benefit is subsequent to its consumption. The primary purpose of kindling wood is not accomplished with the burning of the wood; rather, it is with the charcoal that heats the oven. Therefore, it is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

‫יכא ֵעצִ ים דְּ ִמ ׁ ְש ָחן דַּ ֲהנָ ָא ָתן ו ִּביעו ָּרן‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ָה ִא‬The Gemara objects: But isn’t there wood used to provide heat ‫ ְס ָתם ֵעצִ ים ְל ַה ָּס ָקה ֵהן‬:‫( ׁ ָשוֶ ה! ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rabbeinu Ĥananel), whose benefit coincides with its consumption? Rava said: Undesignated wood exists for fuel, i.e., charcoal, .‫עֹומ ִדין‬ ְ so its benefit is subsequent to its consumption. 

halakha

Etrog with regard to tithes – ‫א ְתרֹוג ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְ ׂשרֹות‬: ֶ The halakhic status of an etrog is that of a vegetable with regard to the halakhot of tithes. For the purposes of tithes, any etrog picked from the tree after the fifteenth of Shevat is attributed to the year when it was picked, even if it ripened the year before. This ruling is in accordance with the consensus of the Sages of Usha (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Ma’aser Sheni 1:5). Etrog with regard to the Sabbatical Year – ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬: ּ ַ Classification of an etrog as a Sabbatical-Year etrog is determined by when it is picked. Therefore, the status of an etrog picked during the Sabbatical Year is that of Sabbatical-Year produce (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 4:12). Reed leaves and vine leaves with regard to the Sabbatical Year – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ע ֵלי ָקנִים וַ ֲע ֵלי גְ ָפנִים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:ֲ The status of produce not typically used as food for people or for animals depends on the intention of the person gathering it. If he gathered it for use as kindling, its status is that of wood. However, if he gathered it for use as food, its status is that of Sabbatical-Year produce (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 5:11). background

Usha – ‫או ׁ ָּשא‬: Usha was a town in the Galilee and the seat of the Sanhedrin for a generation (c. 140 CE). After the bar Kokheva revolt (132–135 CE), when the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael was almost completely destroyed, those scholars who survived the revolt began to assemble in Usha, where the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II, lived. The surviving students of Rabbi Akiva accepted his spiritual leadership. Although they were scattered throughout the Galilee, they recognized Usha as the center of Torah study and as the seat of the Sanhedrin. In Usha, the Sages of that generation instituted many important ordinances, known as the rabbinical ordinances instituted in Usha. From there, for what was apparently a brief period, the Sanhedrin moved to Shefaram. Reed leaves and vine leaves – ‫ע ֵלי ָקנִים וַ ֲע ֵלי גְ ָפנִים‬:ֲ The use of vine leaves as food or as wrapping for food is practiced even today. Reed leaves were also used in this way while still young and soft. Bamboo shoots are also eaten nowadays. notes

That one piled for storage [ĥova] upon the field – ‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּג ָב ָבן‬ ‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫ל‬:ְ Most of the commentaries interpret the term ĥova as hiding place, meaning that one collected the leaves into storage. Others explain that it means that the leaves remain moist (Me’iri). With regard to the halakhic status of the leaves, Tosafot noted that the question of whether or not one collected the leaves for hiding determines their halakhic status. If he gathered the leaves in small quantities, apparently his intention was to use them as fodder; however, if he gathered and stored them away, he may have intended to use them for kindling (Kappot Temarim). Wood whose benefit and whose consumption coincide – ‫ש ֲהנָ ָאתֹו ו ִּבעוּרֹו ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬: ֶ ׁ Most types of wood are exempted from the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, as those halakhot apply only to items whose benefit and consumption coincide. Therefore, the lulav is included in the prohibition, as its typical use is as a broom. Since with each sweeping action the broom wears away a little, its benefit and consumption coincide. However, according to Rava, the few species of tree about which it can be said that benefit and consumption coincide are rendered irrelevant by the majority of trees, from which benefit is derived after their consumption. ‫מ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 40a 

193

notes

The matter of kindling wood is a dispute between tanna’im – ‫וְ ֵעצִ ים ְל ַה ָּס ָקה ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬: The ge’onim had a variant reading of the Gemara: Rav Kahana said that the matter of kindling wood is a dispute between tanna’im. According to that version, this is a second answer to the question: But isn’t there wood used to provide heat, whose benefit coincides with its consumption? The answer is: There is a dispute between the tanna’im whether or not the concept: Benefit coincides with its consumption, is indeed a determining factor with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, as Rabbi Yosei holds that it is not a determining factor. According to this reading, the opinion that wood is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is that of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei’s opinion – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יטת ַר ִ ּבי‬ ַּ ‫ש‬: ִ ׁ The Ra’avad writes that Rabbi Yosei’s statement here seems to be consistent with another statement of his in tractate Nedarim that considers laundering an essential human need. Therefore, the halakhic status of laundering is equal to that of eating with regard to the Sabbatical Year. halakha

Sabbatical-Year produce for soaking and laundering – ‫יעית ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ָרה וְ ִכ ּבוּס‬ ִ ‫פירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬:ֵ ּ The Sabbatical-Year produce whose typical use is not for soaking flax, for laundering, or as a remedy, may not be used for those purposes, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in their dispute with Rabbi Yosei (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 5:10). language

Remedy [melugma] – ‫מלוּגְ ָמא‬:ְ From the Greek μάλαγμα, malagma, meaning bandage or dressing on a wound.

‫ ֵאין‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫  § וְ ֵעצִ ים ְל ַה ָּס ָקה ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬The Gemara notes: The matter of whether kindling wood, whose benefit is subsequent to its consumption, is subject to the ‫יעית ל ֹא ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ָרה וְ ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫מֹוס ִרין ּ ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬ ְ n .‫מֹוס ִרין‬ ְ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ִל ְכבו ָּסה‬sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One may neither transfer SabbaticalYear produce, e.g., wine, for soaking flax to prepare it for spinning, as the benefit derived from the flax is subsequent to its soaking, when the soaked and spun thread is woven into a garment; nor for laundering with it, as the benefit derived is subsequent to the laundering when one wears the clean clothes.h Soaking the flax or laundering the garment in wine is consumption of the wine, as it is no longer potable. Rabbi Yosein says: One may transfer Sabbatical-Year produce for those purposes. ‫יה דְּ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא – דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״ – וְ ל ֹא ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ָרה‬ ְ :‫ְק ָרא‬ – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬.‫ִל ְכבו ָּסה‬ ,‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫״ל ֶכם״ – ָל ֶכם ְל ָכל צָ ְר ֵכ‬ ָ :‫ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ,‫ וְ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא‬.‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ָרה וְ ִל ְכבו ָּסה‬ ‫״ל ֶכם״ דּ ו ְּמיָ א‬ ָ ‫״ל ֶכם״! ַההוּא‬ ָ ‫ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬ ,‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״– ִמי ׁ ֶש ֲהנָ ָאתֹו ו ִּביעוּרֹו ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬ ְ ִּ‫ד‬ ‫יָ צְ א ּו ִמ ׁ ְש ָרה ו ְּכבו ָּסה ׁ ֶש ֲהנָ ָא ָתן ַא ַחר‬ .‫ִ ּביעו ָּרן‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of the first tanna? It is as the verse states with regard to Sabbatical-Year produce: “For food,” from which it is inferred: And not for soaking and not for laundering. What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yosei permitting one to do so? It is as the verse states: “For you,” from which it is inferred: For you, for all your needs, and even for soaking and for laundering. The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna, isn’t it written: “For you”? How does he explain that term? The Gemara answers: From that term “for you” it is derived: For you, similar to for food; the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect on those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide, which excludes soaking and laundering, where the items’ benefit is subsequent to their consumption.

‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״! ַההוּא‬ ְ ‫ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״ – וְ ל ֹא ִל ְמלוּגְ ָמא‬ ְ ‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ .‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״ וְ ל ֹא ִל ְמלוּגְ ָמא‬ ְ :‫ִּכ ְד ַתנְ יָ א‬ ,‫אֹומר ְל ָא ְכ ָלה וְ ל ֹא ִל ְמלוּגְ ָמא‬ ֵ ‫ַא ָּתה‬ ‫אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא וְ ל ֹא ִל ְכבו ָּסה? ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ,‫״ל ֶכם״ – ֲה ֵרי ִל ְכבו ָּסה ָאמוּר‬ ָ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״ – ְל ָא ְכ ָלה‬ ְ ‫ָהא ָמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים‬ ‫ית ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת‬ ָ ‫ ָמה ָר ִא‬.‫וְ ל ֹא ִל ְמלוּגְ ָמא‬ ?‫ַה ְּכבו ָּסה ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַה ְּמלוּגְ ָמא‬

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yosei, isn’t it written: “For food,” indicating that it may not be used for any other purpose? The Gemara answers: He needs that phrase to teach: For food, and not for a remedy [melugma],l as it is taught in a baraita: For food and not for a remedy. The baraita continues: Do you say: For food and not for a remedy, or perhaps it is only: For food and not for laundering? When the verse says: “For you,” for laundering is already stated as permitted since it includes all one’s bodily needs. How, then, do I uphold that which the verse states: “For food”? It is: For food, and not for a remedy. And should one ask: What did you see that led you to include the use of Sabbatical-Year produce for laundering and to exclude the use of Sabbatical-Year produce as a remedy?

Perek III Daf 40 Amud b language

Emetic [apiktoizin] – ‫יקטֹויזִ ן‬ ְ ‫א ּ ִפ‬: ַ Possibly from the Greek ἔκπτυσις, ekptusis, meaning expectoration, vomiting, or an agent that causes vomiting. halakha

Use of Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ימו ּׁש ְ ּב ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬ ִׁ ּ ‫ש‬: One may not use Sabbatical-Year produce for any purpose other than eating: Neither for sprinkling, nor for medicinal purposes, nor for soaking, nor for laundering. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 5:10).

194 

Perek III . 40b . ‫מ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

‫ ַמ ְר ֶ ּבה ֲאנִי ֶאת ַה ְּכבו ָּסה – ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשוָ ה ְ ּב ָכל‬Rabbi Yosei could respond: I include laundering, which applies ‫ וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַה ְּמלוּגְ ָמא – ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬,‫ ָא ָדם‬equally to every person, as everyone needs clean clothes, and .‫ ׁ ָשוָ ה ְל ָכל ָא ָדם‬I exclude a remedy, which does not apply equally to every person; it is only for the ill. ‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״‬ ְ :‫ דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬,‫ַמאן ָּתנָ א ְל ָהא‬ ‫״ל ָא ְכ ָל ה״ וְ ל ֹא‬ ְ ,‫וְ ל ֹא ִל ְמ ל וּגְ ָמ א‬ ּ ִ‫ְלז‬ ‫״ל ָא ְכ ָלה״ וְ ל ֹא ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה‬ ְ ,‫ילוּף‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי‬.‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יקטֹויזִ ין‬ ְ ‫ַא ּ ִפ‬ .‫יכא נַ ִמי ִמ ׁ ְש ָרה ו ְּכבו ָּסה‬ ָּ ‫ַר ָ ּבנַן – ָהא ִא‬

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Sabbatical-Year produce: For food, and not for a remedy; for food, and not for sprinkling wine in one’s house to provide a pleasant fragrance; for food, and not to make it an emetic [apiktoizin]l to induce vomiting? In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, isn’t there also soaking and laundering that should have been excluded in the baraita, as in their opinion, use of Sabbatical-Year produce for those purposes is prohibited?h

‫יעית ִמ ְת ַח ֶּל ֶלת‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין ׁ ְש ִב‬:‫ § ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬Rabbi Elazar said: Sabbatical-Year produce is deconsecrated n ְ‫ ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶרך‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ֶא ָּלא דֶּ ֶרךְ ִמ ָ ּקח‬only by means of purchase; however, it cannot be deconsecrated .‫ ִמ ָ ּקח ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶרךְ ִחילּ וּל‬through redemption. Merely declaring that the sanctity of that produce is transferred to money or other produce is inef­ fective. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It is deconsecrated both by means of purchase and by means of redemption.h :‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ּ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬ :‫יה‬ ְ ‫ ו ְּס ִמ‬,‫ּיֹובל ַהּזֹאת״ וגו׳‬ ֵ ‫״ב ׁ ְשנַ ת ַה‬ ִּ ּ ‫יך ֵל‬ ְ‫ וְ ל ֹא דֶּ ֶרך‬,‫״וְ ִכי ִת ְמ ְּכר ּו ִמ ְמ ָּכר״ – דֶּ ֶרךְ ִמ ָ ּקח‬ :‫יה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ִחילּ וּל‬ ּ ‫יֹוחנָן ַמאי ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ְ‫יֹובל ִהיא ק ֶֹד ׁש״ ַמה ּק ֶֹד ׁש – ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶרך‬ ֵ ‫״כי‬ ִּ ‫יעית – ֵ ּבין‬ ִ ‫ ַאף ׁ ְש ִב‬,‫ִמ ָ ּקח ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶרךְ ִחילּ וּל‬ .‫דֶּ ֶרךְ ִמ ָ ּקח ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶרךְ ִחילּ וּל‬

What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? It is as it is written: “In this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it it is written: “And if you sell an item to your neighbor” (Leviticus 25:14); this indicates that in the Jubilee Year, during which the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year are in effect, one deconsecrates the produce by means of purchase and not by means of redemption. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoĥanan, what is the rationale for his opinion? It is as it is written: “For it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you” (Leviticus 25:12); this indicates that just as one redeems consecrated items both by means of purchase and by means of redemption, so too, Sabbatical-Year produce can be redeemed both by means of purchase and by means of redemption.

‫״כי ִת ְמ ְּכר ּו ִמ ְמ ָּכר״ ַמאי‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִּ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א‬ ‫ ּבֹוא ו ְּר ֵאה ַּכ ָּמה ָק ׁ ֶשה ֲא ָב ָק ּה ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ֲחנִינָ א‬ ‫נֹותן ְ ּב ֵפירֹות‬ ֵ ְ‫נֹושא ו‬ ׂ ֵ ‫ ָא ָדם‬,‫יעית וכו׳‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫מֹוכר ֶאת ִמ ַּט ְל ְט ָליו‬ ֵ ‫יעית – ַל ּסֹוף‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫ּיֹובל ַהּזֹאת‬ ֵ ‫״ב ׁ ְשנַ ת ַה‬ ּ ִ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫וְ ֶאת ֵּכ ָליו‬ ‫ ״וְ ִכי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ְּס ִמיךְ ֵל‬,‫ָּת ׁ ֻשב ּו ִא ׁיש ֶאל ֲאחוּּזָ תֹו״‬ .‫יתךָ ״ וגו׳‬ ֶ ‫ִת ְמ ְּכר ּו ִמ ְמ ָּכר ַל ֲע ִמ‬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoĥanan, what does he do with this juxtaposition of the Jubilee Year to the verse: “If you sell an item”? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive a halakha in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ĥanina, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar Ĥanina says: Come and see how severe even the hint of violation of the prohibition of the Sabbatical Yearn is; as the prohibition against commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce is not one of the primary prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year, and its punishment is harsh. A person who engages in commerce with Sabbatical-Year producen is ultimately punished with the loss of his wealth to the point that he is forced to sell his movable propertyn and his vessels, as it is stated: “In this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: “And if you sell an item to your neighbor” (Leviticus 25:14).

‫יֹוחנָ ן ַמאי‬ ָ ‫ ַהאי ְק ָרא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫יֹובל‬ ֵ ‫״כי‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ִּ :‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ ‫ִהיא ק ֶֹד ׁש״ ַמה ּק ֶֹד ׁש ּת ֵֹופס ֶאת דָּ ָמיו – ַאף‬ .‫יה‬ ָ ‫יעית ּת ֶֹופ ֶסת ֶאת דָּ ֶמ‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִב‬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, what does he do with this verse from which Rabbi Yoĥanan derived his opinion? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: “For it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you” (Leviticus 25:12); just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed.h

‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ וְ ַתנְיָא ְּכו‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ּ ‫ות‬ :‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַּתנְ יָ א ְּכו‬.‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ‫״כי‬ ָ ‫יעית ּת ֶֹופ ֶסת ֶאת דָּ ֶמ‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִב‬ ִּ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ‫ ַמה ּק ֶֹד ׁש‬,‫יֹובל ִהיא ק ֶֹד ׁש ִּת ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם״‬ ֵ ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ֹופס ֶאת דָּ ָמיו וְ ָאסוּר – ַאף ׁ ְש ִב‬ ֵ ‫ּת‬ .‫יה וַ ֲאסו ָּרה‬ ָ ‫ּת ֶֹופ ֶסת ֶאת דָּ ֶמ‬

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan.n The Gemara elaborates that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: Sabbatical-Year sanctity takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which the produce is redeemed, as it is stated: “For it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you”; just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed and it is prohibited to use the money for non-sacred purposes, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed, and it is prohibited to use this money for purposes for which Sabbatical-Year produce may not be used.

notes

Deconsecrated…by means of purchase – …‫ִמ ְת ַח ֶּל ֶלת‬ ‫דֶּ ֶר ְך ִמ ָ ּקח‬: Ostensibly, redemption typically involves deconsecration of one item by means of transferring its sanctity to another item or to money. However, the Gemara later states that Sabbatical-Year produce retains its sanctity even after redemption. This supports the opinion of Rav Ashi, who states that this deconsecration applies only to the secondary produce exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce. This secondary produce is deconsecrated when its sanctity is transferred to another object (Arukh LaNer). The hint of violation of the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫א ָב ָק ּה ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְש ִב‬:ֲ This is referred to as the hint of violation of the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year because engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce is not the primary prohibition of the Sabbatical Year. The primary prohibition is working the land (Rashi; Tosafot). Alternatively, it is referred to as a hint because the prohibition against engaging in commerce is a subcategory of the prohibition against storing produce for use in the eighth year (Arukh). A person who engages in commerce with SabbaticalYear produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫נֹותן ְ ּב ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬ ֵ ְ‫נֹושא ו‬ ׂ ֵ ‫א ָדם‬:ָ Tosafot on tractate Kiddushin explain that it is possible to claim that one receives this harsh punishment only for violation of the more severe prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year, but since the punishment here is that he is forced to sell his property, and presumably the punishment fits the crime, apparently his sin was also related to buying and selling. Is ultimately forced to sell his movable property, etc. – ‫מֹוכר ֶאת ִמ ַּט ְל ְט ָליו וכו׳‬ ֵ ‫ל ּסֹוף‬:ַ The Gemara in tractate Kiddushin interprets the juxtaposition of the subsequent verses homiletically. If one does not change his ways he will be forced to sell his land (see Leviticus 25:15–16). If he continues to sin, ultimately he will be forced to sell his house (see Leviticus 25:29–34). If he fails to repent, he will become impoverished and in need of loans (see Leviticus 25:35). If he still does not repent, he will be forced to sell himself into servitude to another Jew (see Leviticus 25:39–40). Finally, if he continues to sin, he will be forced to sell himself to a non-Jew (see Leviticus 25:47–55). It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan – ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫תנְיָא ְּכוָ ֵות‬:ַּ Rashi cites proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan that SabbaticalYear produce can be deconsecrated by means of redemption and not only by means of purchase from the use in the baraita of the term ĥillul, which is understood as referring to deconsecration by means of redemption, not by means of purchase. In the Kappot Temarim Rashi’s proof is rejected, as Rabbi Elazar himself uses the same term with regard to purchase: Sabbatical-Year produce is deconsecrated [mitĥallelet] only by means of purchase. Rather, the proof is from the fact that the baraita links Sabbatical-Year produce to second-tithe produce, which is certainly deconsecrated without purchase. In the Arukh LaNer, Rashi’s proof is explained. Rabbi Elazar used the term mitĥallelet in reference to purchase because there he said explicitly: Mitĥallelet only by means of purchase. However, when the term ĥillul is used unmodified, it certainly refers to deconsecration by means of redemption and not exclusively to deconsecration by means of purchase.

halakha

The manner of deconsecrating Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫דֶּ ֶרךְ ִחילּ וּל ׁ ְש ִב‬: Sabbatical-Year produce may be redeemed only by means of purchase. This restriction applies exclusively to produce that grew during the Sabbatical Year, but not to produce that was exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce. Although that produce exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce



is sanctified, the sanctity can be transferred to another object or to money either by means of purchase or by means of redemption. This ruling is based on the Jerusalem Talmud, where it is understood that Rabbi Yoĥanan and Rabbi Elazar do not disagree with regard to this matter (Radbaz; Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 6:8).

The sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money for which it is redeemed – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫יעית ּת ֶֹופ ֶסת ֶאת דָּ ֶמ‬ ִ ‫ש ִב‬: ְׁ Sabbatical-Year produce is intrinsically sacred. If it is sold, the money used to purchase it is consecrated, but the SabbaticalYear produce retains its sanctified status (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 5:6). ‫מ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 40b 

195

halakha

The last item purchased assumes the consecrated status of produce of the Sabbatical Year – ‫ַא ֲחרֹון ַא ֲחרֹון נִ ְכנַס‬ ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:ּ ַ If one sells Sabbatical-Year produce, the money he receives is consecrated. If one purchases an item with that money, the object purchased is consecrated while the money reverts back to non-sacred status. The same is true for any subsequent exchanges; the final item is sacred. However, as stated in the Gemara, the original SabbaticalYear produce always retains its sanctity (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 5:7). Deconsecrating Sabbatical-Year produce on animals – ‫יעית ַעל ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ַחּיִ ים‬ ִ ‫חילּ וּל ּ ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬:ִ When deconsecrating Sabbatical-Year produce or money that has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, one may deconsecrate them with slaughtered animals. However, one may not use birds or other living animals, whether domesticated or non-domesticated, since they procreate. The result would be an entire flock that is sacred. That would increase the potential for a situation where one would fail to treat them with the appropriate degree of sanctity (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 5:9).

,‫ִאי ַמה ּק ֶֹד ׁש ּת ֵֹופס דָּ ָמיו וְ יֹוצֵ א ְלחו ִּּלין‬ ‫יה וְ יֹוצֵ את‬ ָ ‫יעית ּת ֶֹופ ֶסת ֶאת דָּ ֶמ‬ ִ ‫ַאף ׁ ְש ִב‬ – ‫״ת ְהיֶ ה״‬ ִּ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ְלח ּו ִּלין – ַּת ְלמ ּוד‬ .‫ית ּה ְּת ֵהא‬ ָ ָ‫ַ ּב ֲהוָ י‬

Or perhaps extend the analogy and derive that just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed, and the consecrated item assumes non-sacred status, so too, the sanctity of SabbaticalYear produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed, and the Sabbatical-Year produce assumes non-sacred status. Therefore, the verse states: “It shall be consecrated unto you,” meaning: It shall be as it is. Although the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on the money, the produce remains consecrated as well.

‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ָל ַקח ְ ּב ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬ ,‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ֵא ּל ּו וָ ֵא ּל ּו ִמ ְת ַ ּב ֲע ִרין ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫ָל ַקח ַ ּב ָ ּב ָ ׂשר דָּ גִ ים – יָ צָ א ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ נִ ְכנְ ס ּו‬ ‫ ָל ַקח ַ ּבדָּ גִ ים יַ יִ ן – יָ צְ א ּו דָּ גִ ים וְ נִ ְכנַס‬,‫דָּ גִ ים‬ .‫ ָל ַקח ַ ּבּיַ יִ ן ׁ ֶש ֶמן – יָ צָ א יַ יִ ן וְ נִ ְכנַס ׁ ֶש ֶמן‬,‫יַ יִ ן‬

The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with Sabbatical-Year produce, both this, the produce, and that, the meat, must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. The meat may be eaten only as long as the produce in exchange for which it was purchased may be eaten, i.e., as long as produce of that kind remains in the field. However, if he purchased fish in exchange for the meat, the meat emerges from its consecrated status, and the fish assumes consecrated status. If he then purchased wine in exchange for the fish, the fish emerges from its consecrated status, and the wine assumes consecrated status. If he purchased oil in exchange for the wine, the wine emerges from its consecrated status, and the oil assumes consecrated status.

,‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ַא ֲחרֹון ַא ֲחרֹון נִ ְכנַס ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫״ל ַקח״‬ ָ ‫״ל ַקח״‬ ָ ‫ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬.‫ו ְּפ ִרי ַעצְ מֹו ָאסוּר‬ ּ ‫ דֶּ ֶר ְך ִח‬,‫ דֶּ ֶר ְך ִמ ָ ּקח – ִאין‬:‫ַא ְל ָמא‬ – ‫ילוּל‬ .‫ָלא‬

How so? The last item purchased assumes the consecrated status of produce of the Sabbatical Year,h and the produce itself remains consecrated and forbidden and never loses its consecrated status. The Gemara notes: From the fact that the baraita teaches each case using the term: Purchased, purchased, apparently it means that by means of transaction, yes, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect; however, by means of redemption, no, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not take effect.

‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ָחד ׁ ְש ִב‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ‫וְ ֶא ָחד ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי ִמ ְת ַח ְּל ִלין ַעל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ֵ ּבין ַחּיִ ין ֵ ּבין ׁ ְשחו ִּטין‬,‫ַחּיָ ה וָ עֹוף‬ – ‫ ַעל ׁ ְשחו ִּטין‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה‬,‫ ַעל ַחּיִ ין – ֵאין ִמ ְת ַח ְּל ִלין‬,‫ִמ ְת ַח ְּל ִלין‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ָּמא יְגַ דֵּ ל ֵמ ֶהן ֲע ָד ִרים‬

The Gemara continues: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan. Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second-tithen produce are deconsecrated upon domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and fowl, whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Upon slaughtered animals, they are deconsecrated; upon animals that are alive, they are not deconsecrated. The reason is that a rabbinic decree was issued lest one raise flocks from them. If one breeds a herd from that consecrated animal, the entire herd would be sacred and the potential for misuse of second-tithe property would be great.h

notes

Second tithe – ‫מ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬:ַ Tosafot note that it is obviously permitted to purchase animals with second-tithe money; however, one may do so only in Jerusalem. The Sages prohibited doing so outside of Jerusalem.

‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis

Perek III Daf 41 Amud a ‫ ֲא ָבל ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ַעל‬,‫ ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים‬is specifically with regard to male animals, which do not bear ,‫ ַעל ַחּיִ ין ֵאין ִמ ְת ַח ְּל ִלין‬,‫ ׁ ְשחו ִּטין ִמ ְת ַח ְּל ִלין‬offspring. However, with regard to female animals, everyone .‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יְגַ דֵּ ל ֵמ ֶהן ֲע ָד ִרים‬agrees that upon slaughtered animals, produce is deconsecrated, but upon animals that are alive, produce is not deconsecrated. The reason is that a decree was issued lest one raise flocks from the females, as typically they bear offspring. The Sages extended the decree to include males as well. From the fact that the baraita uses the term deconsecrated, and not the term purchased, apparently the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect by means of redemption as well.

196 

Perek III . 41a . ‫אמ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫לֹוקת ִ ּב ְפ ִרי ִר‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ְ‫ֲא ָבל ִ ּב ְפ ִרי ׁ ֵשנִי – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶרך‬ ּ ‫ִמ ָ ּקח ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶר ְך ִח‬ ‫ וְ ָהא דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬.‫ילוּל‬ ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫״ל ַקח״ – ַאּיְ ֵידי דְּ ָתנָ א ֵר‬ ָ ‫״ל ַקח״‬ ָ .‫״ל ַקח״‬ ָ ‫ ָּתנָ א נַ ִמי ֵס ָיפא‬,‫״ל ַקח״‬ ָ

‫ ִמי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬:‫יה ָר ִבינָ א ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ ּ ‫ית ֵיב‬ ּ ַ ‫יק ׁש ִל‬ ּ ֵ ‫יעית ו ִּב‬ ‫יקח ּבֹו‬ ִ ‫לֹו ֶס ַלע ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫ָחלוּק ֵּכיצַ ד יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה? יֵ ֵלךְ ֵאצֶ ל ֶחנְ וָ ונִי‬ ‫ ֵּתן ִלי ְ ּב ֶס ַלע‬:‫אֹומר לֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ָה ָרגִ יל ֶאצְ לֹו‬ ‫ ֲה ֵרי‬:‫אֹומר לֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ וְ חֹוזֵ ר ו‬.‫נֹותן לֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ּ ֵפירֹות ו‬ ‫ וְ הוּא‬.‫ּ ֵפירֹות ַה ָּלל ּו נְ תוּנִים ְלךָ ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ .‫ ֵהא ְלךָ ֶס ַלע זֹו ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬:‫אֹומר לֹו‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָהא‬.‫לֹוק ַח ָ ּב ֶהן ַמה ׁ ּ ֶשּיִ ְרצֶ ה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַה ָּלה‬ ‫ דֶּ ֶר ְך‬:‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ דִּ ְפ ִרי ׁ ֵשנִי הוּא‬,‫ָה ָכא‬ !‫ דֶּ ֶרךְ ִחילּ וּל – ָלא‬,‫ִמ ָ ּקח – ִאין‬

Rav Ashi said: This dispute whether the sanctity of SabbaticalYear produce takes effect by means of redemption or only by means of purchase is with regard to the original Sabbatical-Year producen itself. However, with regard to secondary produce purchased in exchange for Sabbatical-Year produce, everyone agrees that its sanctity takes effect both by means of purchase and by means of redemption. And the fact that the baraita cited in support of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar teaches: Purchased, purchased, employing that term even with regard to secondary produce, and not the terms deconsecrated or redeemed, does not prove that sanctity takes effect only by means of purchase. Rather, since the tanna of the baraita taught the first clause of the halakha employing the term purchased, he taught the latter clause employing the term purchased, even though sanctity takes effect even by means of redemption.h Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi: With regard to one who has a sela coin that has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and seeks to purchase a garment with it, how should he do so? He should go to the storekeeper whose store he typically patronizes and say to him: Give me fruits in exchange for this sela, and the storekeeper gives him fruits. And then he says to the storekeeper: These fruits that you sold me and that assumed the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year are given to you as a gift. The storekeeper may then eat them as one eats Sabbatical-Year produce. And the storekeeper says to him: Here is a sela for you as a gift, and that person purchases with it whatever he wants, as the sela was deconsecrated. Ravina asks: But here, isn’t it secondary produce, as the sela had previously been exchanged for the original Sabbatical-Year produce, and nevertheless the baraita teaches: By means of purchase, yes, it is effective; by means of redemption, no, it is not?

‫לֹוקת ִ ּב ְפ ִרי‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִ ּב ְפ ִרי ִר‬,‫ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ּ ‫ דֶּ ֶר ְך ִח‬,‫דֶּ ֶר ְך ִמ ָ ּקח – ִאין‬ .‫ילוּל – ָלא‬ ‫יעית וְ ֶא ָחד‬ ִ ‫״א ָחד ׁ ְש ִב‬ ֶ :‫וְ ָהא דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫יעית – דְּ ֵמי‬ ִ ‫ ַמאי ׁ ְש ִב‬,‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי״‬ .‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִב‬

Rather, Rav Ashi said, contrary to the suggestion above, that the dispute is specifically with regard to secondary produce; however, with regard to original produce, everyone agrees: By means of purchase, yes, it is deconsecrated; by means of redemption, no, it is not deconsecrated. And with regard to that which is taught in the baraita cited in support of the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan: Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second-tithe produce are deconsecrated upon cattle, undomesticated animals, and fowl, indicating that the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect through both purchase and redemption. What is the meaning of Sabbatical-Year produce? It is referring to money exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce but not to the produce itself.

‫״מ ֲע ֵ ׂשר״ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ ַ – ‫ימא ָה ִכי‬ ָ ‫דְּ ִאי ָלא ֵּת‬ ‫ ״וְ צַ ְר ָּת ַה ֶּכ ֶסף‬:‫ַמ ָּמ ׁש?! וְ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫ְ ּביָ ְדךָ ״! ֶא ָּלא – דְּ ֵמי ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ .‫יעית‬ ִ ‫נַ ִמי – דְּ ֵמי ׁ ְש ִב‬

And the same must be said with regard to the second tithe mentioned in this baraita, as, if you do not say so but say instead that the second tithe referred to in the baraita is actual second-tithe produce, isn’t it written with regard to the second tithe: “Then shall you turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand…and you shall bestow the money for whatsoever your soul desires” (Deuteronomy 14:25–26), indicating that second-tithe produce can be redeemed only with money, with which other food items may be purchased? Rather, the baraita must be referring to money exchanged for second-tithe produce and not to the produce itself. Here, too, with regard to the Sabbatical Year, the baraita is referring to money exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce and not to the produce itself.

‫נִיטל‬ ָּ ‫אשֹונָ ה ָהיָ ה לו ָּלב‬ ׁ ‫מתני׳ ָ ּב ִר‬ .‫ ו ַּב ְּמ ִדינָ ה יֹום ֶא ָחד‬,‫ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָח ַרב ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ִה ְת ִקין ַר ָ ּבן‬ ‫נִיטל‬ ָּ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא לו ָּלב‬ ָ .‫ זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬,‫ַ ּב ְּמ ִדינָ ה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ 

mishna 

Originally, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven days, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple it was taken for one day.n Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkaip instituted an ordinance that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country for seven days,n in commemoration of the Temple.h

notes

This dispute is with regard to the original Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫לֹוקת ִ ּב ְפ ִרי ִר‬ ֶ ‫מ ֲח‬:ַ In Kappot Temarim the question is raised: From where does Rav Ashi ascertain this? The answer there is that Rav Ashi followed the principle that disputes are minimized wherever possible, and based on this understanding all the different baraitot can be reconciled and are no longer contradictory. And in the rest of the country for one day – ‫ו ַּב ְּמ ִדינָ ה יֹום ֶא ָחד‬: The authorities disagree as to whether the halakhic status of Jerusalem is like that of the Temple or of the rest of the country. Rashi, Ritva, Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura, and many others hold that the status of Jerusalem is like that of the rest of the country. The Rambam and Sefer Mitzvot Katan hold that its status is like that of the Temple, and that consequently by Torah law the lulav is taken there all seven days. Many proofs were cited in support of both opinions. The ruling of the Rambam is based on an explicit ruling in the Jerusalem Talmud. In the rest of the country for seven days – ‫ב ְּמ ִדינָ ה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬:ּ ַ This should not be understood literally, as there is always a Shabbat in a seven-day period and the lulav is not taken on Shabbat. Rather, it means that the mitzva is in effect on all seven days of the Festival, and each year on Sukkot the lulav is taken every day that is not Shabbat (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Me’iri).

halakha

Sale of Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫מ ִכ ַירת ׁ ְש ִב‬:ְ SabbaticalYear produce is deconsecrated only by means of purchase and not by means of redemption, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 6:8). Lulav in the Temple and in the rest of the country – ‫לו ָּלב‬ ‫ב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ו ַּב ְּמ ִדינָ ה‬:ּ ַ Originally, the practice was to take the lulav all seven days of the Festival in the Temple and to take it on the first day of the Festival everywhere else, in keeping with Torah law. Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the four species were to be taken for seven days everywhere to commemorate the Temple (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:13, 15). Personalities

Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai – ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי‬ ָ ‫ר ָ ּבן‬:ַ Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai headed the Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Second Temple. He was one of the greatest leaders in the history of the Jewish people. Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai was the youngest of Hillel the Elder’s students; he lived to an old age and served as the leader of the Jewish people for many years. The Sages said of him that there was not a single area of Torah that he neglected. Despite his prominence, he was a modest individual who greeted every person he met, including gentiles in the marketplace. Even while the Temple stood he was acknowledged as a leading Torah scholar, and most of the Sages of that generation were his students. When the Great Revolt erupted, Rabban Yoĥanan adopted a position strongly opposed to it, seeking to resolve it peacefully. As one of the leaders of the besieged Jerusalem, he was aware that the city would soon fall, and he succeeded in escaping with the help of several of his students in order to appear before the Roman general Vespasian, who received him warmly. When his prediction that Vespasian would be appointed emperor was fulfilled, Vespasian rewarded him by allowing him to establish a new center of Jewish Torah study and leadership in Yavne. Rabban Yoĥanan took this opportunity to save the life of Rabban Gamliel as well. In Yavne, Rabban Yoĥanan succeeded in instituting a wide range of ordinances that offered hope for Jewish continuity in the absence of the Temple even as they served to commemorate the Temple and promised the possibility of its ultimate rebuilding. The results of his efforts are integral to the modern practice of halakhic Judaism. His students taught Torah throughout Eretz Yisrael following the destruction of the Temple, and he served as a mentor for Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, who succeeded him in the leadership capacity as the acting Nasi. ‫אמ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 41a 

197

halakha

Day of waving – ‫יֹום ֶהנֶ ף‬: Nowadays it is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop until the seventeenth of Nisan, in accordance with the ordinance instituted by Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai and his interpretation of the verse: Until this selfsame day. Outside Eretz Yisrael, it is prohibited to eat new grain even on the seventeenth of Nisan due to the uncertainty with regard to the establishment of the new month and the resultant uncertainty with regard to the date. Therefore, one must wait until the evening of the eighteenth (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 293:1 and Oraĥ Ĥayyim 489:10). Eating grain of the new crop during the Temple era – ‫א ִכ ַילת ָח ָד ׁש ִ ּבזְ ַמן ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬:ֲ When the Temple was standing, it was permitted to eat the grain of the new crop immediately after the omer offering was sacrificed. Those who were distant and did not know precisely when the omer offering was sacrificed were permitted to eat the grain of the new crop from midday, as the court is diligent and would not allow the omer offering to be delayed beyond that point (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 10:2). notes

And that for the entire day of waving it should be prohibited – ‫וְ ׁ ֶש ֵּיְהא יֹום ֶהנֶ ף ּכוּלּ ֹו ָאסוּר‬: Tosafot note that Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai instituted several ordinances. Why, then, did the mishna cite this particular ordinance? They explain that it is because of the similarity between the ordinance with regard to the day of waving and the ordinance with regard to the lulav. In both cases, prior to the destruction of the Temple there were different practices in different locales; after the ordinance was instituted, the practice was uniform everywhere. When is it that the Temple will be rebuilt – ‫ימת‬ ַ ‫יבנֵי ֵא‬ ּ ַ ‫דְּ ִא‬ : As a result of several difficulties that arise, Rashi, Tosafot, and the Ritva understand that the Gemara here is referring to the construction of the third Temple that in the future will descend from Heaven fully built. That understanding avoids the problems related to building the Temple on the Festival, according to the suggestion in the Gemara that it is established on the fifteenth, and to building the Temple at night, according to the suggestion that it is established on the sixteenth at night. In the Kappot Temarim it is noted that not all difficulties are resolved by this understanding. Indeed, the Me’iri is of the opinion that the possibilities raised in the Gemara result from concern that the court will err, and, motivated by their love for the Temple, they will rule that it is permitted to build the Temple at night and on the Festival. See Arukh LaNer for an extensive discussion of this issue from different perspectives. Several opinions cited there hold that the halakhic status of the altar is that of a Temple vessel, and vessels may be fashioned even at night. Therefore, the Gemara can be explained as referring to the establishment of the altar.

198 

Perek III . 41a . ‫אמ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

.‫ וְ ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא יֹום ֶהנֶ ף ּכוּלּ ֹו ָאסוּר‬And for similar reasons, he instituted an ordinance that for the entire day of wavingh the omer offering, it should be prohibitedn to eat the grain of the new crop. It is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop until the omer offering is brought and waved in the Temple on the sixteenth of Nisan. The offering was sacrificed in the morning; however, after taking potential delays into consideration, the new crop remained prohibited until it was clear that the offering had been sacrificed. Practically speaking, it was prohibited to eat the new grain until the sixteenth of Nisan was over; it was permitted only on the seventeenth.h Once the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer an omer offering sacrificed, it was permitted to eat the new crop on the sixteenth. However, Rabban Yoĥanan instituted an ordinance that eating the new grain would remain prohibited until the seventeenth to commemorate the Temple.

gemara 

?‫גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָלן דְּ ָע ְב ִדינַן זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ‫״כי ַא ֲע ֶלה‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִּ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ‫ֲארו ָּכה ָלךְ ו ִּמ ַּמ ּכ ַֹותיִ ךְ ֶא ְר ּ ָפ ֵאךְ נְ ֻאם ה׳‬ ‫ִּכי נִ דָּ ָחה ָק ְרא ּו ָלךְ צִ ּיֹון ִהיא דּ ֵֹור ׁש ֵאין‬ ‫ ״דּ ֵֹור ׁש ֵאין ָל ּה״ – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ָב ֲעיָ א‬,‫ָל ּה״‬ .‫ישה‬ ָ ׁ ‫דְּ ִר‬

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that we institute ordinances in commemoration of the Temple? Rabbi Yoĥanan said that it is as the verse states: “For I will restore health unto you and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord; because they have called you an outcast, she is Zion, there is none that seeks her” ( Jeremiah 30:17). From the fact that the verse states: “There is none that seeks her,” it can be learned by inference that it requires seeking, i.e., people should think of and remember the Temple. That is the reason for Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai’s ordinance.

‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ְמ ֵה ָרה‬.‫״וְ ׁ ֶש ֵּיְהא יֹום ֶהנֶ ף״‬ ‫ ֶא ׁ ְש ָּת ַקד‬:ּ‫ֹאמרו‬ ְ ‫ וְ י‬,‫יִבנֶ ה ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ָּ ‫ִמי ל ֹא ָא ַכ ְלנ ּו ְ ּב ָה ִאיר ִמזְ ָרח – ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ‫ וְ ִאינְ ה ּו ָלא יָ ְד ִעי דְּ ֶא ׁ ְש ָּת ַקד‬.‫נַ ִמי נֵיכוּל‬ ‫דְּ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש – ֵה ִאיר ִמזְ ָרח‬ – ‫יכא ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ָּ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ִא‬,‫ִה ִּתיר‬ .‫עֹומר ַמ ִּתיר‬ ֶ

§ The mishna continues: Rabban Yoĥanan instituted that for the

‫יבנֵ י‬ ּ ַ ‫ימא דְּ ִא‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ֵ ‫ימ ת? ִא‬ ַ ‫יבנֵ י ֵא‬ ּ ַ ‫דְּ ִא‬ ,‫ית ַסר – ֲה ֵרי ִה ִּתיר ֵה ִאיר ִמזְ ָרח‬ ְּ ‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש‬ ‫יסר – ֵמ ֲחצֹות ַהּיֹום‬ ַ ‫יבנֵי ַ ּב ֲח ֵמ‬ ּ ַ ‫ֶא ָּלא דְּ ִא‬ ‫חֹוקים‬ ִ ‫ ָה ְר‬:‫ דְּ ָהא ְּתנַ ן‬,‫ו ְּל ַה ָּלן ִּת ׁ ְש ְּת ִרי‬ ‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫מו ָּּת ִרין ֵמ ֲחצֹות ַהּיֹום ו ְּל ַה ָּלן‬ !‫ֵ ּבית דִּ ין ִמ ְת ַע ְ ּצ ִלים ּבֹו‬

The Gemara asks: When is it that the Temple will be rebuiltn in this scenario? If we say that it will be rebuilt on the sixteenth of Nisan, since in the morning the Temple was not yet built, the illuminating of the eastern sky permitted one to eat the new grain, as the omer offering could not yet be brought. Rather, say that it will be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan or on some earlier date, in which case the new grain would not become permitted by the illuminating of the eastern sky. In that case, from midday and onward let it be permitted to eat the new grain, as we learned in a mishna in tractate Menaĥot: The people distant from Jerusalem, who are unaware of the precise time when the omer was brought, are permitted to eat the new grain from midday and onward because the members of the court are not indolent with regard to the omer and would not postpone bringing the offering after midday.

,‫ ִאי נַ ִמי‬.‫יבנֵי ְ ּב ֵל ְיליָ א‬ ּ ַ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ָלא צְ ִר‬ ‫(א ַמר) ַרב‬ ָ .‫יעת ַה ַח ָּמה‬ ַ ‫ָסמו ְּך ִל ׁ ְש ִק‬ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי‬ ָ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן‬:‫נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ִמן‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יטת ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֲא ָמ ָר ּה‬ ַּ ‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש‬ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ַה ּת ָֹורה הוּא ָאסוּר‬

The Gemara says: No, it is necessary to institute the ordinance only in the case where the Temple will be rebuilt at night, on the evening of the sixteenth, and there was no opportunity to cut the omer that night. Alternatively, it was necessary to institute the ordinance in the case where the Temple was built adjacent to sunset on the fifteenth because there would not be sufficient time to complete all the preparations and sacrifice the offering by noon the next day. Therefore, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the new grain is prohibited for the entire day of the sixteenth. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: That is not the reason; rather, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai stated his ordinance in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: It is prohibited by Torah law to eat the new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan, as it is written:

entire day of waving the Omer offering, it is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ordinance? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year, when the Temple was in ruins, didn’t we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately with the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time. And they do not know that although last year, when there was no Temple, the illuminating of the eastern sky permitted one to eat the new grain immediately, now that there is a Temple, the omer offering permits one to eat the new grain. Until the omer offering is sacrificed, the new grain is not permitted.

Perek III Daf 41 Amud b “And you shall eat neither bread, nor roasted grain, nor fresh ‫יצוּמֹו ׁ ֶשל יֹום‬ ַ ּ ‫״עד ֶעצֶ ם ַהּיֹום ַהּזֶ ה״ – ַעד ִע‬ .‫״עד״ – וְ ַעד ִ ּב ְכ ָלל‬ ַ :‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬grain, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God” (Leviticus 23:14), indicating until the essence [itzumo] of the day, and not the night before. And he holds that when the verse states: “Until,” the word until is inclusive, meaning that the grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth. ‫יה? וְ ָהא ַמ ְפ ִליג ּ ָפ ֵליג‬ ֵ ָ‫יה ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ּ ‫ו ִּמי ָס ַבר ֵל‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָח ַרב ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:)‫ (דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא יֹום ֶהנֶ ף‬ ָ ‫ִה ְת ִקין ַר ָ ּבן‬ ‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא ִמן‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ּכוּלּ ֹו ָאסוּר‬ ‫״עד ֶעצֶ ם ַהּיֹום‬ ַ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ַה ּת ָֹורה הוּא ָאסוּר‬ !‫יצוּמֹו ׁ ֶשל יֹום‬ ּ ‫ַהּזֶ ה״ – ַעד ִע‬

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But doesn’t he disagree with him, as it is taught in a baraita: Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, it should be prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. Rabbi Yehuda said to him:n Isn’t it prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: “Until this selfsame day,” which means: Until the essence of the day? Apparently, they have two divergent opinions.

:‫ הוּא ָס ַבר‬.‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה הוּא דְּ ָקא ָט ֵעי‬ ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ וְ ל ֹא ִהיא – ִמד‬,‫ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫״ה ְת ִקין״ ָק ָא ַמ ר! ַמאי‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָה א‬.‫ָק ָא ַמ ר‬ .‫״ה ְת ִקין״ – דָּ ַר ׁש וְ ִה ְת ִקין‬ ִ

The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yehuda who is mistaken. He thought that Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai is saying it is prohibited by rabbinic law. And that is not so; he is saying it is prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: But didn’t the mishna say: Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai instituted, indicating that it is a rabbinic ordinance? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of instituted? It means that he interpreted the verses in the Torah and instituted public notice for the multitudes to conduct themselves accordingly.

‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג ׁ ֶש ָחל‬ ׁ ‫מתני׳ יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ‫יכין ֶאת‬ ִ ‫מֹול‬ ִ ‫ ָּכל ָה ָעם‬,‫ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ימין‬ ִ ‫ ַל ָּמ ֳח ָרת ַמ ׁ ְש ִּכ‬,‫נֶסת‬ ֶ ‫יהן ְל ֵבית ַה ְּכ‬ ֶ ‫לו ְּל ֵב‬ ‫ ָּכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד ַמ ִּכיר ֶאת ׁ ֶש ּלֹו‬,‫ו ָּב ִאין‬ ‫ ֵאין ָא ָדם‬:‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫נֹוטלֹו‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ָ ‫יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬ ‫ ָא ָדם‬,‫ ו ׁ ְּש ָאר יְ מֹות ֶה ָחג‬,‫ְ ּבלו ָּלבֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּבלו ָּלבֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ָ ‫יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג ׁ ֶש ָחל‬ ׁ ‫ יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ׁ ָש ַכח וְ הֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַהלּ ו ָּלב‬,‫ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשהֹוצִ יאֹו‬,‫ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים – ּ ָפטוּר‬ .‫ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת‬

ֵּ ‫גמ׳ ְמ נָ א ָהנֵ י ִמ‬ :‫יל י? דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫יחה ְ ּביַ ד ָּכל‬ ָ ‫״ו ְּל ַק ְח ֶּתם״ – ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ְל ִק‬ ‫ ְלהֹוצִ יא‬,‫״ל ֶכם״ – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם‬ ָ .‫ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ ִמ ָּכאן ָא ְמר ּו‬.‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ָשאוּל וְ ֶאת ַה ָ ּגזוּל‬ ‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּביֹום‬ ָ ‫ ֵאין ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬:‫ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ,‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג ְ ּבלו ָּלבֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ׁ ‫טֹוב ָה ִר‬ .‫ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן נְ ָתנֹו לֹו ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬



notes

Rabbi Yehuda said to him – ‫א ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬: ָ Most commentaries here (see Rav Ya’akov Emden; Ĥeshek Shlomo) hold that this should be read: Rabbi Yehuda said. Since he was not a contemporary of Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai, he could not have said it directly to him. Some explain that in this context, the phrase: To him, means: About him, i.e., he said this about Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai’s ordinance (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). Bring their lulavim to the synagogue – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫יכין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ִ ‫מֹול‬ ִ ‫נֶסת‬ ֶ ‫ל ֵבית ַה ְּכ‬:ְ It is prohibited to carry the lulav in the public domain on Shabbat even when it is permitted to take the lulav on Shabbat (see Me’iri and others). Taking in the hand of each and every person – ‫יחה ְ ּביַ ד ָּכל‬ ָ ‫ְל ִק‬ ‫א ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬:ֶ The early commentaries ask: This is a mitzva that is performed with one’s body, and therefore it cannot be fulfilled by another performing it on his behalf. What, then, does this come to teach? They explain that it comes to clarify that the obligation to perform the mitzva is not incumbent upon the court or the priests on behalf of the entire congregation, as is the case with communal offerings. Rather, it is incumbent upon each and every individual (Me’iri; see Kappot Temarim and Arukh LaNer). halakha

The word you means from your own – ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם‬,‫ל ֶכם‬:ָ One does not fulfill his obligation with a lulav belonging to another person on the first day of the Festival, even if the other lent it to him. He fulfills his obligation only if the other gave it to him as a gift (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 658:3).

mishna 

If the first day of the festival of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, all of the people bring their lulavim to the synagoguen on Shabbat eve, as it is prohibited to carry in a public domain on Shabbat. The next day, on Shabbat, everyone rises early and comes to the synagogue. Each and every one recognizes his lulav and takes it. This emphasis that each and every one recognizes his own lulav and takes it is because the Sages said: A person does not fulfill his obligation to take the lulav on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another, and on the rest of the days of the Festival a person fulfills his obligation even with the lulav of another. Rabbi Yosei says: If the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried the lulav out into the public domain, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering for this unwitting transgression because he carried it out with permission, i.e., he was preoccupied with the performance of the mitzva and carried it out.

gemara 

From where are these matters derived, that one does not fulfill his obligation with the lulav of another on the first day of the Festival? It is as the Sages taught that it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook” (Leviticus 23:40). The use of second person plural in the phrase: “And you shall take,” indicates that there should be taking in the hand of each and every person.n The word yourselves in the phrase “take for yourselves” means: From your own,h to exclude a borrowed or stolen lulav. From here the Sages stated: A person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another unless the other gave it to him as a full-fledged gift, as in that case it belongs to him. ‫אמ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 41b 

199

background

One thousand zuz – ‫א ֶלף זוּז‬:ֶ In order to appreciate the enormity of this sum, it should be noted that this was equivalent to eight months of an average laborer’s wages. halakha

A gift given on the condition that it be returned – ‫ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ ‫על ְמנָ ת ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר‬:ַ One who is given a lulav by another on condition that he return it can fulfill his obligation with that lulav even on the first day of the Festival, as a gift given on condition that it be returned is considered a gift. However, if he does not return the lulav, intentionally or otherwise, he does not fulfill his obligation with it (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 658:4).

‫הֹוש ַע וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יאל וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֵ ‫ּו ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ָ ּב ִאין‬,‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה לו ָּלב ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬,‫ִ ּב ְס ִפינָ ה‬ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫נְטלֹו ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ָ .‫ ׁ ֶש ְּל ָקחֹו ְ ּב ֶא ֶלף זוּז‬,‫ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ‫ נְ ָטלֹו‬,‫הֹוש ַע ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וּנְ ָתנֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫וְ יָ צָ א ּבֹו‬ ‫ וּנְ ָתנֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן‬,‫הֹוש ַע וְ יָ צָ א ּבֹו‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ נְ ָטלֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬,‫ֲעזַ ְריָ ה ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ ‫נְטלֹו‬ ָ ,‫ וּנְ ָתנֹו ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬,‫וְ יָ צָ א ּבֹו‬ .‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא וְ יָ צָ א ּבֹו וְ ֶה ֱחזִ ירֹו ְל ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, and Rabbi Yehoshua,p and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,p and Rabbi Akiva, who were all traveling on a ship during the festival of Sukkot and only Rabban Gamliel had a lulav, which he had bought for one thousand zuz.b Rabban Gamliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and then gave it to Rabbi Yehoshua as a gift. Rabbi Yehoshua took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and gave it to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya as a gift. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and gave it to Rabbi Akiva as a gift. Rabbi Akiva took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and returned it to Rabban Gamliel.

‫יה‬ ְ ‫ימר ֶה ֱחזִ ירֹו? ִמ ְּל ָתא ַא ַ ּגב‬ ַ ‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי ְל ֵמ‬The Gemara asks: Why do I need to say that Rabbi Akiva reּ ‫אֹור ֵח‬ ‫ ַמ ָּתנָ ה ַעל ְמנָ ת ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר – ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬:‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬turned the lulav to Rabban Gamliel? The crux of the story is .‫ ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬that each of the Sages fulfilled his obligation with the same lulav after receiving it as a gift. The Gemara answers: By including that detail, the tanna teaches us another matter in passing, namely that a gift given on the condition that it be returnednh is considered a full-fledged gift. Even if the owner stipulates from the outset that the gift would be returned, since he gives it as a gift in the interim, its halakhic status is that of a full-fledged gift. ‫ ֵהא ְלךָ ֶא ְתרֹוג זֶ ה ַעל ְמנָ ת‬:‫ ִּכי ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬This is like that which Rava said, that in the case of one who ,‫ ֶה ֱחזִ ירֹו – יָ צָ א‬,‫נְטלֹו וְ יָ צָ א ּבֹו‬ ָ ,‫ ׁ ֶש ַּת ְחזִ ֵירה ּו ִלי‬says to another: Here is an etrog for you on condition that you .‫ ל ֹא ֶה ֱחזִ ירֹו – ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬return it to me, and the recipient took it and fulfilled his obligation with it, if he returned the etrog, he fulfilled his obligation of taking the etrog. However, if he did not return the etrog, he did not fulfill his obligation. Since he did not fulfill the condition, retroactively he never acquired the gift at all. ָ‫יעך‬ ֲ ‫הֹוד‬ ִ ‫ימר ׁ ֶש ְּל ָקחֹו ְ ּב ֶא ֶלף זוּז? ְל‬ ַ ‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי ְל ֵמ‬The Gemara asks: Why do I need to say that Rabban Gamliel .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה ִמצְ �ֹות ֲח ִביבֹות ֲע ֵל‬bought this lulav for one thousand zuz? The Gemara answers: It is to inform you how beloved mitzvot were to themn to the extent that he was willing to pay an exorbitant sum to purchase a lulav.

Personalities

Rabbi Yehoshua – ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַ‬ר ִ ּבי י‬: This is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya the Levite, one of the leading Sages in the generation following the destruction of the Second Temple. He served as one of the Levite singers in the Temple. After its destruction, he was among the students who followed their primary teacher, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai, to Yavne. Rabbi Yehoshua lived a life of poverty, working as a blacksmith, and was recognized by all as one of the leading Torah authorities. While he disagreed with Rabban Gamliel’s rulings on several occasions, he ultimately accepted the authority of the Nasi. After Rabban Gamliel’s death, he served as a leader of the Sages.

significant tanna’im in the generation following the destruction of the Temple, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya descended from a family blessed with great wisdom, distinguished lineage, and wealth. His father, Azarya, was also a Torah scholar and an extremely wealthy man. Azarya supported his brother Shimon, one of the Sages, who is therefore referred to as Shimon, brother of Azarya. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was from a family of priests descended from Ezra the Scribe, and there are traditions that draw parallels between them. The Gemara describes how his knowledge, wealth, and family lineage led to his being chosen by the Sages to replace Rabban Gamliel as Nasi when the latter was removed from his position of leadership after publicly humiliating Rabbi Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya – ‫ר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָה‬:ַ One of the most Yehoshua repeatedly (Berakhot 27b). notes

A gift given on the condition that it be returned – ‫ַמ ָּתנָ ה ַעל ְמנָ ת‬ ‫ל ַה ֲחזִ יר‬:ְ The early and later commentaries discuss the questions that arise from this matter. Primarily, the following question is raised: Given the principle that a gift that cannot be consecrated is not deemed a full-fledged gift, and apparently this gift cannot be consecrated since this gift must be returned, how is this conditional gift effective? They answer that even this kind of gift can be consecrated, except that it must be redeemed afterward (Sefer Hashlama and others). Alternatively, one can consecrate it, but that status expires at the time that it must be returned, as at that point the recipient of the gift no longer has ownership over the item and it is not within his power to consecrate it for any

200 

Perek III . 41b . ‫אמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

longer (Rid). Another explanation is that the recipient of the gift is consecrating not the item itself but rather the value of his rights and the value of the benefits which accrued to him by virtue of his having the item, and that is a possession that can be properly consecrated (Ra’avad; see Tosafot). To inform you how beloved mitzvot were to them – ָ‫יעך‬ ֲ ‫הֹוד‬ ִ ‫ְל‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫כ ָּמה ִמצְ �ֹות ֲח ִביבֹות ֲע ֵל‬:ַּ The Gemara typically addresses the matters in a baraita in the order in which they appear. As such, this matter should have been addressed earlier. It was not addressed earlier so that it could lead in to the statement of Mar bar Ameimar that follows (Kappot Temarim).

‫ ַא ָ ּבא‬:‫ימר ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ַ ‫יה ָמר ַ ּבר ָא ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ֹאחז‬ ַ ‫ ל ֹא י‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫צַ ּלֹויֵ י ָקא ְמצַ ֵּלי ֵ ּב‬ ִּ ‫ָא ָדם ְּת ִפ‬ ‫ילין ְ ּביָ דֹו וְ ֵס ֶפר ּת ָֹורה ְ ּב ֵחיקֹו‬ ‫ישן‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫ וְ ל ֹא י‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא יַ ׁ ְש ִּתין ָ ּב ֶהן ַמיִ ם‬,‫וְ יִ ְת ּ ַפ ֵּלל‬ .‫ָ ּב ֶהן ל ֹא ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֶק ַבע וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֵשינַ ת ֲע ַראי‬

§ Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: My father would pray

– ‫ ַס ִּכין ו ְּק ָע ָרה ִּכ ָּכר ו ָּמעֹות‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ֲה ֵרי ֵאלּ ּו ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ֶהן! ָה ָתם ָלאו ִמצְ וָ ה נִינְ ה ּו‬ ‫ ָה ָכא – ִמצְ וָ ה נִינְ ה ּו וְ ָלא ְט ִריד‬,ּ‫ו ְּט ִריד ְ ּבהו‬ .ּ‫ְ ּבהו‬

And Shmuel said: With regard to a knife, a bowl full of food, a loaf of bread, or money,n these items are similar to those mentioned above; since he is concerned lest these items fall from his hand, he is distracted and he unable to concentrate on his prayers. Why, then, is that not the case with regard to lulav? It should be prohibited to hold the lulav during prayer for the same reason. The Gemara answers: There, in the cases listed above, they are not related to performance of a mitzva, and he is preoccupied with them. Therefore, that preoccupation distracts his focus from his prayers. Here, in the case of the four species, they are related to performance of a mitzva, so he is not preoccupied with themn in a manner that will distract him from his prayers.

‫ ָּכךְ ָהיָ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַ ּבר צָ דֹוק‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א‬,‫נְשי יְ ר ּו ׁ ָש ַליִ ם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ִמנְ ָהגָ ן ׁ ֶשל ַא‬ ‫נֶסת‬ ֶ ‫הֹולךְ ְל ֵבית ַה ְּכ‬ ֵ ,‫ִמ ֵ ּביתֹו וְ לו ָּלבֹו ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע ו ִּמ ְת ּ ַפ ֵּלל‬ ַ ‫קֹורא ְק ִר‬ ֵ ,‫לו ָּלבֹו ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ‫נֹושא ֶאת‬ ׂ ֵ ְ‫קֹורא ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה ו‬ ֵ ,‫וְ לו ָּלבֹו ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ‫הֹולךְ ְל ַב ֵ ּקר‬ ֵ .‫ַּכ ּ ָפיו – ַמ ּנִיחֹו ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע‬ ‫ נִ ְכנָס‬,‫חֹולים ו ְּלנַ ֵחם ֲא ֵב ִלים – לו ָּלבֹו ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ִ ‫ְל ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש – ְמ ׁ ַש ֵ ּגר לו ָּלבֹו ְ ּביַ ד ְ ּבנֹו ו ְּביַ ד‬ .‫ַע ְבדּ ֹו ו ְּביַ ד ׁ ְשלוּחֹו‬

with the four species in his hand in an expression of his love for the mitzva. The Gemara raises an objection: A person should not hold phylacteries in his hand or a Torah scroll in his lap and pray while doing so;h neither should he urinate with them in his hand;h nor should he sleep with them in his hand, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap.h n

The Gemara cites support for the custom mentioned above, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: This was the custom of the people of Jerusalem during the festival of Sukkot. A person leaves his house, and his lulav is in his hand; he goes to the synagogue, and his lulav is in his hand; he recites Shema and prays, and his lulav is in his hand; he reads the Torah and a priest lifts his hands to recite the priestly benediction, and he places it on the ground because he cannot perform those tasks while holding the lulav. He goes to visit the ill or to console mourners,n and his lulav is in his hand; he enters the study hall to study Torah, and he sends his lulav home in the hands of his son, in the hands of his slave, or in the hands of his agent.h

notes

Father would pray with the four species – ‫ַא ָ ּבא צַ לּ ֹויֵ י ָקא‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫מצַ ֵּלי ֵ ּב‬:ְ Given that this custom was already in practice among the people of Jerusalem, as mentioned in the baraita that follows, what is novel in the fact that Ameimar did so as well? One possible answer is that perhaps the people of Jerusalem were allowed to pray while holding the lulav because they held the lulav all day long. However, others who held it only for a short time would not be allowed to pray while holding it. Therefore, the practice of Ameimar was indeed novel (Sefat Emet). A knife…a loaf, or money – ‫ין…כ ָּכר ו ָּמעֹות‬ ִּ ‫ס ִּכ‬:ַ It seems obvious that one may not hold these items while praying, as one may not hold even a Torah scroll. However, one could argue that the prohibition against holding a Torah scroll may be due to its sanctity; since one is focused on his prayers, he may come to drop the Torah. Therefore, Shmuel mentions these items to underscore that the issue is one of distraction from prayer (Sefat Emet). They are related to performance of a mitzva, so he is not preoccupied with them – ‫מצְ וָ ה נִינְ ה ּו וְ ָלא ְט ִריד ְ ּבה ּו‬:ִ One could suggest that since his preoccupation is with a mitzva, the Sages did not insist on preventing him from performing those actions, even though they distract him from his prayers (see Ritva). However, based on Rashi’s commentary, apparently, when one holds an item of mitzva, although it is distracting due to his love of the mitzva, he is inspired to greater focus on his prayers. The same cannot be said for items that are not mitzva-related (see Rabbeinu Yehonatan and Ritva). To console mourners – ‫לנַ ֵחם ֲא ֵב ִלים‬:ְ Although there is no mourning during the Festival and one does not console mourners during this time, undoubtedly the mourner has a heavy heart and his friends come to ease his pain with their company (Rav Sherira Gaon).

‫יעךָ ַּכ ָּמה ָהי ּו‬ ֲ ‫הֹוד‬ ִ ‫ ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ְל‬The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us by relating all .‫ זְ ִריזִ ין ְ ּב ִמצְ ו‍ֹת‬these details that appear to establish the same practice? The Gemara explains: It is to inform you how vigilant they were in the performance of mitzvot and how much they cherished them. :‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫אֹומר יֹום טֹוב״‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַ״ר ִ ּבי‬

§ The mishna continues: Rabbi Yosei says that if the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and one forgot and carried the lulav out into the public domain, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering. Abaye said:

halakha

The prohibition against holding objects in one’s hands during prayer – ‫א ּיסוּר ֲא ִחיזַ ת ֲח ָפצִ ים ְ ּביָ דֹו ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ָילה‬:ִ It is prohibited for one who is praying to hold phylacteries or any sacred book in his hand, nor may he hold a full bowl, a knife, money, or a loaf of bread. Since he will be making certain that these items do not fall, he will be distracted and unable to concentrate on his prayers. If he holds them and recites the prayers, he must recite the prayers again (Baĥ). However, it is permitted to hold a lulav in one’s hand while praying. Since he is fulfilling a mitzva in holding the lulav, it does not distract him from his prayers. For the same reason one may hold a prayer book as well. Even in the case of items to which one would be indifferent were they to fall while praying, he should not hold them ab initio; however, if he held them in his hand while praying, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact (Baĥ; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 96:1).

lacteries on one’s head, even if one intends only to urinate, lest he need to defecate as well (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 43:1). ִּ ‫שינָ ה ִ ּב ְת ִפ‬: Sleeping with phylacteries – ‫ילין‬ ֵ ׁ It is prohibited for one to sleep either a substantial sleep or a brief nap while wearing phylacteries or while holding a sacred book in his hand (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 44).

Holding the lulav all day – ‫א ִחיזַ ת לו ָּלב ָּכל ַהּיֹום‬:ֲ The Rema writes, citing the Tur, that those vigilant in their performance of mitzvot take the lulav in their hands upon leaving their house for the synagogue and hold it in their hands throughout the entire prayer service. They then carry it back home, in an expression of love for the mitzva. Later authorities, however, write that in modern times one who does so is guilty of presumptuousness unless he is particularly renowned as a righteous individual. The Relieving oneself and phylacteries – ‫ע ִ ׂשּיַ ת צְ ָר ִכים ו ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬:ֲ It is prevalent custom is to hold the lulav when reciting hallel and prohibited to enter a permanent bathroom while wearing phy- hoshanot (Be’er Heitev; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 652:1).



‫אמ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 41b 

201

Perek III Daf 42 Amud a halakha

Lifting the four species – ‫הגְ ָ ּב ַהת ַה ִּמינִים‬:ַ One who lifts the four species, whether all at once or in sequence, whether with his right hand or with his left, fulfills his obligation, provided he lifts them in the manner in which they grow, i.e., if he grasps the plant or fruit from the place where it was severed from the tree or branch and holds it upright. However, if he holds it upside down, not in the manner in which it grew, he does not fulfill his obligation (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 681:5). In a deferential manner…in a degrading manner – ‫דֶּ ֶר ְך‬ ‫כבֹוד…דֶּ ֶר ְך ִ ּבּזָ יֹון‬:ָּ One who grasps the species by means of another object has not fulfilled his obligation (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:7). Erred in the matter of a mitzva – ‫ט ָעה ִ ּב ְד ַבר ִמצְ וָ ה‬:ָ If one inadvertently carries a lulav out from a private domain on the first day of the Festival that coincides with Shabbat during the Temple era, or if one carries it four cubits in the public domain, or if he unwittingly commits any transgression in the course of performing a mitzva, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a sin-offering. However, this is specifically in a case where he committed the transgression before he fulfilled his obligation. If he unwittingly commits the transgression after he fulfilled his obligation, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. This is the ruling of Rambam, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. However, most halakhic authorities disagree and rule in accordance with the opinion of the Sages who hold that even one who commits an unwitting transgression in the course of performing a mitzva is liable to bring a sinoffering (Me’iri; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:10).

‫ ֲא ָבל יָ צָ א‬,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יָ צָ א ּבֹו‬The Sages taught that he is exempt only in a case where he did !‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה נְ ַפק ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ִמדְּ ַאגְ ְ ּב ֵה‬.‫ ּבֹו – ַחּיָ יב‬not yet fulfill his obligation. However, if he already fulfilled .‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֲה ָפכֹו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬his obligation and he carries the lulav out, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: Is it possible to carry the lulav without fulfilling one’s obligation? Didn’t he, from the moment that he lifted it, fulfill his obligation with it?h Abaye said: It is referring to a case where he overturned it and lifted it. One fulfills his obligation only when lifting it in the manner in which it grows. ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ .‫ימא ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ֲה ָפכֹו‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ֵּת‬ ‫ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶשהֹוצִ יאֹו‬ ‫יחה ַעל‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִק‬:‫ וְ ָהא ָר ָבא הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫ִ ּב ְכ ִלי‬ – ‫יחה! ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬ ָ ‫יְ ֵדי דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ְל ִק‬ .‫ ֲא ָבל דֶּ ֶרךְ ִ ּבּזָ יֹון – ל ֹא‬,‫דֶּ ֶרךְ ָּכבֹוד‬

Rava said: Even if you say that it is referring to a case where he did not invert it, with what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he took the lulav out in a vessel and did not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t Rava the one who said that taking by means of another object is considered taking? The Gemara answers: This applies only when the addition is in a deferential manner, for wrapping or ornamentation. But if the addition is in a degrading manner,h as in this case, where one places the lulav into a vessel and carries it that way, no, it is not considered taking.

‫עֹולת‬ ַ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫אֹומר ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ :‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ָסב ּור‬,‫ָהעֹוף ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצֵ את ֵ ּבין ֲאגַ ּ ַפיִ ים‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ַח ַּטאת ָהעֹוף ִהיא וַ ֲא ָכ ָל ּה – ּ ָפטוּר‬ ,‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן – דְּ ָט ָעה ִ ּב ְד ַבר ִמצְ וָ ה ּ ָפטוּר‬ ! ְ‫ַהיְ ינ ּו ַהך‬

Rav Huna said that Rabbi Yosei would say: In the case of a bird sacrificed as a burnt-offering that is found among other birdsn in one of the corners of the altar, and the priest thought that it was a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering and he ate it, as sin-offerings are eaten by priests, he is exempt from liability to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Huna teaching us? Is it that if one erred in the matter of a mitzva,nh he is exempt? This is identical to that statement of Rabbi Yosei; what novel element is introduced by Rav Huna?

‫ ָה ָתם הוּא דְּ ָט ָעה ִ ּב ְד ַבר‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ִמצְ וָ ה ּ ָפטוּר – ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָע ַבד ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ‫ָה ָכא דְּ ָט ָעה ִ ּב ְד ַבר ִמצְ וָ ה וְ ָלא ֲע ַבד‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ִמצְ וָ ה – ֵא‬

The Gemara answers: It is lest you say that it is only there, in the case of carrying the lulav, that one who erred in a matter of a mitzva is exempt and that is because he performed a mitzva; however, here, with regard to mistakenly identifying the bird-offerings, where he erred in the matter of a mitzva but did not perform a mitzva at all, say no, in that case he would not be exempt from liability to bring a guilt-offering. Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that he is in fact exempt.

notes

Among other birds [agappayim] – ‫בין ֲאגַ ּ ַפיִ ים‬:ּ ֵ See Rashi, who explains this to mean: Among other birds, which were sacrificed as sin-offerings. According to that explanation, agappayim means wings. The Ritva, however, interpreted this to mean: Between the places, as there was a place designated on the altar for all the sin-offerings and another place for the burnt-offerings, and the priest found the bird in the middle, and he assumed it was a sin-offering and ate it. Erred in the matter of a mitzva – ‫ט ָעה ִ ּב ְד ַבר ִמצְ וָ ה‬:ָ The full discussion of this subject is found in tractate Pesaĥim (72b) and in tractate Shabbat (ch. 19). Several possible distinctions are discussed there: Does this principle apply only prior to the performance of a mitzva or even after its performance? Is one exempt only in a case where he ultimately performs the mitzva or even in a case where he did not perform any mitzva at all? Is it only in a case where there are time constraints, as in that case it is reasonable to say that he was preoccupied, but not in cases where he is not pressed for time? One who slaughters the daily offering on Shabbat that is not properly inspected – ‫ֹוחט ֶאת ַה ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמבו ָ ּּקר‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ ‫כ ִה ְל ָכתֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ְּ This ruling is unique to Rabbi Yosei, as in the halakhic midrash on Leviticus it is stated that he derives from the Torah that it is a requirement by Torah law to inspect the animal prior to sacrificing it as an offering (see Tosafot).

‫ֹוחט ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Yosei says: With re– ‫ ַה ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמבו ָ ּּקר ְּכ ִה ְל ָכתֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬gard to one who slaughters the daily offering on Shabbat that n !‫ וְ צָ ִריךְ ָּת ִמיד ַא ֵחר‬,‫ ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת‬is not properly inspected, and a blemish is discovered that disqualifies the sacrifice, he unwittingly performed the prohibited labor of slaughtering on Shabbat. He is liable to bring a sin-offering, and he needs to bring a different daily offering. Even though he erred in a matter of a mitzva, he is liable. ‫ דְּ ָהא ִא ְּת ַמר‬.‫ ַ ּבר ִמ ָּינ ּה דְּ ַה ִהיא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ֲח ַתאי‬,‫ֲע ָל ּה‬ ,‫יאן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִש‬,‫ַה ְמנוּנָ א ָס ָבא‬ ‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ֵה ִביא ּו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב‬ .‫ִמ ִּל ׁ ְש ָּכה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן ְמבו ָ ּּק ִרין‬

202 

Perek III . 42a . ‫במ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

Rav Huna said in response to the objection: Proof may be cited, except not from that baraita, as it was stated concerning that baraita that Rav Shmuel bar Ĥatai said that Rav Hamnuna Sava said that Rav Yitzĥak bar Ashian said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: It is referring to a case where they brought the sheep for the daily offering from a chamber in which there were sheep that are not inspected. Since under no circumstances should one take a sheep for the daily offering from uninspected sheep, his error cannot be attributed to preoccupation with the mitzva. Therefore, although he was engaged in performance of a mitzva, he is not exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering.

mishna 

A woman may receiven a lulav from her son ‫מתני׳ ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִמּיַ ד ְ ּבנָ ּה ו ִּמּיַ ד‬ or from her husband and return ith on ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ָירתֹו ַל ַּמיִ ם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬,‫ַ ּב ֲע ָל ּה‬ Shabbat to the water in which it had been placed. Rabbi Yehuda ‫ ְ ּביֹום‬,‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ יְ הו ָּדה‬says: On Shabbat one may return the lulav to the water; and on the .‫ֹועד ַמ ֲח ִל ִיפין‬ ֵ ‫ ו ַּב ּמ‬,‫מֹוס ִיפין‬ ִ ‫ טֹוב‬Festival one may even add fresh water to the vessel so the lulav will not wilt; and during the intermediate days of the Festival, one may even change the water. .‫נַע ַנֵע ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬ ֲ ‫ּיֹוד ַע ְל‬ ֵ ‫ ָק ָטן ַה‬A minor who knows how to wave the lulav is obligated in the mitzva of lulavh due to the requirement to train him in the performance of mitzvot.

gemara 

With regard to the halakha in the mishna ‫הֹואיל‬ ִ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬:‫יטא‬ ָ ‫גמ׳ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ that a woman may receive the lulav, the ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫וְ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ָלאו ַ ּבת ִחּיו ָּבא ִהיא‬ Gemara asks: That is obvious. Why would it be prohibited? The .‫ ל ֹא ְּת ַק ֵ ּבל – ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬Gemara answers that it is necessary to state this lest you say: Since a woman is not subject to the obligation of the four species, as it is a time-bound, positive mitzva, say that she should not receive the lulav, as for her, moving the lulav is tantamount to moving set-aside objects and would therefore be prohibited. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is permitted. :‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫ּיֹוד ַע ְלנַ ֲענֵ ַע״‬ ֵ ‫״ק ָט ן ַה‬ ָ ,‫נַע ַנֵע – ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬ ֲ ‫ּיֹוד ַע ְל‬ ֵ ‫ָק ָטן ַה‬ ‫ ִל ׁ ְשמֹור‬,‫ְל ִה ְת ַע ֵּטף – ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבצִ יצִ ית‬ ‫יֹוד ַע‬ ֵ .‫לֹוק ַח לֹו ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬ ֵ ‫ְּת ִפ ִּילין – ָא ִביו‬ ‫יאת‬ ַ ‫לֹומדֹו ּת ָֹורה ו ְּק ִר‬ ְ ‫ְל ַד ֵ ּבר – ָא ִביו‬ .‫ׁ ְש ַמע‬

§ It is taught in the mishna: A minor who knows how to wave

:‫ּת ָֹורה ַמאי ִהיא? – ָא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א‬ ‫מֹור ׁ ָשה ְק ִה ַּלת‬ ָ ‫״ת ָֹורה צִ ָּוה ָלנ ּו מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬ ּ ‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע ַמאי ִהיא? ּ ָפסוּק‬ ַ ‫ ְק ִר‬.‫יַ ֲעקֹב״‬ .‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬

The Gemara asks: And in this context, what is the Torah taught to a child who has just learned to speak? Rav Hamnuna said: It is referring to the verse: “Moses commanded us Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), underscoring the relationship between the Jewish people and the Torah. The Gemara asks further: And what is Shema taught to a child who has just learned to speak? The Gemara answers: It is referring to the first verse of Shema.

‫אֹוכ ִלין ַעל ּגוּפֹו‬ ְ – ‫ּיֹוד ַע ִל ׁ ְשמֹור ּגוּפֹו‬ ֵ ‫ַה‬ ‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ – ‫ ִל ׁ ְשמֹור ֶאת יָ ָדיו‬,‫ָט ֳהרֹות‬ ,‫יש ֵאל‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ּיֹוד ַע ִל‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬.‫ַעל יָ ָדיו ָט ֳהרֹות‬ ‫ ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת‬,‫ּיָחיד – ְס ֵפיקֹו ָט ֵמא‬ ִ ‫ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַה‬ ‫ּיֹוד ַע ִל ְפרֹוס‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬.‫ָה ַר ִ ּבים – ְס ֵפיקֹו ָטהֹור‬ ‫חֹול ִקין לֹו ְּתר ּו ָמה ְ ּב ֵבית‬ ְ – ‫ַּכ ּ ָפיו‬ .‫ַה ְ ּג ָרנֹות‬

The Sages continued: If the minor is one who knows to protect his body from ritual impurity, it is permitted to eat ritually pure food that came into contact with his body. If he is one who knows to protect his hands from ritual impurity, it is permitted to eat ritually pure food that came into contact with his hands. If he is one who knows to be asked and accurately clarify which objects he touched, his status is like that of an adult based on the following distinction: If the question was with regard to ritual impurity in the private domain and it is a case of uncertainty, the item in question is deemed impure. However, if the question was with regard to ritual impurity in the public domain and it is a case of uncertainty, the item in question is deemed pure. If the minor is a priest who knows how to spread his hands and recite the priestly benediction, one distributes teruma to him in the granary as one would to any other priest.

the lulav is obligated in the mitzva of lulav. The Sages taught: A minor who knows how to wave the lulav is obligated in the mitzva of lulav; one who knows how to wrap himself in a garment, is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes;h if he knows to preserve the sanctity of phylacteries in a state of cleanliness, his father buys him phylacteries;nh if he knows how to speak,h his father immediately teaches him Torah and Shema.

notes

A woman may receive – ‫מ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬:ְ According to the Gemara, the reason a woman may take the lulav on Shabbat is as follows: It is permitted for a man to move the four species and they are not set aside. It cannot be permitted only for men and not for women. Once it is permitted for some to move them on Shabbat, they are no longer set aside (see Rabbeinu Yehonatan). However, some add that since a woman is permitted, albeit not required, to fulfill the mitzva of lulav and even to recite a blessing, she is clearly allowed to move it on Shabbat (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh; Me’iri). ִּ ‫לֹוק ַח לֹו ְּת ִפ‬: Buys him phylacteries – ‫ילין‬ ֵ The early commentaries already noted the difference in the language between the mitzvot of both lulav and ritual fringes, about which the baraita states that the child is obligated to fulfill those mitzvot, and the mitzva of phylacteries, where no mention is made of the child’s obligation; rather, it is the father’s obligation to purchase phylacteries for him that is mentioned. Tosafot (in tractate Arakhin) explain that with regard to the other items discussed, the child could use one belonging to his father, or perhaps his father may have a spare. With regard to phylacteries, however, most people do not have a spare pair, nor do most people know how to fashion phylacteries; therefore, the father must purchase them (Kappot Temarim).

halakha

A woman may receive a lulav…and return it – ‫ְמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫ו ַּמ ְחזִ ָירתֹו‬: A woman may take the lulav from her husband or son and return it to water on the Festival. One may even add additional water to the receptacle in which the species are placed, but one may not change the water. During the intermediate days of the Festival, one may even change the water. This halakha does not apply nowadays on Shabbat, when the lulav is not taken and is therefore set aside due to its mitzva for the entire Shabbat (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 654:1). A minor…in the mitzva of lulav – ‫ן…בלו ָּלב‬ ּ ְ ‫ק ָט‬:ָ If a minor knows how to wave the lulav properly, his father is obligated to acquire a lulav for him to train him in the mitzvot (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 657:7). A minor…in the mitzva of ritual fringes – ‫ן…בצִ יצִ ית‬ ּ ְ ‫ק ָט‬:ָ If



a minor knows how to wrap himself in a garment, his father buys him a garment with ritual fringes in order to train him. The Rema writes that this is defined as one who knows to place two of the fringes in front and two in back (Haggahot Maimoniyyot) and who knows to hold them in his hand while reciting Shema (Mordekhai). It is written in the name of the Sefer Yere’im that one should dress a child in ritual fringes from the age of three (Eliya Rabba; Sha’arei Teshuva; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 654:1).

he did not yet display signs of physical maturity. He notes that this was the practice among all Jewish communities. However, the custom developed to begin training boys in this mitzva before they reach majority. The customs vary, and some minors begin donning phylacteries in private from an even earlier age (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 37:3).

A minor who…knows how to speak – ‫‬…ל ַד ֵ ּבר‬ ְ ‫ּיֹוד ַע‬ ֵ ‫ק ָטן ַה‬:ָ One begins to teach a child Torah from the moment that he learns A minor with regard to phylacteries – ‫ק ָטן ִ ּב ְת ִפ ִּילין‬:ָ If a minor to speak. Customarily one begins by teaching him to recite knows how to preserve the cleanliness and sanctity of phy- the verse: “Moses commanded us Torah, an inheritance of the lacteries, i.e., he knows not to sleep or break wind in them, his congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), and the first verse father is obligated to purchase a pair of phylacteries for him. The of Shema. The custom also developed to teach him the letters Rema cites the Ittur, which states that the minor in this case is of the Hebrew alphabet from his third birthday (Shulĥan Arukh, one who is close to thirteen years and one day old, even though Yoreh De’a 245:5, 8). ‫במ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ג קרפ‬. Perek III . 42a 

203

Perek III Daf 42 Amud b halakha

A minor who knows how to slaughter – ‫ּיֹוד ַע ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט‬ ֵ ‫ק ָטן ַה‬:ָ If a child knows how to steady his hand and ritually slaughter an animal, it is permitted for him to slaughter ab initio if an adult is standing over him in a supervisory capacity, and one may eat the meat of the animal that he slaughtered, in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara and the rulings of the Rosh, the Ran, and the Me’iri. However, in modern times only a properly trained adult may ritually slaughter an animal ab initio (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 1:5). The feces of a minor – ‫צֹואת ָק ָטן‬: ַ When a child reaches the age where one typically eats an olive-bulk of grain in the time that it takes an adult to eat a half-loaf of bread, one must distance himself from the child’s excrement and urine just as he would from those of an adult before reciting Shema or praying (Baĥ; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 81:1). A minor who is able to eat roasted meat – ‫ָק ָטן ַהּיָ כֹול‬ ‫ל ֱאכֹול צָ ִלי‬:ֶ A minor able to eat an olive-bulk of food, and according to Tosafot specifically an olive-bulk of roasted meat, may be counted as a member of a group for the purpose of eating the Paschal lamb (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:3).

notes

Able to eat an olive-bulk of grain – ‫יָ כֹול ֶל ֱאכֹול ַּכּזַ יִ ת דָּ גָ ן‬: The halakhic authorities disagreed, based on Rashi and others, whether this matter is dependent on the minor actually eating the grain, as the waste produced from its consumption is malodorous (Rabbeinu Yehonatan), or whether it is dependent on the age of the individual. According to the second opinion, when the child reaches the age at which one is typically able to eat grain, even if he does not actually do so, one distances himself from his waste. And he that increases knowledge increases sorrow – ‫יֹוסיף ַמ ְכאֹוב‬ ִ ‫יֹוסיף דַּ ַעת‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬: In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained that the reason is that at this age one already has improper thoughts and those improper thoughts are discernible in him. That is the meaning of the verse: “And he that increases knowledge, increases sorrow.” According to every man’s eating – ‫א ׁיש ְל ִפי ָא ְכלֹו‬: ִ Although one might derive from the word man that a minor is excluded from being counted as a member of the group, since the Sages derived several other halakhot from that term, e.g., that one may not slaughter a Paschal lamb for an individual, the conclusion is that a minor is not excluded. background

In the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread – ‫ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי‬ ‫א ִכ ַילת ּ ְפ ָרס‬: ֲ The time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread serves as a benchmark in many areas of halakha. Later authorities debate whether a half-loaf is the size of three or four egg-bulks. Opinions also vary with regard to the amount of time represented by this measure, especially with regard to foods whose time of consumption is not uniform. Opinions with regard to the duration of this period range from three to nine minutes.

204 

Perek III . 42b . ‫במ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ג‬

.‫יטתֹו‬ ָ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬ ְ – ‫ּיֹוד ַע ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬If he is one who knows how to slaughterh an animal, one may ‫עֹומד ַעל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ָ ּגדֹול‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬eat from animals that he slaughtered. Rav Huna said: That is the .‫ ַ ּג ָ ּביו‬halakha provided that an adult is standing over him overseeing the slaughter. ‫יקין‬ ִ ‫יָ כֹול ֶל ֱאכֹול ַּכּזַ יִ ת דָּ גָ ן – ַמ ְר ִח‬ .‫ימי ַרגְ ָליו ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ֵ ‫ֹואתֹו ו ִּמ ֵּמ‬ ָ ‫ִמ ּצ‬ ‫אֹוכלֹו‬ ְ ‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶשּיָ כֹול ְל‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִחּיָ יא‬.‫ילת ּ ְפ ָרס‬ ַ ‫ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי ֲא ִכ‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי‬,‫ ו ְּבגָ דֹול‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב יֵ ָיבא‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ ,‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו יָ כֹול ֶל ֱאכֹול ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי ֲא ִכ ַילת ּ ְפ ָרס‬ .‫יֹוסיף ַמ ְכאֹוב״‬ ִ ‫יֹוסיף דַּ ַעת‬ ִ ְ‫ ״ו‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬

If he is one who is able to eat an olive-bulk of grain,n one distances himself four cubits from his fecesh and from his urine before praying or reciting Shema, as the feces and urine of a child at that stage of development produce offensive odors like those of an adult. Rav Ĥisda said: That is the halakha provided that the minor can eat the olive-bulk of grain in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.b However, if it takes him longer, one need not distance himself before praying. Rav Ĥiyya, son of Rav Yeiva, said: And with regard to an adult, even if he is unable to eat an olive-bulk of grain in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, one must distance himself from his feces before praying, as it is written: “And he that increases knowledge, increases sorrow” (Ecclesiastes 1:18),n meaning that as one grows older he becomes more flawed.

‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ָליו‬ ֲ ‫יָ כֹול ֶל ֱאכֹול ַּכּזַ יִ ת צָ ִלי – ׁש‬ .‫״א ׁיש ְל ִפי ָא ְכלֹו״‬ ִ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיָ כֹול ְל ָב ֵרר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ,‫זֹורקֹו‬ ְ ְ‫נֹותנִין לֹו צְ רֹור ו‬ ְ ?‫ ֵּכיצַ ד‬,‫ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ .‫נֹוטלֹו‬ ְ ְ‫ֱאגֹוז ו‬

If he is one who is able to eat an olive-bulk of roasted meat,h one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf, and he is included in the group assembled to eat the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: “According to every man’s eatingn you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). Rabbi Yehuda says: Ability to consume an olive-bulk is insufficient to include him in the group; rather, he is not included until he is able to discern what he is eating. How is that determined? If one gives him a pebble and he throws it away, and if one gives him a nut and he takes it, he may be included in the group for eating the Paschal lamb.

‫הדרן עלך לולב הגזול‬

Summary of Perek III Virtually the entire chapter dealt with analyzing the mitzva of the four species. The identity of the species taken on the festival of Sukkot is determined from a tradition transmitted by our ancestors. For all intents and purposes, there is no dispute with regard to major elements of the mitzva in terms of its performance, its time, and its place. “Branches of a date palm,” written in the Torah, refers to the lulav, one closed palm branch; “boughs of a dense-leaved tree” refers to three myrtle branches of the type that have three leaves emerging together from each level of the stem; “willows of the brook” refers to two willow branches that typically grow alongside a brook; “fruit of a beautiful tree” refers to the etrog. The mitzva is to take all the species together, with the lulav, myrtle branches, and willow branches in the right hand and the etrog in the left, and to wave them. In the interest of performing the mitzva aesthetically, the branches of the three species are bound together. Myriad halakhot were stated with regard to flaws that render the species unfit. Most of these flaws preclude their meeting the criterion of beauty, thereby rendering them unfit, as the Torah commands that these species be as beautiful as possible. This is especially true with regard to the etrog, which the verse characterizes as the fruit of a beautiful tree. Indeed, there are numerous halakhot that determine the imperfections that undermine the beauty of the etrog and render it unfit for the mitzva. Similarly, measures for the various species were established: The myrtle and willow branches must be three handbreadths; the lulav must be at least one handbreadth more; and the etrog must be large enough that its taking will be noticeable, i.e., an eggbulk. Obviously, as is the case with regard to all other mitzvot, one must not fulfill the mitzva through performance of a transgression. Furthermore, on the first day of the Festival, one is obligated to fulfill the mitzva with four species that belong to him. When is one obligated to take the species? The Sages understood the verses as saying that on the first day, taking the four species is an obligation everywhere. While in the Temple, “before God” in the formulation of the verse, the obligation is to take the species all seven days. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai instituted that everywhere the species are to be taken all seven days, with the exception of Shabbat. Since the taking of the species is performed at the beginning of the year, a problem arises with regard to use of the species during the Sabbatical Year. Fundamentally, the conclusion is that the restrictions of the Sabbatical Year apply to the only fruit among the species, the etrog. One does not fulfill the mitzva with an etrog purchased with money that was exchanged for produce of the Sabbatical Year. These halakhot and others that emerge from them, e.g., the halakhot of disqualification with regard to mitzvot, were the primary focus of this chapter.

205

And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. (Leviticus 23:40) With joy you shall draw water out of the springs of salvation. (Isaiah 12:3)

Introduction to Perek IV

The mitzvot of the festival of Sukkot are divided into two categories, those whose obligation is in effect everywhere and those tied to the Temple. There are certain mitzvot whose fulfillment in the Temple is different from their fulfillment in outlying areas. The mitzva of taking the four species has one form and one procedure when performed in the outlying areas and another form and procedure when performed in the Temple. The fundamental connection between the mitzva of the four species and the Temple is derived from the verse in Leviticus (23:40). The first section of this chapter deals with analysis of different aspects of that connection. There are various problems in that regard as far as time is concerned: When does the obligation to take the species begin, and what are the differences in that regard between the Temple and outlying areas? How is the mitzva of the four species performed on Shabbat, on a Festival day, and during the intermediate days of the Festival? Destruction of the Temple engendered a new definition of halakhic time. What are its ramifications vis-à-vis the mitzva of lulav? What pre-destruction practices remain in effect after the destruction of the Temple, and which cease to be relevant once the Temple is no longer standing? And likewise, what is the procedure for taking the four species in the Temple relative to the procedure everywhere else? Answering the last question requires explaining how these procedures were performed in the Temple and how they were performed everywhere else. The second section of the chapter deals with another mitzva, the mitzva of the water libation on the festival of Sukkot. This mitzva, in addition to the standard, daily libation of wine, is not written in the Torah; rather, it is a tradition dating back to the revelation at Sinai. However, the general halakha contains within it numerous practical halakhot, and the Gemara explains the procedure in detail: Which water is used? From where is it brought? How is it poured on the altar? What mitzvot accompany this libation? Discussion of the mitzva of the four species in the Temple and in the outlying areas as well as a description of the water libation constitute the main focus of this chapter.

207

Perek IV Daf 42 Amud b

mishna 

The lulav is taken and the altar is encircled ,‫מתני׳ לו ָּלב וַ ֲע ָר ָבה – ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ together with the willow branch either six ‫ סו ָּּכה‬.‫ַה ַה ֵּלל וְ ַה ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה – ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה‬ or seven days,n depending on which day of the Festival occurs on – ‫ ֶה ָח ִליל‬.‫נִיסו ְּך ַה ַּמיִ ם – ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ּ ְ‫ ו‬Shabbat. The obligation to recite the full hallel and the mitzva of .‫ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬rejoicing, i.e., eating the meat of the peace-offering, is in effect for eight days, seven days of Sukkot and the Eighth Day of Assembly. The mitzva of sukka and the ritual of the water libation on the altar are in effect for seven days. The flute is played in the Temple for five or six days, depending on which day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, to enhance the rejoicing on the Festival. ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ לו ָּלב ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ֵּכיצַ ד? יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬The mishna elaborates: The lulav is taken for seven days. How so? ‫ ׁ ֶשל ַחג ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – לו ָּלב‬If the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, since the mitzva .‫ ו ׁ ְּש ָאר ָּכל ַהּיָ ִמים ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬,‫ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬to take the lulav on the first day is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and one takes the lulav that day. As a result, the lulav is then taken for seven days.h And if the first day occurs on one of the rest of the days of the week and one of the other days of the Festival coincides with Shabbat, the lulav is taken only six days. Since the mitzva to take the lulav is a mitzva by rabbinic law throughout the rest of Sukkot, it does not override Shabbat. ‫יעי ׁ ֶשל‬ ִ ‫ ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ֵּכיצַ ד? יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬The altar is encircled with the willow branch for seven days. How ‫ ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ֲע ָר ָבה‬so? If the seventh day of the mitzva of the willow branch occurs h .‫ ו ׁ ְּש ָאר ָּכל ַהּיָ ִמים – ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬,‫ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬on Shabbat, since on that day it is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and the mitzva of the willow branch is then performed for seven days. And if the seventh day occurs on one of the rest of the days of the week, and one of the other days of the Festival coincides with Shabbat, since the mitzva of the willow branch is then by rabbinic law and consequently does not override Shabbat, it is performed for only six days. ‫(ב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת)? יֹום טֹוב‬ ּ ַ ‫ִמצְ וַ ת לו ָּלב ֵּכיצַ ד‬ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ ,‫יהן ְל ַהר ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ֶ ‫יכין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ִ ‫מֹול‬ ִ ‫אֹותן‬ ָ ‫סֹוד ִרין‬ ְ ְ‫וְ ַה ַחּזָ נִין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין ֵמ ֶהן ו‬ ‫ִיחין ֶאת‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַהּזְ ֵקנִים ַמ ּנ‬,‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫אֹותם‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּמ ַל ְּמ ִדין‬.‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן ַ ּב ִּל ׁ ְש ָּכה‬ ‫ָּכל ִמי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע לו ָּל ִבי ְליָ דֹו – ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬ .‫לֹו ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬

How is the mitzva of lulav fulfilled in the Temple when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat? If the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday. The attendants receive the lulavim from them and arrange them on a bench [itztaba],l while the Elders place their lulavim in the chamber. They were given permission to do so due to the concern that they would be injured the following morning in the rush of people in search of their lulavim. And the court teaches the people to say: With regard to anyone whom my lulav reaches his possession, it is his as a gift. They did so to avoid the likely situation where people would inadvertently take lulavim that did not belong to them, as on the first day of the Festival one does not fulfill his obligation with a lulav that does not belong to him.

‫זֹור ִקין‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַה ַחּזָ נִין‬,‫ימין ו ָּב ִאין‬ ִ ‫ְל ָמ ָחר ַמ ׁ ְש ִּכ‬ ‫נֵיהם וְ ֵהן ְמ ַח ְּט ִפין ו ַּמ ִּכין ִא ׁיש‬ ֶ ‫אֹותם ִל ְפ‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָרא ּו ֵ ּבית דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ּו‬.‫ֶאת ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ ‫ִל ֵידי ַס ָּכנָ ה – ִה ְת ִקינ ּו ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָּכל ֶא ָחד‬ .‫נֹוטל ְ ּב ֵביתֹו‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא ָחד‬

The next day everyone rises early and comes to the Temple, and the attendants throw the lulavim before them. And in the confusion, the people snatch the lulavim and in the process strike one another.n And when the court saw that they came to potential danger,n they instituted that each and every person will take his lulav in his house and fulfill the mitzva there.

notes

The lulav is taken and the altar is encircled with the willow branch either six or seven days – ‫לו ָּלב וַ ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬: Some explain that these two mitzvot were combined because they are complementary: When the lulav is taken for seven days, i.e., when the first day of Sukkot coincides with Shabbat, the willow branch is taken only for six. When the willow branch is taken for seven days, i.e., when the last day of Sukkot coincides with Shabbat, which is not possible according to the calendar fixed by Hillel and his court, the lulav is taken only for six (Sefat Emet). The people snatch the lulavim and strike one another – ‫מ ַח ְּט ִפין ו ַּמ ִּכין ִא ׁיש ֶאת ֲח ֵבירֹו‬:ְ Rav Natan, Head of the Yeshiva, explains that they did not strike each other in the struggle over the lulavim. Rather, they struck each other with the lulavim as an expression of rejoicing. They came to potential danger – ‫בא ּו ִל ֵידי ַס ָּכנָ ה‬:ּ ָ Rav Natan explains that the danger mentioned here is referring to the incident during the reign of Alexander Yannai, who was pelted with etrogim; this led to a great massacre. Since then they were especially vigilant in preventing any commotion from taking place in the Temple. language

Bench [itztaba] – ‫איצְ ַט ָ ּבא‬: ִ The primary source for this word, which appears in several different forms, is the Greek στοά, stoa, which has several related definitions: Column, colonnade, shed, warehouse, and others. The Sages too employed this term in different ways. In this case, the reference is to a type of bench or shelf upon which objects are placed.

halakha

Taking the lulav on Shabbat – ‫נְט ַילת לו ָּלב ְ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬: ִ When the Temple stood, if the first day of Sukkot coincided with Shabbat, the lulav was taken on Shabbat in Eretz Yisrael and anywhere else that the people knew for certain which day was established as the first of the month and therefore which day was the Festival. In distant places where they did not know for certain which day was the Festival, due to that uncertainty they did not take the lulav on Shabbat. The lulav was not taken on Shabbat



during the intermediate days of the Festival. Following the destruction of the Temple, the Sages prohibited taking the lulav on Shabbat even in Eretz Yisrael and even during the time when the month continued to be sanctified by means of eyewitnesses, to avoid distinguishing between different Jewish communities. The prohibition was based on the decree of Rabba (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 658:2).

The willow branch in the Temple – ‫ע ָר ָבה ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:ֲ With regard to the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, if the seventh day of the Festival coincides with Shabbat, the mitzva of the willow branch is performed all seven days of the Festival, including Shabbat. However, if Shabbat coincides with another day of the Festival, the mitzva is performed only on the days other than Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:21). ‫במ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 42b 

209

notes

Taking the lulav is merely moving – ‫ט ְלטוּל ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬:ִ The primary prohibition cannot be due to the fact that the lulav is set aside, as then it should be prohibited on the Festival day just as it is on Shabbat. Therefore, the prohibition must be one that exists on Shabbat but not on the Festival: The prohibition against carrying from one domain to another (Arukh LaNer).

gemara 

Apropos the prohibition against taking a ,‫גמ׳ ַא ַּמאי? ִט ְלטוּל ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬ lulav on Shabbat, the Gemara asks: Why is ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬:‫וְ ִל ְיד ִחי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת! ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ this prohibited? After all, taking the lulav is merely movingn the .‫ יִ ְּט ֶלנּ ּו ְ ּביָ דֹו וְ יֵ ֵלךְ ֵאצֶ ל ָ ּב ִקי ִל ְלמֹוד‬object and is prohibited due to the rabbinic prohibition of set-aside. Since the mitzva to take the lulav is a mitzva by Torah law, let it override this relatively minor Shabbat prohibition. Rabba said: This prohibition is a decree lest one take the lulav in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to wave the lulav or how to recite its blessing,

Perek IV Daf 43 Amud a notes

And carry it four cubits – ‫וְ יַ ֲע ִב ֶירנ ּו ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬: The early authorities, beginning with Rashi, ask: Why is Rabba concerned specifically lest one carry four cubits in the public domain and not lest one carry from one domain to another? Many answers were suggested: Since in most places there is no full-fledged public domain, when one leaves his house he is not carrying directly into the public domain. However, by the time he reaches the vicinity of the home of the Torah scholar with whom he intends to consult, he will have carried in a public domain (Rid). Others explain that everyone is well aware of the prohibition against carrying an object from one domain to another on Shabbat, but people are less aware of the prohibition against carrying four cubits within the public domain. Therefore, the concern that one will inadvertently do so is greater (Kappot Temarim). The Me’iri explains that Rabba chose the case of carrying in the public domain because it is more succinct (see Rashi and Tosafot). And that is the reason for shofar – ‫וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ׁש ָֹופר‬: The commentaries addressed the matter of shofar at length because, unlike the lulav, the shofar was sounded on Shabbat in the Temple and everywhere that there was a court. They explained that due to the significance of that mitzva, which evokes the memory of the Jewish people before God, they did not eliminate its observance entirely on Shabbat. Alternatively, since by Torah law the mitzva of shofar applies for only one day each year, and when the Temple stood there were years when Rosh HaShana was in fact one day, if it were not sounded at all the concern was that it would be forgotten (Tosafot). Another explanation is that since the mitzva of shofar is performed by one person on behalf of the entire community, one need not be concerned lest he come to carry the shofar in a prohibited manner (Ritva, citing Rabbi Aaron HaLevi). We do not know – ‫אנַן ָלא יָ ְד ִעינַן‬:ֲ Although today the correct dates of the Festivals are common knowledge, the Sages already established that there may be no deviation from the custom of our ancestors, lest foreign oppressors issue decrees and the calendar of the Festivals be forgotten (Ran; see Tosafot).

‫ וְ יַ ֲע ִב ֶירנ ּו ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת‬and in doing so carry it four cubitsn in the public domain, thereby ‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו‬,‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ׁש ָֹופר‬.‫ ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬violating a severe Torah prohibition. And that is the reason for the n .‫ ַט ְע ָמא דִּ ְמגִ ָּילה‬prohibition against sounding the shofar on Shabbat, and that is the reason for the prohibition against reading the Scroll of Esther when Purim coincides with Shabbat. ,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫אשֹון נַ ִמי! ִר‬ ׁ ‫ יֹום ִר‬,‫ִאי ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ָה ִתינַ ח‬.‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן ְ ּב ֵביתֹו‬ ּ ‫ָהא ַּת ִּקינ ּו ֵל‬ ‫קֹודם ַּת ָ ּקנָ ה ַמאי ִא ָּיכא‬ ֶ ,‫ַא ַחר ַּת ָ ּקנָ ה‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬

The Gemara asks: If so, on the first day of Sukkot that coincides with Shabbat too one should not take the lulav due to this concern. The Gemara answers: With regard to the first day, the Sages instituted that one should take the four species in his house. Since the Sages already prohibited one from taking the lulav out of the house, he will remember that it is prohibited and will not come to take it elsewhere to learn to wave it or to recite the blessing. The Gemara asks: This works out well after the ordinance that one takes the lulav in his house was instituted. However, prior to introducing the ordinance, what is there to say in explaining why it is permitted to take the lulav on the first day?

‫יה ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬ ֵ ‫אשֹון דְּ ִא‬ ׁ ‫ ִר‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ְ‫ ָהנָ ך‬,‫ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין – ל ֹא ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ְ ּבה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫יתנְ ה ּו ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין – ָ ּגזְ ר ּו‬ ְ ‫דְּ ֵל‬ .‫ְ ּבה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and explains the distinction differently. On the first day, when the mitzva of taking the lulav even in the outlying areas and not just in the Temple is in effect by Torah law, the Sages did not issue a decree to prohibit taking the lulav on the first day and permitted the mitzva to be performed even in the outlying areas. However, with regard to these other days of Sukkot, when the mitzva of taking the lulav is not in effect by Torah law in the outlying areas and the lulav is taken there only to commemorate the practice in the Temple, the Sages issued a decree to prohibit taking the lulav on the other days.

‫ ָה ִאידָּ נָ א נַ ִמי! ֲאנַן ָלא יָ ְד ִעינַן‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If it is so that the mitzva on the first day is a ‫ ִאינְ ה ּו דְּ יָ ְד ִעי‬.‫יב ּו ָעא דְּ יַ ְר ָחא‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ִק‬mitzva by Torah law even in the outlying areas, today too one coincides with !ּ‫יבו ָּעא דְּ יַ ְר ָחא – ִל ְידחו‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ִק‬should take the lulav on the first day of Sukkot that Shabbat. The Gemara answers: We do not known when precisely the establishment of the monthb was determined by the court. Therefore, it is possible that the day observed as the first day of Sukkot is not Sukkot at all. Certainly, one does not violate the rabbinic decree to fulfill a mitzva that is not definitely a mitzva by Torah law. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the people of Eretz Yisrael, who sanctify the month based on eyewitness testimony and who know when precisely the establishment of the month was determined by the court, let them override Shabbat for the mitzva of lulav on the first day of Sukkot even today.

background

The establishment of the month – ‫יבו ָּעא דְּ יַ ְר ָחא‬ ּ ‫ק‬:ִ For an extended period in antiquity the Hebrew calendar was established by the court based on the testimony of people who witnessed the appearance of the new moon. During that period, the addition of an extra day to a month was determined by that testimony. If the moon was sighted on the night following the

210 

Perek IV . 43a . ‫גמ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

twenty-ninth day of the month, the next day was declared the first day of the following month. If, however, the moon was not sighted that night, or if witnesses to the new moon did not appear in Jerusalem to testify the following day, a day was added to the previous month, creating a month of 30 days. The delay in communicating this decision to Babylonia led to differences

in observance between the communities in Eretz Yisrael and those in the Diaspora. Since the fourth century the Jewish calendar has operated on a fixed astronomical system in which, with few exceptions, months of 29 days alternate with those of 30 days. Nevertheless, the second Festival day in the Diaspora is still observed.

‫ ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬:‫ִאין ָה ִכי נַ ִמי; (דְּ ָתנֵי) ֲח ָדא‬ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ ‫יהן ְל ַהר‬ ֶ ‫יכין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ִ ‫מֹול‬ ִ ‫ָּכל ָה ָעם‬ .‫ ְל ֵבית ַה ְּכנֶ ֶסת‬:‫ (וְ ַתנְ יָ א) ִא ָיד ְך‬,‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬,‫ַקּיָ ים‬ .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ַקּיָ ים‬

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and that is their practice, as it was taught in one mishna: On the first day of the Festival that occurs on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday. And we learned in another mishna: They bring their lulavim to the synagogue. Learn from the change in formulation that here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to when the Temple is in existence, and there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to when the Temple is not in existence. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

?‫יה ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין ְמנָ א ַלן‬ ֵ ‫ § דְּ ִא‬The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that by Torah law ּ ‫ית‬ h ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫ ״ו ְּל ַק ְח ֶּתם״ – ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ְל ִק‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬the mitzva of lulav on the first day is in effect even in the outlying ,‫ ְ ּביַ ד ָּכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬areas? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Leviticus 23:40). The Sages parse the phrases and terms in the verse. In the phrase “And you shall take,” the plural form of you is used, indicating that there should be taking in the hand of each and every one, and no one can fulfill the obligation on another’s behalf. ‫ ְל הֹוצִ יא ֶאת‬,‫״ל ֶכם״ – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶכם‬ ָ ‫״בּיֹום״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ ּ ַ .‫ַה ׁ ּ ָשאוּל וְ ֶאת ַה ָ ּגזוּל‬ ּ ‫אשֹון״ – ֲא ִפ‬ .‫יל ּו ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין‬ ׁ ‫ ִ״ר‬.‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶא ָּלא‬ ֶ ּ‫אשֹון״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ד‬ ׁ ‫״ה ִר‬ ָ .‫אשֹון ִ ּב ְל ָבד‬ ׁ ‫יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬

,‫ ִמ ְּכ ִדי‬.‫״בּיֹום״ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ּ ַ :‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫יך ְק ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬,‫ִט ְלטוּל ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬ ‫ ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכא‬:‫יש ֵרי ִט ְלטוּל?! ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ְל ִמ‬ ‫יבא דְּ ַהאי‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ִּל‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי לו ָּלב‬ ‫ֹוחין‬ ִ ּ‫ לו ָּלב וְ ָכל ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ָיריו ד‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ַּת ָּנא‬ .‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

They continue to expound the verse. Yourselves indicates from your own, to exclude a borrowed or stolen lulav. On the day comes to emphasize that there is a mitzva by Torah law to take the lulav on each day of the Festival, even on Shabbat. The word first, used with no qualification as to where the lulav is to be taken, indicates that this obligation is in effect everywhere on the first day, even in the outlying areas.n The first, with the definite article for emphasis, is restrictive and teaches that the mitzva of taking the lulav overrides Shabbat only on the first day of the Festival.h The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: On the day, indicates even on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Now, since taking the four species entails merely moving the object and is prohibited due to the rabbinic prohibition of set-aside, is a verse needed to permit moving the lulav? Obviously, the Torah does not address prohibitions that are not by Torah law. Rava said: Indeed, the verse is necessary only for actions that are facilitators of the performance of the mitzva of lulav, i.e., to permit actions necessary to prepare a lulav for the mitzva, such as severing it from the tree, which may be performed on Shabbat. And that is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna who permits doing so on Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita: Lulav and all the actions that are its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

‫יעזֶ ר – ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ֶ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬The Gemara explains: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? It is as the verse states: On the day, indicating ּ ‫״בּיֹום״ – וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ַהאי‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫יל ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ַּ that the obligation exists every day of the Festival, and even on :‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ַּ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫״בּיֹום״ ַמאי ָע ְב ִדי ֵל‬ Shabbat. ,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫״בּיֹום״ וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ַּ The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with the verse: ‫יה? נָ ְפ ָקא‬ ּ ‫ַ ּבּיֹום וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ְמנָ א ֵל‬ On the day? The Gemara answers: They require it to teach that ‫ ״ ּו ְ ׂש ַמ ְח ֶּתם ִל ְפנֵי‬:‫יפא דִּ ְק ָרא‬ ָ ‫יה ִמ ֵּס‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ the mitzva of taking the lulav is specifically during the dayh and not at night. ‫יכם ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים״ – יָ ִמים‬ ֶ ‫ה׳ ֱאל ֵֹה‬ ‫ ִאי ֵמ ָה ָתם – ֲהוָ ה‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫ וְ ל ֹא ֵלילֹות‬The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that the lulav is taken during the day and not at night? The Gemara ‫ ַמה‬,‫ ֵל ַילף יָ ִמים יָ ִמים ִמ ּסו ָּּכה‬:‫ָא ִמינָ א‬ answers: He derives it from the end of the verse: “And you shall ּ ‫ְּל ַה ָּלן יָ ִמים וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ֵלילֹות – ַאף ָּכאן‬ rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Leviticus 23:40), .‫נַ ִמי יָ ִמים וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵלילֹות‬ indicating that the obligation to take the lulav is during the days and not during the nights. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why don’t they derive it from that verse? The Gemara answers: If it was derived from there, I would have said: Derive days written with regard to lulav from days written with regard to sukka by means of a verbal analogy;b just as there, with regard to sukka, it means days and even nights,h here too, with regard to lulav, it means days and even nights. 

halakha

Lulav on the first day – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫לו ָּלב ַ ּבּיֹום ָה ִר‬: Since the mitzva of lulav on the first day of the Festival is a mitzva by Torah law everywhere, when the Temple is standing the lulav is taken even when the first day coincides with Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:14). Lulav today – ‫לו ָּלב ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה‬: Today, after the destruction of the Temple, the lulav is not taken on Shabbat even in Eretz Yisrael and even though the actual dates of the Festivals are common knowledge. This is meant to avoid distinguishing between different Jewish communities, so as not to cause a split among the Jewish people. The prohibition is based on the decree of Rabba (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:17). The mitzva of lulav during the day – ‫מצְ וַ ת לו ָּלב ַ ּבּיֹום‬:ִ The mitzva of lulav is performed specifically during the day, and it may be performed at any point throughout the day (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 652:1). The mitzva of sukka during the day and the night – ‫סו ָּּכה‬ ‫בּיֹום ו ַּב ַּליְ ָלה‬:ּ ַ The mitzva of sukka is performed throughout the festival of Sukkot, both at night and during the day (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:1). notes

First, even in the outlying areas – ‫אשֹון ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין‬ ׁ ‫ר‬:ִ Rashi explains that the Gemara derives that this applies even in the outlying areas from the fact that the verse does not specify that it applies in the Temple. Others, however, understand that the word first is apparently superfluous, and it is from that word that the Gemara derives that the mitzva applies even in the outlying areas (Sefat Emet). background

Verbal analogy – ‫גזֵ ָרה ׁ ָשוָ ה‬:ּ ְ This is a fundamental rabbinic principle of biblical interpretation, appearing in all standard lists of exegetical principles. If the same word or phrase appears in two places in the Torah, and a certain halakha is explicitly stated in one of these places, the Rabbis may infer on the basis of verbal analogy that the same halakha must apply in the other case as well. Consequently, the inferences drawn on the basis of verbal analogy rely on verbal identity, rather than on conceptual similarity as in the inductive analogy. Usually inferences can be drawn through verbal analogy only if the same word or phrase appears in both of the verses being compared, although a verbal analogy may occasionally be drawn even if the words being compared are not identical, provided that their meanings are similar. In its simplest form, the verbal analogy is a type of linguistic interpretation by means of which the meaning of an obscure word or phrase is inferred on the basis of another occurrence of the same word or phrase in a clearer context. However, it is often used not only to determine the meaning of obscure words and phrases, but to transfer entire halakhot from one context to another. Most significantly: One cannot infer a verbal analogy on his own, i.e., only a verbal analogy based on ancient tradition is valid.

‫גמ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 43a 

211

notes

Or go this way – ‫אֹו ְּכ ָלךְ ְל ֶד ֶרךְ זֹו‬: Some raise the following question: Why doesn’t the Gemara respond by citing the principle that analogies produce only strictures and not leniencies? They explain that the verbal analogy between days and days is not a full-fledged verbal analogy in the sense that the halakha is derived from it. Rather, it merely reveals an already existing halakha. Therefore, the Gemara elaborates precisely how it arrived at that conclusion.

‫״ב ּסו ּּכֹות‬ ּ ַ :‫וְ סו ָּּכה ּגו ָּפ ּה ְמ ַנָלן? דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ּ ‫ֵּת ׁ ְשב ּו ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים״ – יָ ִמים וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ּ ‫אֹומר יָ ִמים וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ָּתה‬.‫ֵלילֹות‬ ?‫ אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא יָ ִמים וְ ל ֹא ֵלילֹות‬,‫ֵלילֹות‬ ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר ָּכאן ״יָ ִמים״ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:‫וְ ִדין הוּא‬ ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן יָ ִמים וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ְ ּבלו ָּלב ״יָ ִמים״‬ .‫ֵלילֹות – ַאף ָּכאן יָ ִמים וְ ל ֹא ֵלילֹות‬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to sukka itself, from where do we derive that the mitzva is observed at night as well? As the Sages taught in a baraita that it is written: “You shall reside in sukkot for seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), from which they derived: Days and even nights. The tanna continues the discussion: Do you say days and even nights; or perhaps the meaning is only days and not nights? And it may be inferred logically that the latter is correct. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: “Days.” And it is stated with regard to lulav: “Days.” Just as there, with regard to lulav, the meaning is days and not nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and not nights. That is one possibility.

‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר ָּכאן ״יָ ִמים״‬:‫אֹו ְּכ ָל ְך ְל ֶד ֶר ְך זֹו‬ ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן‬,‫וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ְ ּב ִמ ּלו ִּאים ״יָ ִמים״‬ ּ ‫יָ ִמים וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ֵלילֹות – ַאף ָּכאן יָ ִמים‬ .‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵלילֹות‬

Or, perhaps, go this wayn and say the opposite. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: Days, and it is stated with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “And at the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall reside day and night seven days” (Leviticus 8:35). Just as there, with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the meaning is days and even nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and even nights. A source exists for either possibility.

‫ דָּ נִין דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ תֹו‬:‫ֹומה‬ ֶ ּ‫נִ ְר ֶאה ְל ִמי ד‬ ,‫ָּכל ַהּיֹום ִמדָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ תֹו ָּכל ַהּיֹום‬ .‫יֹוכ ַיח דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ תֹו ׁ ָש ָעה ַא ַחת‬ ִ ‫וְ ַאל‬ ‫ דָּ נִין דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ תֹו‬:‫אֹו ְּכ ָל ְך ְל ֶד ֶר ְך זֹו‬ ‫ וְ ַאל‬,‫ְלדֹורֹות ִמדָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ תֹו ְלדֹורֹות‬ .‫נֹוהגִ ין ְלדֹורֹות‬ ֲ ‫יֹוכיח ּו ִמלּ ו ִּאים ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ִ

The baraita continues: Let us see to which of the paradigms the mitzva of sukka is comparable. Perhaps one derives a matter whose mitzva is in effect the entire day, sukka, from another matter whose mitzva is in effect the entire day, the inauguration of the Tabernacle, and do not let a matter whose mitzva is in effect for a brief moment, lulav, prove otherwise. Or perhaps go this way and say the opposite: One derives a matter whose mitzva is in effect throughout the generations, sukka, from another matter whose mitzva is in effect throughout the generations, lulav, and do not let the inauguration that is not in practice throughout the generations, as it was in effect only at the establishment of the Tabernacle, prove otherwise.

:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬Since it is impossible to determine the more appropriate source based on logical inference, derive the matter as the verse states:

Perek IV Daf 43 Amud b

212 

Perek IV . 43b . ‫גמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬.‫״ת ׁ ְשבוּ״ ִלגְ זֵ ָרה ׁ ָשוָ ה‬ ֵּ ‫״ת ׁ ְשבוּ״‬ ֵּ ‫״ת ׁ ְשב ּו ״ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמ ר ַ ּב ִּמ ּל ּו ִא ים‬ ֵּ ‫ָּכאן‬ ּ ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּל ן יָ ִמים וַ ֲא ִפ‬,‫״ת ׁ ְשב ּו״‬ ‫יל ו‬ ֵּ .‫ֵלילֹות – ַאף ָּכאן יָ ִמים וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵלילֹות‬

“You shall reside,” “you shall reside,” by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: “You shall reside in sukkot seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), and it is stated with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “And at the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall reside day and night seven days” (Leviticus 8:35). Just as there, with regard to the inauguration, the meaning is days and even nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and even nights.

‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ֲע ָר ָבה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬.‫״ע ָר ָבה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ֵּכיצַ ד״‬ ֲ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דָּ ְחיָ א ׁ ַש ָ ּבת? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַפ ְר ְס ָמ ּה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ לו ָּלב נַ ִמי ִל ְיד ִחי ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַפ ְר ְסמֹו‬,‫ִאי ָה ִכי‬ !‫ׁ ֶשהוּא ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬

§  The mishna continues: The altar is encircled with the willow

branch for seven days. How so? If the seventh day of performing the mitzva of the willow branch occurs on Shabbat, since on that day the mitzva of the willow branch is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and the mitzva of the willow branch is then performed seven days. The Gemara asks: With regard to the mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day, what is the reason that it overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It is in order to publicize that it is a mitzva that applies by Torah law, since it is not written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara raises an objection: If so, lulav too should override Shabbat in the Temple on the other days of Sukkot as well and not only on the first day in order to publicize that it is a mitzva by Torah law all seven days, since that too is not written explicitly in the Torah.

‫ ֲע ָר ָבה‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫ לו ָּלב ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬The Gemara answers: One is prohibited from taking the lulav on Shab‫יתי‬ ֵ ְ‫ נַ ִמי נִ גְ זֹור! ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ְשלו ֵּחי ֵ ּבית דִּ ין ַמי‬bat by rabbinic decree due to the concern expressed by Rabba (42b) .‫ לו ָּלב ַל ּכֹל ָמסוּר‬,‫ ָל ּה‬lest he take the lulav in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to wave the lulav and thereby carry it in the public domain. The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to the willow branch as well let us issue a decree due to the same concern. The Gemara answers: The two cases are different. With regard to the willow branch, agents of the court bring itn to the priests who perform the mitzva in the Temple, and they carefully prepare the willow branch prior to the onset of Shabbat and will not come to carry it in a prohibited manner on Shabbat. However, performance of the mitzva of lulav is incumbent upon every individual. Therefore, there is concern lest one unwittingly perform the prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat. ‫יֹומא נַ ִמי ִל ְיד ִחי! ָא ֵתי‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל‬,‫ִאי ָה ִכי‬ ‫ וְ ִל ְיד ִחי ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬.‫ְל ִפ ְק ּפ ּו ֵקי ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬ ‫ לו ָּלב‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫מֹוכ ָחא ִמ ְּל ָתא‬ ְ ‫אשֹון! ָלא‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ .‫הוּא דְּ ָקא דָּ ֵחי‬

The Gemara objects: If so, i.e., because the willow branch is supplied by agents of the court there is no concern that Shabbat will be desecrated, let the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on every day of the Festival as well. The Gemara answers: In that case people would come to raise doubts about the significance of the mitzva of lulav,n as, unlike the mitzva of the willow branch, it would override Shabbat on only one day of the Festival and not on all seven. The Gemara asks: And let the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on the first day of the Festival, just as the mitzva of lulav does, and not on the seventh day. The Gemara answers: The matter of publicizing that the mitzva of willow branch is a mitzva by Torah law would not be apparent, as people would say that it is really the mitzva of lulav that overrides Shabbat, and once lulav is permitted the willow branch is permitted as well.

‫ וְ ִל ְיד ִחי ְ ּב ַחד ֵמ ָהנָ ךְ ! ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָקא ַמ ּ ְפ ַק ְּת ָל ּה‬The Gemara asks: And let the mitzva of the willow branch override .‫יעי‬ ִ ‫אֹוק ָמ ּה ַא ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ְ – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ֵמ ִר‬Shabbat on one of these other days of Sukkot; why specifically the seventh day? The Gemara answers: Once you moved it from the first day, establish it on the seventh day, which is also a unique day of Sukkot, and not on one of the other intermediate days of Sukkot. ‫ ָה ִאידָּ נָ א נַ ִמי ִל ְיד ִחי! ֲאנַ ן ָלא‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the mitzva of the willow branch is so sig.‫יבו ָּעא דְּ יַ ְר ָחא‬ ּ ‫ יָ ְד ִעינַן ְ ּב ִק‬nificant that it overrides Shabbat, let it override Shabbat today as well, even though the Temple is not standing. The Gemara answers: We do not know when precisely the establishment of the month was determined by the court. Therefore, it is possible that the day observed as the seventh day of Sukkot is not the seventh day at all. Certainly, one does not violate the rabbinic decree to fulfill a mitzva that is not definitely a mitzva by Torah law. !‫ ִל ְיד ִחי‬,‫יבו ָּעא דְּ יַ ְר ָחא‬ ּ ‫ִאינְ ה ּו דְּ יָ ְד ִעי ְ ּב ִק‬ ‫ ִּכי‬,‫ ָלא ִא ְיק ַלע‬:‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַ ּבר ֶה ְדיָ א ֲא ַמר‬ ,‫יק ַלע‬ ְ ‫ ִא‬:‫חֹותי ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ֵ ָ‫ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין וְ ָכל נ‬ .‫וְ ָלא דָּ ֵחי‬

notes

Agents of the court bring it – ‫ׁ ְשלו ֵּחי ֵ ּבית דִּ ין ַמיְ ֵיתי‬ ‫ל ּה‬:ָ The Ritva writes that this is the source for the custom that developed even in the Diaspora that the heads of the synagogue are responsible for bringing willow branches for the congregation, with which they fulfill the mitzva of the willow branch. People would come to raise doubts about lulav – ‫א ֵתי ְל ִפ ְק ּפו ֵּקי ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬: ָ The Rambam, in his Commentary on the Mishna, explains that they are likely to raise doubts about the rabbinic decree prohibiting taking the lulav on Shabbat, and consequently come to take it even on Shabbat. Does not coincide – ‫לא ִא ְיק ַלע‬:ָ Although the New Moon was then sanctified based on eyewitness testimony, at times the court would reject the witnesses or extend their interrogation to synchronize the calendar with their calculations. Based on those calculations, the court knew that the moon could not have been seen before its designated time. That is the understanding in the Jerusalem Talmud as well. Perhaps it is performed by standing the branches upright – ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ִ ּבזְ ִק‬: Some explain that they would stand the willow branches upright at the sides of the altar prior to the beginning of Shabbat, and therefore it involved no desecration of Shabbat (Ritva). halakha

Does not coincide – ‫לא ִא ְיק ַלע‬:ָ When Hillel HaNasi and his court established the fixed calendar, they ensured that Rosh HaShana never coincided with Sunday, in order that the seventh day of Sukkot would not coincide with Shabbat (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 428:1).

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the people of Eretz Yisrael, who know the establishment of the month, let them override Shabbat for the mitzva of willow branch on the seventh day of Sukkot even today. When bar Hedya came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: That is not a practical question, as the seventh day does not coincidenh with Shabbat, since the Sages fixed the calendar to avoid that possibility. When Ravin and all those emissaries who descended to Babylonia, or who originally left Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael and returned, came, they said: It does coincide with Shabbat, but it does not override Shabbat.

‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמאן ֵל‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א! ֲא ַמר ַרב‬The Gemara asks: But then it is difficult; why doesn’t the mitzva of the ?‫ דִּ ְל ָמא ִ ּבזְ ִק ָיפה‬,‫נְט ָילה‬ ִ ‫ ָלן דַּ ֲע ָר ָבה ִ ּב‬willow branch override Shabbat on the seventh day today? Rav Yosef said: Who will say to us definitively that the mitzva of the willow branch is performed by taking it? Perhaps it is performed by standing the branches uprightn against the altar. Since there is no altar today, the mitzva does not override Shabbat. ‫ לו ָּלב וַ ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ ּ ‫יב‬ ּ‫ל‬ ‫ ַמה ו ָּלב‬,‫ ַמאי ָלאו – ְּכלו ָּלב‬.‫וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫ילה! ִמידֵּ י‬ ָ ‫ ַא ף ֲע ָר ָבה ִ ּבנְ ִט‬,‫ילה‬ ָ ‫ִ ּבנְ ִט‬ – ‫ וְ ָהא‬,‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ִא ְיריָ א?! ָהא – ִּכ ְד ִא‬ ּ ‫ית‬ .‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ִּכ ְד ִא‬ ּ ‫ית‬



Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from the mishna, which states: The lulav is taken and the altar is encircled with the willow branch either six or seven days. What, is it not learned from the juxtaposition of these mitzvot in the mishna that the mitzva of the willow branch is like the mitzva of lulav in that just as the mitzva of lulav is performed by taking it, so too, the mitzva of the willow branch is performed by taking it and not by standing it upright? He answered him: Are the cases necessarily comparable? Perhaps this mitzva of lulav is as it is, by means of taking, and this mitzva of the willow branch is as it is, by means of standing it upright. ‫גמ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 43b 

213

notes

People circle the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫מ ִּק ִיפין ֶאת ַה ִּמ‬‎ַ : Most commentaries explain that the priests circled the altar, as it is prohibited for an Israelite to enter the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. However, some of the ge’onim explain that they did not actually circle the altar. Rather, the people stood on all sides of the altar where it was permitted for them to stand. When it says that they circle the altar seven times it means that they would disperse and then reassume their position seven times. According to this opinion, Israelites also participated in this ritual, albeit from a distance. However, Rabbi Yitzĥak ibn Giot maintains that in order to fulfill this mitzva, the Israelites were permitted to enter that area of the courtyard and circle the altar with the priests. Seven times – ‫ש ַבע ּ ְפ ָע ִמים‬: ֶ ׁ Some say that this practice was based on the conquest of the city of Jericho, where it too was circled once each day and seven times on the seventh day. Furthermore, an allusion to the practice of circling the altar with a willow branch can be found in the verse: “Order [isru] the Festival procession with branches, even unto the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27). Although not typically interpreted in that manner, the verb isru can be interpreted as circle (see Onkelos on Genesis 49:11). According to that interpretation the verse means: Circle the altar on the Festival with branches, an allusion to the mitzva of willow branch (ge’onim). And concealed them – ‫ו ְּכ ָב ׁשוּם‬: Some explain this verb to mean concealed. The Boethusians sought to conceal the willow branches, until the ignoramuses discovered their location. Others explain that it means pressed or applied pressure, meaning that the Boethusians placed stones on the willow branches, thinking that the Sages would be unable to move the stones due to their set-aside status. The latter authorities write that either way it was a futile effort, as the Boethusians were unaware that under the circumstances it would have been permitted even to lift the stones off the branches directly, and all the more so would it have been permitted to do so in an unusual manner (see Arukh LaNer and Emek Sukkot). Son of Torah [bar urya] – ‫בר או ְּריָ א‬: ּ ַ This is a term used in­frequently as a title for a Torah scholar. It often appears with the first-person plural suffix as uryan, meaning son of our Torah. Some explain this term, particularly in this instance where it appears without the suffix and where there are variant readings supporting this explanation, as son of a lion [bar arya]. Those rare scholars who received this title were in fact sons of prominent leaders of their generation, and it was appropriate to address them in that manner. halakha

Circling the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫ה ָ ּק ַפת ַה ִּמ‬‎ַ : In the Temple the people would circle the altar with the lulav. They would also stand willow branches upright at its side and take willow branches with the lulav in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species, as per the conclusion of the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:22–23). background

Boethusians – ‫יתֹוסין‬ ִ ְ‫בי‬:ּ ַ The Boethusians, usually mentioned together with the Sadducees, were a deviant sect that diverged from the path of the Sages. It is not clear what the difference between the two sects was, but from various sources it is evident that the Boethusians sought, in deceitful ways, to discredit the opinions of the Sages and cause the people to adopt their opinions.

214 

Perek IV . 43b . ‫גמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

‫ ְ ּב ָכל יֹום ַמ ִּק ִיפין ֶאת ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ וְ אֹותֹו ַהּיֹום ׁ ֶש ַבע ּ ְפ ָע ִמים‬,‫ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬,‫ָלאו – ַ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה! ל ֹא‬ ‫ ַ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה! ָא ַמר‬:‫נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה‬ ‫ וַ ֲאנָ א ָא ִמינָ א‬,‫ הוּא ֲא ַמר ָל ְך ַ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ַרב‬,‫ ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬,‫ ִא ְּת ַמר‬.‫ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬ .‫ ַ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה‬:‫[בר נָ ָתן] ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ּ ַ ‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ :‫וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה‬ .‫ַ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה‬

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from a mishna: On every day the people circle the altarnh one time, and on that day, the seventh day of the willow branch, they circle it seven times.n What, is the mishna not referring to circling the altar with the willow branch in hand? He answered him: No, it is referring to circling the altar with a lulav. Abaye objects: But didn’t Rav Naĥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: They would circle the altar with the willow branch? Rav Yosef said to him: He said to you with the willow branch; however, my authority is no less than his, as we are both amora’im, and I say that they circle the altar with a lulav. It was stated that this was the subject of dispute between other amora’im as well. Rabbi Elazar says: They circle the altar with a lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi Ĥanina said: They circle the altar with the willow branch. And likewise, Rav Naĥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They would circle the altar with the willow branch.

‫יה דְּ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר‬ ּ ‫יה ָר ָבא ְל ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ימא ָלךְ ִמ ְּל ָתא‬ ָ ‫ ָּתא וְ ֵא‬,‫ ַ ּבר או ְּריָ א‬:‫ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬ ‫ ָהא דִּ ְתנַ ן ָּכל‬.‫ְמ ַע ְּליָ ָתא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֲא ַמר ֲאבו ְּך‬ ‫ וְ אֹותֹו‬,‫ַהּיֹום ַמ ִּק ִיפין ֶאת ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬ ‫ַהּיֹום ַמ ִּק ִיפין ֶאת ַה ִּמ ֵ ּזְב ַח ׁ ֶש ַבע ּ ְפ ָע ִמים – ָה ִכי‬ .‫ ְ ּבלו ָּלב‬:‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֲאבוּךְ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬

Rava said to Rav Yitzĥak, son of Rabba bar bar Ĥana: Son of Torah [bar urya],n come and I will tell you an outstanding statement that your father would say. With regard to that which we learned in a mishna: On every day the people circle the altar one time, and on that day, the seventh day of the willow branch, they circle the altar seven times; this is what your father said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: They circle the altar with a lulav.

,‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִ ּב ְת ִח ָּלתֹו‬ ֶ ּ‫ לו ָּלב ד‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ ‫יעי ׁ ֶשל‬ ִ ‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ָחל ׁ ְש ִב‬.‫וַ ֲע ָר ָבה ְ ּבסֹופֹו‬ ‫ וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ֻמ ְר ִ ּבּיֹות‬,‫ֲע ָר ָבה ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ,‫ וְ ִה ּנִיחוּם ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ֲע ָר ָבה ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ּנְטלוּם ו ְּכ ָב ׁשוּם ַּת ַחת‬ ָ ‫יתֹוסין ו‬ ִ ְ‫וְ ִה ִּכיר ּו ָ ּב ֶהן ַ ּבי‬ .‫ֲא ָבנִים‬

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from the Tosefta (Sukka 3:1): The mitzva of lulav overrides Shabbat at the start of the Festival, and the willow branch overrides it at the end of the Festival. One time, the seventh day of the willow branch occurred on Shabbat, and they brought branches of the willow tree on Shabbat eve, before Shabbat, and placed them in the Temple courtyard for use on Shabbat. The Boethu­siansb in the Temple, who disagreed with the Sages and held that there is no mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of the Festival, noticed them and took them and concealed themn under the stones. This was an attempt to prevent fulfillment of the mitzva, as they knew that the Sages would prohibit moving the stones, which are set-aside on Shabbat.

‫ ּו ׁ ְש ָמט ּום‬,‫ְל ָמ ָחר ִה ִּכיר ּו ָ ּב ֶהן ַע ֵּמי ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫ וֶ ֱה ִביאוּם ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים וּזְ ָקפוּם‬,‫ִמ ַּת ַחת ָה ֲא ָבנִים‬ ‫מֹודים‬ ִ ‫יתֹוסין‬ ִ ְ‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַ ּבי‬.‫ְ ּבצִ ידֵּ י ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ .‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫יבוּט ֲע ָר ָבה ד‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶש ִח‬

The next day, some of the ignoramuses noticed the branches concealed under the stones. And since the ignoramuses identified with the opinion of the Sages, and at the same time were ignorant of the details of the mitzvot, they extracted them from under the stones. And the priests brought them and stood them upright at the sides of the altar. This happened because the Boethusians do not concede that waving the willow branch overrides Shabbat.

.‫נְט ָילה ִהיא! ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ ִ ‫ ַא ְל ָמא ִ ּב‬Apparently, based on the conclusion of the incident, the mitzva of the willow branch is fulfilled by taking it, as it is referring to waving the willow branch and not just standing it upright at the sides of the altar. The Gemara notes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of Rav Yosef ’s opinion. ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ְנִדחוּ! ֵּכיוָ ן דַּ ֲאנַן ָלא דָּ ֵחינָן – ִאינְ ה ּו נַ ִמי‬Given the refutation of Rav Yosef ’s opinion, the original ques‫ דִּ ְל ִד ַידן ָלא‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ וְ ָהא יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬.ּ‫ ָלא דָּ חו‬tion is difficult: Rather, let them in Eretz Yisrael override  !‫ דָּ ֵחי ו ְּל ִד ְידה ּו דָּ ֵחי‬Shabbat for the mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of Sukkot nowadays as well. The Gemara answers: Since we in the Diaspora do not override Shabbat for this purpose, they in Eretz Yisrael also do not override it. The Gemara objects: But doesn’t the first day of the Festival refute that contention, as for us in the Diaspora it does not override Shabbat and we do not take the lulav, and for them in Eretz Yisrael it overrides Shabbat and they take the lulav?

Perek IV Daf 44 Amud a ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬.‫ ְל ִד ְידה ּו נַ ִמי ָלא דָּ ֵחי‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ‫יכין‬ ִ ‫מֹול‬ ִ ‫ ָּכל ָה ָעם‬:‫ָהנֵי ַּת ְר ֵּתי; דְּ ָתנָ א ֲח ָדא‬ :‫ וְ ַתנְיָא ִא ָיד ְך‬,‫יהן ְל ַהר ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ֶ ‫ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ִ ּבזְ ַמן‬:‫ ו ְּמ ָת ְרצִ ינַ ן‬.‫ְל ֵבית ַה ְּכנֶ ֶסת‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים‬ .‫ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים‬

The Sages say: For them in Eretz Yisrael it also does not overriden Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, the contradiction between these two sources is difficult, as it was taught in one mishna: All the people bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday, and it was taught in another mishna that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue. And we resolved this contradiction as follows: Here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to when the Temple is standing, and there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to when the Temple is not standing. Based on the above, when the Temple is not in existence the mitzva of lulav does not override Shabbat.

‫ ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬,‫ ל ֹא‬The Gemara resolves the contradiction: No, both this mishna and – ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫ ָּכאן – ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:‫ וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬,‫ ַקּיָ ים‬that mishna are referring to Eretz Yisrael when the Temple is in .‫ ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין‬existence; and nevertheless, it is not difficult. Here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to the procedure in the Temple. And there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to the procedure in the outlying areas in the rest of Eretz Yisrael, where they knew when the new month was established. However, today, neither in the Diaspora nor in Eretz Yisrael does the mitzva of lulav override Shabbat.h ‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א לו ָּלב‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ו ַּמאי‬,‫יה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָע ְב ִדינַן ֵל‬ ‫ׁ ְשנָ א ֲע ָר ָבה דְּ ָלא ָע ְב ִדינַן ָל ּה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה זֵ ֶכר‬ ‫הֹואיל וְ ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א‬ ִ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש? ָא ַמר ֵל‬ :‫יה‬ ָ ‫יְ ֵדי‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫חֹובתֹו ָ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּלו ָּלב‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַההוּא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם לו ָּלב הוּא דְּ ָקא ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ ‫יה וַ ֲה ַדר ַמגְ ַ ּב ּה‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ּ ‫ימא דְּ ָקא ַמגְ ַ ּב ּה ֵל‬ ‫יה – וְ ָהא ַמ ֲע ִ ׂשים ְ ּב ָכל יֹום דְּ ָלא ָקא‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ !‫ָע ְב ִדינַן ָה ִכי‬

Abaye said to Rava: What is different about lulav such that we perform the mitzva seven days in commemoration of the Temple, and what is different about the willow branch that we do not perform the mitzva seven days in commemoration of the Temple?h Rava said to him: Since a person fulfills his obligation with the willow branch in the lulav, no additional commemoration is necessary. Abaye said to him: That is not a satisfactory answer, as he is performing that action due to the mitzva of taking the lulav and the other species. And if you say that he lifts the willow branch bound with the lulav to fulfill the mitzva of the four species and then lifts it again in commemoration of the willow branch in the Temple, aren’t actions performed daily proof that we do not do so, as no one lifts the lulav twice?

‫ לו ָּלב‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב זְ ִביד ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ .‫אֹוריְ ָיתא – ָע ְב ִדינַן ׁ ִש ְב ָעה זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ַ ְּ‫ד‬ ‫ֲע ָר ָבה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ָלא ָע ְב ִדינַ ן ָל ּה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ .‫זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Since the mitzva of lulav is a mitzva by Torah law, we perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple even today. Since the mitzva of the willow branch is a mitzva by rabbinic law, we do not perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple.

:‫ימא ַא ָ ּבא ׁ ָשאוּל – ָה ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ְל ַמאן? ִא ֵיל‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם – ַא ַחת ַללּ ו ָּלב‬,‫״ע ְר ֵבי נָ ַחל״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ַ ‫ ִאי ְל ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫וְ ַא ַחת ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ְ ּג ִמ ִירי ָל ּה‬ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי נְ חוּנְ יָ א ִא ׁיש ִ ּב ְק ַעת‬ ָ ְ‫נִיסוּך‬ ּ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ ֲע ָר ָבה‬,‫נְטיעֹות‬ ִ ‫ ֶע ֶ ׂשר‬:‫חֹור ָתן‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּבית‬ .‫ַה ַּמיִ ם – ֲה ָל ָכה ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמ ִּסינַי‬

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rava say this? If we say that Rava said this in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, didn’t he say that it is written: Willows of the river, i.e., in the plural, indicating two willow branches, one for the lulav and one for the Temple? In his opinion, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple is also a mitzva by Torah law. If Rava said this in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, they learned this as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neĥunya of the valley of Beit Ĥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

‫ לו ָּלב‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב זְ ִביד ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ּ ָ ‫יה ִע‬ ‫יקר ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה – ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין‬ ּ ‫דְּ ִאית ֵל‬ ‫ ֲע ָר ָבה‬,‫יה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ּ ‫ָע ְב ִדינַן ֵל‬ ּ ָ ‫דְּ ֵלית ָל ּה ִע‬ ‫יקר ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה – ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין ָלא‬ ,‫ָע ְב ִדינַן ׁ ִש ְב ָעה זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: With regard to the mitzva of lulav, which has its basis written explicitly in the Torah, in the outlying areas we perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple. With regard to the mitzva of the willow branch, which does not have its basis written explicitly in the Torah, in the outlying areas we do not perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple.



notes

For them it also does not override – ‫ל ִד ְידה ּו נַ ִמי ָלא דָּ ֵחי‬:ְ The Rambam explains that the Sages instituted ordinances to prevent the Jews from splitting into sects where some segments of the people practice one custom and other segments either do not practice it or practice another custom instead. Although in other matters, e.g., the second day of the Festivals observed in the Diaspora, this is not a concern, as can be explained the way Ritva explained it here: With regard to lulav, the Sages instituted that everyone follows his ancestral custom. Therefore, in the Diaspora the practice is not to take the lulav on Shabbat, since in ancient times it was never the practice to take the lulav on Shabbat due to the uncertainty concerning the correct date of the Festival. Based on the conclusion of the Gemara here, apparently the practice in Temple times in the outlying areas of Eretz Yisrael was not to take the lulav on Shabbat so as not to deviate from the custom of the rest of Jewry. Therefore, even today, the lulav is not taken in Eretz Yisrael on Shabbat, in keeping with the ancestral custom. halakha

Lulav nowadays – ‫לו ָּלב ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה‬: Nowadays the lulav is not taken on Shabbat at all, even on the first day of the Festival and even in Eretz Yisrael (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:17–18). Willow branch today – ‫ע ָר ָבה ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה‬:ֲ Since the mitzva of the willow branch is not explicitly written in the Torah, the Sages restricted their ordinance to taking it on the seventh day of Sukkot in commemoration of the Temple (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:22).

‫דמ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 44a 

215

notes

Priests with physical defects – ‫כ ֲֹהנִים ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין‬:ּ Some say that since in this case individuals with physical defects were permitted to enter the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, it indicates that the prohibition against entering there in general is by rabbinic law. Such a prohibition is suspended for the sake of the mitzva. On that basis, it may be permitted for non-priests to enter there as well, given that the elevated sanctity of that area is by rabbinic law and not by Torah law (see Ritva and later authorities). An ordinance of the prophets and a custom practiced by the prophets – ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫יאים ו ִּמנְ ַהג נְ ִב‬ ִ ‫יְ סֹוד נְ ִב‬: The practical difference between the two is that if it is an ordinance of the prophets it would be appropriate to recite a blessing over its performance, just as a blessing is recited over rabbinic ordinances instituted throughout the generations, e.g., joining of courtyards, ritual washing of hands, and others, as the Torah commands one to obey the Sages. In contrast, a custom of the prophets indicates that a ritual was practiced by the prophets themselves and others followed suit and began practicing the same custom, although it was never formally instituted. In that case, as is the case with other customs, no blessing would be recited. The prophets reinstituted them – ‫יסדוּם‬ ָ ִ‫חזְ ר ּו ו‬:ָ The later authorities discussed a fundamental aspect of this matter. From the Gemara in tractate Temura it is clear that a prophet may not introduce halakha by Torah law based on prophecy. In fact, according to the Rambam, doing so proves that the individual is a false prophet. If so, how could prophets reinstitute a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that was forgotten? Some explain that prophecy may be used to add or clarify a point that facilitates the performance of a mitzva and not the mitzva itself (Mitzpe Eitan). Others suggest that the intent here is that the later prophets reestablished the halakha not based on their prophecy but through reason and analysis (Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes).

‫ ּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי‬: ‫ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫מו ִּמין נִ ְכנָ ִסין ֵ ּבין ָהאו ָּלם וְ ַל ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ְּכ ֵדי ָלצֵ את ָ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה‬ ‫ ִמי ֲא ָמ ָר ּה? ִמי ֲא ָמ ָר ּה?! ָהא‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ִאיה ּו ָא ַמר‬ ‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי נְ חוּנְיָא ִא ׁיש ִ ּב ְק ַעת‬ ָ ,‫ ֲע ָר ָבה‬,‫ ֶע ֶ ׂשר נְ ִטיעֹות‬:‫חֹור ָתן‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּבית‬ !‫נִיסוּךְ ַה ַּמיִ ם ֲה ָל ָכה ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמ ִּסינַי‬ ּ ְ‫ו‬

Apropos the willow branch in the Temple, Reish Lakish said: Priests with physical defectsn enter between the Entrance Hall and the altar in order to fulfill the obligation of the mitzva of the willow branch. Although due to their blemishes it is prohibited for them to pass there, as they circle the altar with the willow branches they inevitably pass between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: Who stated this halakha? The Gemara wonders about Rabbi Yoĥanan’s question: Who stated it? Didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan himself state it? As Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neĥunya of the valley of Beit Ĥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

‫ דִּ ְל ָמא‬,‫ ִמי ֲא ָמ ָר ּה ִ ּבנְ ִט ָילה‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, Rabbi Yoĥanan’s question was: Who said that the mitzva ,‫יפה? ִמי ֲא ָמ ָר ּה ְ ּב ַב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּבזְ ִק‬is fulfilled by taking the willow branch and circling the altar? ?‫ימים‬ ִ ‫ דִּ ְל ָמא ִ ּב ְת ִמ‬Perhaps the mitzva is only fulfilled by standing the willow branches upright surrounding the altar. Who said that the mitzva may be fulfilled even by those with physical defects? Perhaps it may be fulfilled only by unblemished priests. ,‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יֹוחנָן וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ִא ְּת ַמר‬ ‫ וְ ַחד‬,‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ ֲע ָר ָבה יְ סֹוד נְ ִב‬:‫ַחד ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים‬.‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ ֲע ָר ָבה ִמנְ ַהג נְ ִב‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ,‫יאים‬ ִ ‫יֹוחנָן הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר יְ סֹוד נְ ִב‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים‬,‫יאים הוּא‬ ִ ‫ֲע ָר ָבה יְ סֹוד נְ ִב‬

It was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yoĥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One said that the mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets, as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi instituted it in the Temple as obligatory. And one said that the mitzva of the willow branch is an ancient custom practiced by the prophetsn and adopted by others as well. It was not instituted as a binding ordinance. The Gemara suggests: Conclude that it was Rabbi Yoĥanan who said that it is an ordinance of the prophets, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets. The Gemara concurs: Indeed, conclude that it is so.

‫ ִמי‬:ּ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי נְ חוּנְיָא ִא ׁיש ִ ּב ְק ַעת‬ ָ ,‫ ֲע ָר ָבה‬,‫ ֶע ֶ ׂשר נְ ִטיעֹות‬:‫חֹור ָתן‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּבית‬ !‫נִיסו ְּך ַה ַּמיִ ם ֲה ָל ָכה ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמ ִּסינַי‬ ּ ְ‫ו‬ :‫ֹומם ְּכ ׁ ָש ָעה ֲח ָדא״ וְ ָא ַמר‬ ַ ‫״א ׁ ְש ּת‬ ֶ .‫יסדוּם‬ ָ ִ‫ׁ ְש ָכחוּם וְ ָחזְ ר ּו ו‬

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Did Rabbi Yoĥanan actually say that? Didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan say in the name of Rabbi Neĥunya of the valley of Beit Ĥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? How then could he attribute the origin of the mitzva of the willow branch to the prophets? “He was astonished for a while” (Daniel 4:16), and after considering the apparent contradiction he said that indeed Rabbi Yoĥanan maintains that the mitzva of the willow branch is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. However, over the course of time during the Babylonian exile they forgot some halakhot, including the mitzva of the willow branch, and then the prophets reinstituted them.n

Yours say – ‫דִּ ְלכֹון ָא ְמ ִרי‬: The Arukh explains that Rabbi Yoĥanan said this to Ĥizkiya, who was also from Babylonia, meaning that one of the Babylonians transmitted this halakha.

‫יֹוחנָן ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ו ִּמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoĥanan actually say that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? And didn’t Rabbi ‫ דִּ ְלהֹון ִהיא! ָלא‬,‫ דִּ ְלכֹון ָא ְמ ִרי‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ Yoĥanan say: Yours, i.e., the Babylonian Sages, sayn that this or;‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ dinance is theirs, instituted by the Sages, and it is neither a hala­ kha transmitted to Moses from Sinai nor an ordinance instituted by the prophets. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;

Perek IV Daf 44 Amud b halakha

The taking of the willow branch – ‫נְט ַילת ֲע ָר ָבה‬: ִ The mitzva of taking the willow branch in the Temple is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and in the outlying areas it is a custom of the prophets (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:20).

216 

Perek IV . 44b . ‫דמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

.‫ ָּכאן – ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין‬,‫ ָּכאן – ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬Here, where Rabbi Yoĥanan said that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, he is referring to the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple; there, where he said that it was established by the prophets, he was referring to the taking of the willow branch in the outlying areas.h

,‫יכה ׁ ִשיעוּר‬ ָ ‫ ֲע ָר ָבה צְ ִר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫נִיט ֶלת ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ ֶּ ‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה‬ .‫חֹובתֹו ָ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ֶש ַ ּבלּ ו ָּלב‬ ָ ‫ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬ ‫נִיט ֶלת ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬ ֶּ ‫ ֵאינָ ּה‬:‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫יטא דְּ ֵאין ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה‬ ָ ‫ַעצְ ָמ ּה – ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ !‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּבלּ ו ָּלב‬

§ Rabbi Ami said: The willow branch taken to fulfill the

ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ‬:‫ימא‬ ‫יכא דְּ ָלא‬ ָ ‫ילי – ֵה‬ ָ ‫ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַאגְ ְ ּב ֵה‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה וַ ֲה ַדר ַאגְ ְ ּב ֵה‬ ּ ‫ַאגְ ְ ּב ֵה‬ ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫יה – ֵא‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲה ַדר ַאגְ ְ ּב ֵה‬ ‫ ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א‬:‫ וְ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬.‫ָלן‬ ‫(ביֹום טֹוב‬ ּ ְ ‫חֹובתֹו ָ ּב ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ֶש ַ ּבלּ ו ָּלב‬ ָ ‫יְ ֵדי‬ .)‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬

The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that this applies only to a case where he did not lift the willow branch bound with the lulav and then lift it again to fulfill the mitzva of the willow branch; however, in a case where he lifted the lulav and then lifted it again, say no, he fulfills his obligation with the willow branch in the lulav. Therefore, he teaches us that even if one takes the four species a second time with the express intent of fulfilling the mitzva of the willow branch, he did not fulfill his obligation, as he must take the willow branch by itself. And Rav Ĥisda said that Rabbi Yitzĥak said: A person fulfills his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav on the first day of the festival of Sukkot.

mitzva requires a certain measure, and it is taken only in and of itself h and not with the lulav, and a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav.h The Gemara asks: Since the Master said: It is taken only in and of itself, it is obvious that a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav. Why are both statements necessary?

‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬:‫וְ ַכ ָּמה ׁ ִשיעו ָּר ּה? ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫ וְ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָא ַמר‬.‫ַ ּבדֵּ י ָע ִלין ַל ִחין‬ ‫ ָע ֶלה ֶא ָחד ו ַּבד ֶא ָחד‬.‫ָע ֶלה ֶא ָחד ו ַּבד ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָע ֶלה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ?! ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ .‫ֶא ָחד ְ ּב ַבד ֶא ָחד‬

Rabbi Ami said that the willow branch requires a certain measure. The Gemara asks: And what is its requisite measure?nh Rav Naĥman said: It is three branches of moist leaves. And Rav Sheshet said: It is even one leaf and one branch. The Gemara wonders about the statement of Rav Sheshet: Does it enter your mind that one takes a single leaf and a single branch separately? Rather, emend Rav Sheshet’s statement and say: One fulfills his obligation even with one leaf on one branch.

‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ‫ ֲהוָ ה ָק ֵא‬:ּ‫ָא ַמר ַאיְ יבו‬ ּ ‫ימנָ א ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יתי ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬ ֵ ְ‫ וְ ַאי‬,‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַ ּבר צָ דֹוק‬ ‫ ָח ֵביט ָח ֵביט וְ ָלא‬,‫ ׁ ָש ֵקיל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲע ָר ָבה ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫ ַאיְ יב ּו‬.‫יאים הוּא‬ ִ ‫ ִמנְ ַהג נְ ִב‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬. ְ‫ָ ּב ֵריך‬ ‫יה דְּ ַרב ַאיְ ית ּו ֲע ָר ָבה‬ ּ ‫וְ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ְ ּבנֵי ְ ּב ַר ֵּת‬ ‫ ָקא‬, ְ‫ ָח ֵביט ָח ֵביט וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵריך‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ .‫יאים הוּא‬ ִ ‫ ִמנְ ַהג נְ ִב‬:‫ָס ַבר‬

§ The Gemara relates that Aivu,

father of the amora Rav, said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man brought a willow branch before him to fulfill the mitzva. He took it and waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing.h This indicates that he holds that the mitzva of the willow branch is a custom of the prophetsn and is therefore performed without a blessing. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Aivu and Ĥizkiya, sons of the daughter of Rav, brought a willow branch before Rav to fulfill the mitzva. He waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing.n This indicates that he, too, holds that it is a custom of the prophets. p

notes

What is its requisite measure – ‫כ ָּמה ׁ ִשיעו ָּר ּה‬:ַּ Since the halakhot of the willow branch used in the Temple are distinct from those of the willow branch used as one of the four species, it is necessary to inquire as to its exact requirements. It is a custom of the prophets – ‫יאים הוּא‬ ִ ‫מנְ ַהג נְ ִב‬:ִ Some explain that the custom originating with the prophets is not to recite a blessing on the willow branch (see Sefer Yere’im, Sefer Mitzvot Katan, and the commentary of Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). Although this explanation is a bit forced in this context, it does provide a solution to several other questions (see Tosafot and others). Shape of the willow branch – ‫צו ַּרת ָה ֲע ָר ָבה‬: Rav Tzemaĥ Gaon explains that the willow branch evokes the lips, as its leaves are shaped like lips. Indeed, each of the four species represents a different part of the human body. This idea can be found in various old liturgical poems in Sephardic prayer books. Beating the willow branch on the ground serves as atonement, to a certain degree, for sins that one committed with his mouth, similar to the verse: “Let him put his mouth in dust; perhaps there is hope” (Lamentations 3:29). Personalities

Aivu – ‫איְ יב ּו‬: ַ According to Rashi, Aivu, who transmits the halakha here in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, is Aivu, father of Rav. Rav’s lineage is only partially known; however, it is known that his grandfather, Rabbi Abba bar Aĥa, had five sons, each of whom was a Torah scholar in his own right. The youngest and most significant of them was Rabbi Ĥiyya. The grandchildren of Rabbi Abba bar Aĥa were among the foremost scholars of the following generation. Aivu immigrated to Eretz Yisrael to study Torah there, and he, like his son, was privileged to have statements cited in his name in the Gemara. As was the custom in those days, Rav named his descendants after his parents and other relatives, and one of Rav’s grandchildren was named after Rav’s father, Aivu.

halakha

The willow branch…is taken only in and of itself – …‫ ֲע ָר ָבה‬The minimum measure for the willow branch is one leaf ‫נִיט ֶלת ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ ֶּ ‫אינָ ּה‬:ֵ When taken for its own mitzva, the on one branch. However, Rav Hai Gaon writes that it is dewillow branch must be taken by itself, not bound together testable to use such a branch, and it is preferable to take a with any other item (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 664:5). willow branch that meets the requirements for the willow branch taken with the lulav. Any factor that invalidates a A person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow willow branch in the lulav invalidates it for this purpose as branch that is bound with the lulav – ‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ֵאין ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א יְ ֵדי‬ well (Ran). Based on the teachings of Rabbi Yitzĥak Luria, the ‫ב ֲע ָר ָבה ׁ ֶש ַ ּבלו ָּלב‬:ּ ַ One does not fulfill his obligation to take the custom is to take five willow branches (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ willow branch by using the one that is bound with the four Ĥayyim 664:4). species, even if he lifted the lulav twice with the intent to fulfill the mitzva of the willow branch the second time (Tur, citing He waved it and did not recite a blessing – ְ‫ח ֵביט וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵריך‬:ָ Rambam). Others say that he does fulfill his obligation (Tur, No blessing is recited when taking the willow branch nor citing Avi HaEzri and Rosh). However, one should certainly when waving it. The custom is to beat the willow branch on take a separate willow branch ab initio (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ the ground. Based on the teachings of Rabbi Yitzĥak Luria, the Ĥayyim 664:2, 6). custom is to beat it on the ground five times (Shulĥan Arukh, The requisite measure of the willow branch – ‫שיעוּר ָה ֲע ָר ָבה‬: ִ ׁ Oraĥ Ĥayyim 664:2, 4).



‫דמ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 44b 

217

notes

Hoe [mekashkeshin] the olive groves – ‫ְמ ַק ׁ ְש ְק ׁ ִשין‬ ‫ב ַכ ְר ַמּיָא‬:ּ ְ The Arukh and Rashi in Mo’ed Katan write that the gerunds kishkush and iddur that appear in Mo’ed Katan both mean hoeing. The difference is that kishkush is the term used for an olive grove, while iddur is the term for a vineyard. Is it appropriate or inappropriate – ְ‫א ִריךְ אֹו ָלא ֲא ִריך‬:ֲ The commentaries explain this in several ways. In fact, the owner of the field need not have taken any action, as it is permitted for the poor to enter the olive groves and eat the olives growing there during the Sabbatical Year. Whatever labor they choose to perform on their own is of no concern to the owner of the grove. However, the owner was asking whether, by allowing this activity to continue, he might be causing others to sin. Therefore, he did not ask whether it was prohibited to allow them to continue; rather, he asked whether it was appropriate to allow them to continue. Consequently, Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok praised him for following a straight path and for going beyond the letter of the law (Arukh LaNer). More than three parasangs – ‫יֹותר ִמ ׁ ּ ָשל ֹׁש ּ ַפ ְר ָסאֹות‬: ֵ The commentaries and halakhic authorities discussed this distance extensively. In Arukh LaNer the question is raised with regard to the meaning of this specific distance and why it was selected. Some explain that its significance is related to the time that it takes to walk that distance. If one who departs in the morning walks no more than three parasangs, the majority of the day will remain for him to prepare his Shabbat meals (see Rambam). Others explain that this measure is specifically with regard to walking, as opposed to traveling on horseback or in a wagon. If one walks a greater distance, he will grow weary and will not have the strength to prepare for Shabbat.

‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ‫ ֲהוָ ה ָק ֵא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַאיְ יב ּו‬ ּ ‫ימנָ א ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יה ַההוּא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬,‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַ ּבר צָ דֹוק‬ ‫ ַּכ ְר ַמּיָ א‬,‫יתא ִאית ִלי‬ ָ ָ‫ ִק ְרי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬ ‫יתא‬ ָ ָ‫ וְ ָאת ּו ְ ּבנֵי ִק ְרי‬,‫יתּיָ א ִאית ִלי‬ ַ ֵ‫ ז‬,‫ִאית ִלי‬ ְ‫ ֲא ִריך‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין ְ ּבזֵ ַיתּיָא‬ ְ ְ‫ו ְּמ ַק ׁ ְש ְק ׁ ִשין ְ ּב ַכ ְר ַמּיָא ו‬ ‫ ֲהוָ ה ָקא‬. ְ‫ ָלא ֲא ִריך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫אֹו ָלא ֲא ִריךְ ? ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יתי דָּ יְ ִירי‬ ִ ֵ‫ ְּכד ּו ֲהו‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה וְ ָאזֵ יל‬ ּ ‫ׁ ָש ֵביק ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ָח ֵמ ִיתי ַ ּבר‬,‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָעא ֲה ָדא ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ׁ ְשנִין‬ ‫ ֲה ַדר וְ ָא ֵתי‬.‫ינָש ְמ ַה ֵּלךְ ְ ּב ָא ְר ָחן דְּ ַת ְקנַן ְּכ ֵדין‬ ׁ ‫ֱא‬ ‫ ַא ְפ ַקר‬:‫יה‬ ֲ ‫ ַמאי ִמ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יע ַבד? ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יטּיָ א ְל ַק ׁ ְשקו ׁ ֵּשי‬ ַ ‫ וְ ֵתן ּ ְפ ִר‬,‫יתּיָ א ַל ֲח ׁשו ַּכּיָ א‬ ַ ֵ‫ז‬ .‫ְּכ ָר ִמים‬

Apropos the exchange between Aivu and Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, the Gemara cites another halakha that was transmitted in the same manner. Aivu said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man came before him and said to him: I have villages, I have olive groves, and I have olives, and the villagers come and hoe the olive grovesnh during the Sabbatical Year and eat from the olive trees. Is it appropriate or inappropriaten to allow this to continue? He said to him: It is inappropriate. As the man was leaving him and going on his way, Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: I have already resided in this land for forty years and I have not seen a person walk in a path as straight as this man does. The man came back to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok and said to him: What should I do to ameliorate the situation? He said to him: Declare the olives ownerless for the poor, and give perutot coins to hired laborers as payment to hoe the olive groves.h

‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ ״וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:‫וְ ַק ׁ ְשקו ׁ ֵּשי ִמי ׁ ָש ֵרי? וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ – ‫״ת ׁ ְש ְמ ֶט ָּנה״‬ ִּ .‫ִּת ׁ ְש ְמ ֶט ָּנה ּו נְ ַט ׁ ְש ָּת ּה ״‬ ‫ ״וּנְ ַט ׁ ְש ָּת ּה״ – ִמ ְּל ַס ֵ ּקל! ָא ַמר‬,‫ִמ ְּל ַק ׁ ְש ֵק ׁש‬ ,ּ‫ ְּת ֵרי ַק ׁ ְשקו ׁ ֵּשי ָהוו‬:‫ַרב עו ְּק ָבא ַ ּבר ָח ָמא‬ ‫ ַא ְברוּיֵ י‬.‫ וְ ַחד ַא ְברוּיֵ י ִא ָילנֵי‬,‫ַחד ַס ּתו ֵּמי ִפ ֵילי‬ .‫ ַס ּתו ֵּמי ִפ ֵילי – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬,‫ִא ָילנֵי – ָאסוּר‬

The Gemara asks: Is hoeing olive groves permitted during the Sabbatical Year? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “But the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow” (Exodus 23:11); meaning you shall let it rest from hoeing, and lie fallow from clearing the field of rocks? Apparently, hoeing is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year. Rav Ukva bar Ĥama said: There are two types of hoeing, one whose objective is to seal cracks in the ground and one to enhance the trees’ health. Enhancing the trees’ health is prohibited; sealing cracks is permitted, as it is merely to prevent the trees from dying and not to accelerate their growth.

‫ ַאל‬:‫ָא ַמר ַאיְ יב ּו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַ ּבר צָ דֹוק‬ ‫יֹותר ִמ ׁ ּ ָשל ֹ ֹׁש‬ ֵ ‫יְ ַה ֵּל ְך ָא ָדם ְ ּב ַע ְר ֵבי ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות‬ ‫ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬.‫ּ ַפ ְר ָסאֹות‬ ‫יה – ַא ַּמאי דְּ נָ ֵקיט‬ ֵ ‫ְל ֵב‬ ּ ֵ‫ ֲא ָבל ְלאו ׁ ְּש ּ ִפיז‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ית‬ . ְ‫ָס ֵמיך‬

An additional halakha was transmitted in the same manner. Aivu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok: A person should not walk on Shabbat evesh more than a distance of three parasangs [parsaot].nl Rather, he should reach the place where he will stay on Shabbat early enough to ensure that he will have meals prepared for Shabbat. Rav Kahana said: We said that restriction only with regard to a case where he is returning to his house. However, if he is going to an inn, he relies on the food that he took with him. As he cannot assume that he will find lodgings with food, he brings food sufficient for his needs. Therefore, it is permitted for him to travel a greater distance.

‫ ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫ ְ ּב ִד ִידי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ֵב ֵית‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬,‫עֹוב ָדא‬ ‫יל ּו ָּכ ָסא דְּ ַה ְר ְסנָ א ָלא‬ ָ ‫ֲהוָ ה‬ .‫ַא ׁ ְש ַּכח‬

Some say that Rav Kahana said: This restriction that one may not walk a distance of more than three parasangs on Shabbat eves was required even with regard to one traveling to his house, and all the more so with regard to one traveling to an inn, as he cannot assume that he will find food there. Rav Kahana said: There was an incident that happened with me where I traveled a distance to reach my home on Friday and I did not find even small fried fish [deharsena]b to eat in the house. One must prepare for Shabbat well in advance of the onset of Shabbat.

language

Parasang [parsa] – ‫רסה‬ ָ ‫פ‬:ַ ּ Called a Persian mile in the ancient world, this measurement was adopted in a number of languages, including Greek, Syriac, and in this case the Jewish dialect of Aramaic. It appears that the word comes from the Middle Iranian frasax. In the talmudic system of measurement, one parsa equals four mil. background

Small fried fish – ‫כ ָסא דְּ ַה ְר ְסנָ א‬:ָּ Fried fish was a popular dish in Babylonia and was commonly eaten by the poor. It was made from small, flour-coated salted fish, fried in oil with vinegar.

‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ִ § The mishna continues: How is the mitzva of lulav fulfilled in ּ ‫ ָּתנֵי ַּת ָּנא ַק ֵּמ‬.‫״מצְ וַ ת לו ָּלב ֵּכיצַ ד״‬ :‫יה‬ ְ :‫ נַ ְח ָמן‬the Temple when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat? ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫סֹוד ִרין ַעל ַ ּגג ָה ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא‬ The mishna then explains how the attendants arrange their lulavim on the bench in the Temple. The tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall taught a version of the mishna before Rav Naĥman: The attendant arranges them on the roof over the bench in the Temple. Rav Naĥman said to him: halakha

Hoe the olive groves – ‫מ ַק ׁ ְש ְק ׁ ִשין ְ ּב ַכ ְר ַמּיָא‬:ְ With regard to one who hoes under olive trees during the Sabbatical Year, the following distinction applies: If he does so to enhance the trees’ health, it is prohibited. However, if he does so to seal the cracks in the ground and to prevent the trees from dying, it is permitted (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 1:7). Wages for labor during the Sabbatical Year – ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ְ ׂש ַכר ְמ ָל‬ ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:ּ ַ One who performs permitted labor in another’s field during the Sabbatical Year may not receive payment from the

218 

Perek IV . 44b . ‫דמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

fruit of that field as his wages. This is in order to avoid the ap- one is in an unsettled area where he will be unable to prepare pearance that the fruit it being used for commercial purposes for Shabbat, it is preferable that he travel to a settled area, even (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Shemitta VeYovel 1:16, 6:11). if that entails walking more than three parasangs (Beit Yosef ). If one sent word of his planned arrival for Shabbat, it is also perWalking on Shabbat eve – ‫ה ִל ָיכה ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ֲ One may not walk mitted for him to travel farther (Beit Yosef, based on Rabbeinu more than a distance of three parasangs on a Friday, to ensure Yeruĥam). The custom is to be lenient in situations where one that he will arrive at his destination in time to prepare for Shab- is riding in a carriage or similar modes of transportation (Baĥ). bat. There is no difference whether he is going home or going In recent years, when it is customary to prepare more expanelsewhere, as most of the early authorities ruled in accordance sive Shabbat meals, this halakha is not observed at all (Magen with the latter version of Rav Kahana’s statement. However, if Avraham, based on Aguda; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 249:1).

Perek IV Daf 45 Amud a ‫ ַעל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ׁ ָשן הוּא צָ ִריךְ ?! ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ ּ ְ ַ‫וְ ִכי ְלי‬ )‫ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָבא ָא ַמר ַ(רב‬.‫ַ ּגב ָה ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא‬ ‫ ַהר ַה ַ ּביִ ת ְס ָטיו ָּכפוּל ָהיָ ה ְס ָטיו‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ .‫ִל ְפנִים ִמ ְּס ָטיו‬

‫מתני׳ ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ָר ָבה ֵּכיצַ ד? ָמקֹום‬ .‫ָהיָ ה ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם וְ נִ ְק ָרא מֹוצָ א‬ ‫יֹור ִדין ְל ׁ ָשם ו ְּמ ַל ְּק ִטין ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם מו ְּר ִ ּבּיֹות‬ ְ ‫אֹותן ְ ּבצִ דֵּ י‬ ָ ‫זֹוק ִפין‬ ְ ְ‫ ו ָּב ִאין ו‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ֲע ָר ָבה‬ ‫יהן ְּכפ ּו ִפין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫אש‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ ָר‬,‫ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָכל‬.‫ ָּת ְקע ּו וְ ֵה ִריע ּו וְ ָת ְקע ּו‬.‫ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ,‫יפין ֶאת ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬ ִ ‫יֹום ַמ ִּק‬ ‫ ָא ָּנא‬,‫יעה ָּנא‬ ָ ‫הֹוש‬ ִ ׁ ‫״א ָּנא ה׳‬ ָ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫״אנִי‬ ֲ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫יחה נָ א״‬ ָ ‫ה׳ ַהצְ ִל‬ ‫ וְ אֹותֹו ַהּיֹום ַמ ִּק ִיפין‬.‫יעה נָ א״‬ ָ ‫הֹוש‬ ִ ׁ ‫וָ הֹו‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬.‫ֶאת ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ׁ ֶש ַבע ּ ְפ ָע ִמים‬ ,‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫״יֹופי ְלךָ ִמ‬ ִ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ּ ְפ ִט ָיר ָתן ָמה ֵהן‬ ‫״ליָ ּה‬ ְ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬.‫יֹופי ְלךָ ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח״‬ ִ .‫ ְליָ ּה ו ְּלךָ ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח״‬,‫ו ְּלךָ ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬

And does he need to dry them? Clearly, that is not his intention. Why, then, would he place the lulavim on the roof ? Rather, emend your version and say: On the bench beneath the roof, in a place designated for that purpose. Raĥava said that Rav Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade [setav],l a colonnade within a colonnade,nb and there was room there to place the lulavim.

mishna 

How is the mitzva of the willow branchh fulfilled? There was a place below Jerusalem, and it was called Motza.n They would descend there and gather willow branches [murbiyyot]l from there. And they would then come and stand them upright at the sides of the altar,b and the tops of the branches would be inclined over the top of the altar. They then sounded a tekia, a simple uninterrupted blast, sounded a terua, a broken sound and/or a series of short staccato blasts, and sounded another tekia. Each day they would circle the altarh one time and say: “Lord, please save us. Lord, please grant us success” (Psalms 118:25). Rabbi Yehuda says that they would say: Ani vaho,n please save us. And on that day, the seventh day of Sukkot, they would circle the altar seven times.n At the time of their departure at the end of the Festival, what would they say? It is beautiful for you, altar; it is beautiful for you, altar.n Rabbi Elazar said that they would say: To the Lord and to you, altar; to the Lord and to you, altar.

language

Colonnade [setav] – ‫ס ָטיו‬:ְ From the Greek στοά, stoa, meaning a covered row of columns, i.e., a portico. Branches [murbiyyot] – ‫מו ְּר ִ ּבּיֹות‬: This word is found in similar usage in Syriac and means branch. Its root, rbh, means young, growing branch. background

Colonnade [setav] – ‫ס ָטיו‬:ְ Setav is referring to a row of columns attached to a building. The Gemara here is referring to a double setav, i.e., two rows of columns.

notes

A colonnade within a colonnade – ‫ס ָטיו ִל ְפנִים ִמ ְּס ָטיו‬:ְ This statement by Raĥava is cited several times as an example of phrasing a statement precisely and accurately. Many explanations of the choice of this particular statement were suggested by the commentaries (see Rabbeinu Ĥananel and others). The Ritva explains that Raĥava expressed himself so carefully because although double colonnade seems self-explanatory, he wanted to ensure that no one would think that he meant a colonnade atop a colonnade, so he specified that it is a colonnade within a colonnade. There was a place…and it was called Motza – …‫ָמקֹום ָהיָ ה‬ ‫וְ נִ ְק ָרא מֹוצָ א‬: Apparently, the mishna included this detail because willow branches that are both long enough as well as flexible enough to lean over the altar cannot be found just anywhere (see Kappot Temarim).

the expression alludes to two separate verses: “And I [va’ani] was amid the exile” (Ezekiel 1:1); and: “And he [vehu], bound in shackles” (Jeremiah 40:1). According to Tosafot and the Me’iri, there is no contradiction between the various explanations. While ani vaho may indeed be one of God’s names, this particular name was chosen from among all the names of God that result from combinations of verses because of the allusion to: Lord, please. In his Commentary on the Mishna, the Rambam explains that ani vaho alludes to a different verse: “See, now, that I, I am He [ani hu]” (Deuteronomy 32:39). It is a prayer that God reveal Himself.

They circle the altar seven times – ‫יפין ֶאת ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ׁ ֶש ַבע‬ ִ ‫ַמ ִּק‬ ‫פ ָע ִמים‬:ְ ּ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained that this was done in order to commemorate the conquest of Jericho. Some add that the entire celebration of the festival of Sukkot commemorates the miracles that God performed specifiAni vaho – ‫אנִי וָ הֹו‬:ֲ Numerous commentaries attempt to explain cally in Eretz Yisrael, and that is why Jericho is commemorated this expression. The most common explanation is that these (Arukh LaNer). The Maharsha offers a similar insight, saying two words represent the longer names of God (see Rashi). that on the festival of Sukkot the instances when God saved Rashi adds that the numerological value of ani vaho equals the Jewish people are commemorated, and in that framethat of the phrase: Lord, please [ana Hashem], so the people work Jericho is commemorated, as God performed an open recite a variation of that verse (Psalms 118:25). In the Jerusalem miracle there. Talmud, however, there is a variant reading: I and He [ani vahu]. The word: He, is referring to God, Who suffers together with It is beautiful for you, altar – ‫יֹופי ְלךָ ִמ ֵ ּזְב ַח‬‎ ִ : They praised the altar the Jewish people when they are suffering. Many verses are specifically on Sukkot because it was then, as they circled the cited alluding to this notion. The Ritva explains that in def- altar, that they were particularly focused on it. In addition, on erence to God, they used the third-person pronoun rather Sukkot more offerings were sacrificed on the altar than at any than mentioning God explicitly. Finally, Tosafot suggest that other time of year (Arukh LaNer).

Colonnade And they would come and stand them upright at the sides of the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫אֹותן ְ ּבצִ דֵּ י ַה ִּמ‬ ָ ‫זֹוק ִפין‬ ְ ְ‫ו ָּב ִאין ו‬‎:

Willow branch at the side of the altar

halakha

The mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple – ‫ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ָר ָבה‬ ‫ב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬: ּ ַ On each of the seven days of the festival of Sukkot, the people would bring willow branches and stand them upright at the sides of the altar, with the top of the branches leaning over the top of the altar. While doing so, they would sound tekia, terua, tekia (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:21).



Circling the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫ה ָ ּק ַפת ַה ִּמ‬‎ַ : On each of the days of Sukkot, the people would circle the altar while holding their lulavim and recite: Lord, please save us. Lord, please grant us success. On the seventh day, they circled the altar seven times. It is a custom in all Jewish communities today to circle a Torah scroll placed in the center of the synagogue, to evoke the practice in the Temple (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:23). ‫המ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 45a 

219

notes

So is its performance on Shabbat – ‫כךְ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ָּ This is true when the seventh day, the day of the willow branch, coincides with Shabbat (Me’iri and others). Numerous and long and eleven cubits high – ‫ַר ּבֹות וַ ֲארו ּּכֹות‬ ‫וּגְ בֹוהֹות ַא ַחד ָע ָ ׂשר ַא ָּמה‬: Apparently, the measurement of eleven cubits is not an absolute requirement. Rather, to enhance the mitzva, they sought branches of that length (Rav Ya’akov Emden). See Kappot Temarim and Arukh LaNer, who conclude from the formulation of the Rambam that if they did not find branches that long they would take shorter branches and stand them on the surrounding ledge of the altar, or even higher, instead of on the base, so the branches would lean over the top of the altar. halakha

The willow branch in the Temple on Shabbat – ‫ֲע ָר ָבה‬ ‫ב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬: ּ ַ The ritual of standing the willow branches upright in the Temple was the same on Shabbat as during the week, except that the branches were brought to the Temple on Friday, before Shabbat, and they were placed in golden basins filled with water. The following day, on Shabbat, they took the branches and stood them upright on the sides of the altar. The people then came, as they did each weekday, and took smaller branches from among the larger ones and circled the altar while holding them (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:22). The structural dimensions of the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫מ ְבנֵ ה ַה ִּמ‬‎ִ : The altar rose five handbreadths, which constitute one small cubit, and at that point it indented five handbreadths to form the base. It then rose thirty handbreadths, which constitute five standard six-handbreadth cubits, and then indented five additional handbreadths to form the surrounding ledge. It then rose eighteen handbreadths, which constitute three standard six-handbreadth cubits. That is where the arrangement of wood was placed (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 2:4). language

;‫ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ּו ַ ּבחֹול ָּכךְ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫אֹותן ֵמ ֶע ֶרב‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְמ ַל ְּק ִטין‬ ‫אֹותן ְ ּבגִ יגִ ּיֹות ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב ְּכ ֵדי‬ ָ ‫ִיחין‬ ִ ‫ו ַּמ ּנ‬ ‫רֹוקה‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.ּ‫מֹושו‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ְכ‬ ,‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ֲח ָריֹות ׁ ֶשל דֶּ ֶקל ָהי ּו ְמ ִב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ,‫אֹותן ַ ּב ַ ּק ְר ַקע ְ ּבצִ דֵּ י ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ָ ‫חֹוב ִטין‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ .‫״ח ּבוּט ֲח ָריֹות״‬ ִ ‫וְ אֹותֹו ַהּיֹום נִ ְק ָרא‬ ,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹומ ִטין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ְ ‫ִמּיָ ד ִּתינֹוקֹות ׁש‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵ‫אֹוכ ִלין ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬

The mishna notes: As its performance during the week, so is its performance on Shabbat;nh except for the fact that they would gather the branches from Shabbat eve and place them in basins of gold so that they would not dry. Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka says: There was a unique custom on the seventh day. They would bring palm branches to the Temple and place them on the ground at the sides of the altar, and that seventh day of Sukkot was called: The day of the placing of palm branches. Immediately after fulfilling the mitzva of taking the four species on the seventh day of the festival of Sukkot, children remove their lulavim from the binding and eat their etrogim as an expression of extreme joy.

gemara 

It was taught: Motza, which was mentioned ‫ וְ ַת ָּנא‬.‫ ְמקֹום ְק ָלנְיָא ֲהוָ ה‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנָ א‬ in the mishna, was a Roman military colo?‫יה מֹוצָ א‬ ּ ‫דִּ ַידן ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ָק ֵרי ֵל‬ ny [kelanya].l The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, ‫יפק ִמ ַּכ ְר ָ ּגא דְּ ַמ ְל ָּכא ָק ֵרי‬ ַ ּ ‫ ַאּיְ ֵידי דְּ ִמ‬what is the reason that he called it Motza? The reason is that since .‫יה מֹוצָ א‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬it is exempted from the king’s tax [karga],l they call it Motza,b meaning removed. :‫ ָּתנָ א‬.‫אֹותן ְ ּבצִ דֵּ י״ כו׳‬ ָ ‫זֹוק ִפין‬ ְ ְ‫ § ״ו ָּב ִאין ו‬The mishna continues: And after gathering the willow branches, ‫ וּגְ בֹוהֹות ַא ַחד ָע ָ ׂשר‬,‫ ַר ּבֹות וַ ֲארו ּּכֹות‬they would then come and stand them upright at the sides of the ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו גּ ֹוחֹות ַעל ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬,‫ ַא ָּמה‬altar. It was taught: Thenwillow branches were numerous and long, and eleven cubits high, so that they would lean over the altar one .‫ַא ָּמה‬ cubit. ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע‬:‫ימר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָמר זו ְּט ָרא‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ָמ ֵר‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא‬.ּ‫ִמ ָּינ ּה ַעל ַהּיְ סֹוד ַמ ַּנח ְלהו‬ ‫דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ָא ַא ְר ָעא ַמ ַּנח ְלה ּו – ִמ ְּכ ִדי‬ ,‫״ע ָלה ַא ָּמה וְ ָכנַ ס ַא ָּמה זֶ ה ּו יְ סֹוד‬ ָ ‫ ָע ָלה‬,‫סֹובב‬ ֵ ‫ָע ָלה ָח ֵמ ׁש וְ ָכנַס ַא ָּמה זֶ ה ּו‬ ‫ גּ ֹוחֹות ַעל‬,‫ׁ ָשל ֹׁש זֶ ה ּו ְמקֹום ַה ְּק ָרנֹות״‬ ‫יכי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה? ֶא ָּלא‬ ִ ‫ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ֵה‬ ,ּ‫ ַאּיְ סֹוד ַמ ַּנח ְלהו‬:‫ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

Mareimar said in the name of Mar Zutra: Learn from it that one places them on the base of the altar and not on the ground, as, if it enters your mind that one places them on the ground, it would pose a difficulty in understanding the mishna. Now, since the following is stated with regard to the structure of the altar: The altar ascended one cubit high and indented one cubit and that is the base, and it ascended five additional cubits and indented one cubit and that is the surrounding ledge, and it ascended three additional cubits and that is the location of the horns of the altar, as the height of the altar totaled nine cubits;h consequently, where can you find a case where the willow branches lean over the altar one cubit? Due to the indentations, the branches would need to stand inclined. Eleven cubits would not be sufficiently high to lean one cubit over the altar. Rather, is it not that one must conclude from this that the branches were placed on the base, adding a cubit to their height? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that it is so.

– ‫ ַמאי ְק ָר ָא ּה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו‬ ‫בֹותים ַעד‬ ִ ‫״א ְסר ּו ַח ג ַ ּב ֲע‬ ִ :‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ,‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו‬.‫ַק ְרנֹות ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח״‬ ‫ֹוטל לו ָּלב‬ ֵ ּ‫ ָּכל ַהנ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ְ ּב ִאגּ וּדֹו וַ ֲה ַדס ַ ּב ֲעבֹותֹו ַמ ֲע ֶלה ָע ָליו‬ ּ ‫ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִא‬ ‫יל ּו ָ ּבנָ ה ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח וְ ִה ְק ִריב‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ָע ָליו ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬

Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse that alludes to the fact that the branches must lean one cubit over the top of the altar? It is as it is stated: “Encircle [isru] with branches on the Festival until the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27), indicating that willow branches should surround the horns of the altar. That is facilitated by standing the branches on the base. The Gemara cites derivations based on different interpretations of the terms in that verse. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to anyone who takes a lulav in its binding and a myrtle branch in its dense-leaved form, the verse ascribes him credit as though he built an altar and sacrificed an offering upon it, as it is stated:

Colony [kelanya] – ‫ק ָלנְיָא‬:ְ From the Latin colonia, meaning colony, especially a military colony or base. Tax [karga] – ‫כ ְר ָ ּגא‬:ַּ Related to the Middle Persian harg, meaning tribute.

background

Motza – ‫מֹוצָ א‬: Motza is a village several kilometers west of Jerusalem. It is first mentioned in the book of Joshua (18:26) as one of the cities of Benjamin. In the tannaitic era, the Romans established a military colony adjacent to it to guard Jerusalem.

Roman sarcophagus found in Motza

220 

Perek IV . 45a . ‫המ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

Perek IV Daf 45 Amud b .‫בֹותים ַעד ַק ְרנֹות ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח״‬ ִ ‫״א ְסר ּו ַח ג ַ ּב ֲע‬ ִ ,‫יֹוחי‬ ַ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַה ְּמחֹוזִ י ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יסוּר ֶל ָחג‬ ּ ‫עֹושה ִא‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָּכל ָה‬:‫ֹותי‬ ִ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ַה ַמ ּכ‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה ו ׁ ְּש ִתּיָ ה – ַמ ֲע ֶלה ָע ָליו ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִאילּ ּו‬ ‫״א ְסר ּו‬ ִ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ָ ּבנָ ה ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח וְ ִה ְק ִריב ָע ָליו ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬ .‫בֹותים ַעד ַק ְרנֹות ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח״‬ ִ ‫ַחג ַ ּב ֲע‬

“Bind [isru] with dense-leaved branches [ba’avotim] on the Festival until the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27),n which alludes to both the binding of the lulav and to the myrtle branch, referred to in the Torah as the branch of a dense-leaved tree [anaf etz avot]. Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai,p and Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon HaMeĥozi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoĥanan HaMakkoti: With regard to anyone who establishes an addition [issur] to the Festival on the day after the Festival by eating and drinking,h the verse ascribes him credit as though he built an altar and sacrificed an offering upon it, as it is stated: “Add [isru] to the Festival with fattened animals [ba’avotim] until the horns of the altar.”

notes

Until the horns of the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫עד ַק ְרנֹות ַה ִּמ‬‎ַ : Apparently, the homiletic interpretation here is: Until the horns of the altar, meaning that it is considered as if he built the altar from its foundation to its horns. The manner of their growth – ‫דֶּ ֶרךְ ְ ּג ִד ָיל ָתן‬: Commentaries explain why the etrog is held with the stem facing downward, despite the fact that it actually grows the opposite way. Some explain that when the etrog begins to develop, it grows upward. It is only when the fruit grows larger and heavier that it begins to hang down. Another opinion is that this principle applies only to the palm, myrtle and willow branches, but not to the fruit of the etrog tree (see Binyan Shlomo).

‫ § ָא ַמר ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬Apropos the halakha cited by Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of ‫ ָּכל ַה ִּמצְ �ֹות ּכו ָּּלן ֵאין ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ֶהן‬:‫יֹוחי‬ ַ ‫ ֶ ּבן‬Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai, the Gemara cites additional halakhot. ‫״עצֵ י ׁ ִש ִּטים‬ ֲ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יל ָתן‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא דֶּ ֶר ְך ְ ּג ִד‬Ĥizkiya said that Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai: With regard to all objects used in perfor.‫עֹומ ִדים״‬ ְ mance of each and every one of the mitzvot, a person fulfills his obligation only when the objects are positioned in the manner of their growth.n One must take the lulav with the bottom of the branch facing down, as it is stated with regard to the beams of the Tabernacle: “Acacia wood, standing” (Exodus 26:15), indicating that the beams stood in the manner of their growth. – ‫עֹומ ִדים״‬ ְ ‫״עצֵ י ׁ ִש ִּטים‬ ֲ :‫ַּתנְ יָ א נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ – ‫״עֹומ ִדים״‬ ְ :‫ דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫עֹומ ִדים דֶּ ֶרךְ ְ ּג ִד ָיל ָתן‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש‬ – ‫״עֹומ ִדים״‬ ְ :‫ דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ֲע ִמ ִידין ֶאת צִ ּיפוּיָ ן‬ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ֹאמר ָא ַבד ִס ְיב ָרם ו ָּב ֵטל ִס ּיכוּיָ ין‬ ַ ‫ׁ ֶש ָּמא ּת‬ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫עֹומ ִדים ְל‬ ְ ‫עֹומ ִדים״ ׁ ֶש‬ ְ ‫״עצֵ י ׁ ִש ִּטים‬ ֲ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ .‫עֹול ִמים‬ ָ ‫עֹול ֵמי‬ ְ ‫ו ְּל‬

That was also taught in a baraita: “Acacia wood, standing,” indicating that they stand in the Tabernacle in the manner of their growth in nature.h Alternatively, standing means that the beams support their gold plating that is affixed to the beams with nails. Alternatively, standing teaches: Lest you say that after the destruction of the Tabernacle their hope is lost and their prospect is abolished,n and they will never serve a sacred purpose again, therefore the verse states: “Acacia wood, standing,” meaning that they stand forever and for all time and will yet be revealed and utilized again.

Etrog at an early stage of growth, facing upward Their hope and their prospect – ‫יכוּיָ ין‬ ּ ‫ס ְב ָרם וְ ִס‬:ִ Some commentaries explain: Their hope is that the people will once again utilize these materials; their prospect is that they are anticipating when that will be fulfilled (Arukh LaNer).

Personality

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai – ‫יֹוחי‬ ַ ‫ר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬:ַ Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai was one of the greatest Sages of the tannaitic era in the generation prior to the redaction of the Mishna. He was the primary student of Rabbi Akiva and considered himself his successor. Rabbi Akiva valued his student greatly and said to him: It is sufficient that I and your Creator recognize your strength. Rabbi Shimon was preeminent in both legal and aggadic matters, and his numerous teachings are cited in every tractate and on every topic. Although the halakha is not always ruled in accordance with his opinion, particularly in disputes with Rabbi Yosei or Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion in many fundamental areas of halakha. Rabbi Shimon also had a unique approach in halakhic midrash wherein he interpreted the rationale of verses, i.e., he arrived at legal conclusions based on his understanding of the

reason behind a halakha. Some of his most prominent students were Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and his own son Rabbi Elazar, who, like his father, was one of the greatest Sages of the tannaitic era. Rabbi Shimon traveled to Rome as a representative of the Jewish people. However, upon his return to Eretz Yisrael, he openly denounced the Roman government. As a result of his comments, he was sentenced to death and spent many years in hiding. Rabbi Shimon was known as one of the outstanding righteous individuals of his era and as a miracle worker. Many stories are told of the wondrous deeds that he performed. Sifrei, the halakhic midrash on the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy, was formulated in his study hall. Rabbi Shimon is also the central personality in the book of the Zohar. He remains an object of admiration even today.

halakha

Eating and drinking on the day after the Festival – ‫ֲא ִכ ָילה ו ׁ ְּש ִתּיָ ה‬ ‫ב ִא ְסר ּו ַחג‬:ּ ְ It is the customary to eat and drink a bit more than usual on the day following the conclusion of the Festival (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 429:2 in the comment of the Rema). The manner of holding the species – ‫א ֶֹפן ַה ְחזָ ַקת ַה ִּמינִים‬: When taking the four species, one must hold them upright, with the



top facing up and the roots facing down. The etrog is also held upright, with the stem pointing down. Some have adopted the custom of pointing the top of the lulav down when shaking it downward; however, that is not the common practice. Instead, most hold the lulav upright even when shaking it downward (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:2; see also the Rema’s comment on 651:9). ‫המ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 45b 

221

‫וְ ָא ַמר ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ יָ כֹול ֲאנִי ִל ְפטֹור ֶאת ָּכל‬:‫יֹוחי‬ ַ ‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ‫אתי ַעד‬ ִ ‫עֹולם ּכוּלּ ֹו ִמן ַהדִּ ין ִמּיֹום ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְב ֵר‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ‫יעזֶ ר ְ ּבנִי ִע ִּמי – ִמּיֹום‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי ֱא ִל‬,‫ַע ָּתה‬ ‫ וְ ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי‬,‫עֹולם וְ ַעד ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְב ָרא ָה‬ ‫יֹותם ֶ ּבן עוּּזִ ּיָ ה ּו ִע ָּמנ ּו – ִמּיֹום ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְב ָרא‬ ָ .‫עֹולם ַעד סֹופֹו‬ ָ ‫ָה‬

And Ĥizkiya said that Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai: I am able to absolve the entire worldn from judgment for sins committed from the day I was created until now. The merit that he accrued through his righteousness and the suffering that he endured atone for the sins of the entire world. And were the merit accrued by Eliezer, my son, calculated along with my own, we would absolve the world from judgment for sins committed from the day that the world was created until now. And were the merit accrued by the righteous king, Jotham ben Uzziah,n calculated with our own, we would absolve the world from judgment for sins committed from the day that the world was created until its end. The righteousness of these three serves as a counterbalance to all the evil deeds committed throughout the generations, and it validates the ongoing existence of the world.

‫וְ ָא ַמר ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יתי ְ ּבנֵי ֲע ִלּיָ יה וְ ֵהן‬ ִ ‫ ָר ִא‬:‫יֹוחי‬ ַ ‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ,‫ ִאם ֶא ֶלף ֵהן – ֲאנִי ו ְּבנִי ֵמ ֶהן‬,‫מו ָּע ִטין‬ ‫ ִאם ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬,‫ִאם ֵמ ָאה ֵהם – ֲאנִי ו ְּבנִי ֵמ ֶהן‬ ?‫ ו ִּמי זו ְּט ֵרי ּכו ֵּּלי ַהאי‬.‫ֵהן – ֲאנִי ו ְּבנִי ֵהן‬ ‫ ְּת ַמנֵי ְס ֵרי ַא ְל ֵפי דָּ ָרא‬:‫וְ ָהא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ּנ ֱֶא ַמר‬,‫יה קו ְּד ׁ ָשא ְ ּב ִריךְ הוּא‬ ּ ‫ֲהוָ ה דְּ ַק ֵּמ‬ :‫״ס ִביב ׁ ְשמֹנָ ה ָע ָ ׂשר ֶא ֶלף״! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ָ ,‫ָהא דְּ ִמ ְס ַּת ְּכ ִלי ְ ּב ַא ְס ּ ַפ ְק ַל ְריָ א ַה ְּמ ִא ָירה‬ ‫ָהא – דְּ ָלא ִמ ְס ַּת ְּכ ִלי ְ ּב ַא ְס ּ ַפ ְק ַל ְריָ א‬ .‫ַה ְּמ ִא ָירה‬

And Ĥizkiya said that Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai: I have seen members of the caste of the spiritually prominent,n who are truly righteous, and they are few. If they number one thousand, I and my son are among them. If they number one hundred, I and my son are among them; and if they number two, I and my son are they. The Gemara asks: Are they so few? But didn’t Rava say: There are eighteen thousand righteous individuals in a row before the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Surrounding are eighteen thou­sand” (Ezekiel 48:35)? Apparently, the righteous are numerous. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai is referring to the very few who view the Divine Presence through a bright, mirror-like partition,n while that statement of Rava is referring to those who do not view the Divine Presence through a bright partition.

‫ו ְּד ִמ ְס ַּת ְּכ ִלי ְ ּב ַא ְס ּ ַפ ְק ַל ְריָ א ַה ְּמ ִא ָירה ִמי‬ ‫ ָלא‬:‫זו ְּט ֵרי ּכו ֵּּלי ַהאי? וְ ָהא ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫יתא צַ דִּ ֵיקי‬ ָּ ‫ּ ְפחוּת ָע ְל ָמא ִמ ְּת ָל ִתין וְ ׁ ִש‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫דִּ ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלי ַא ּ ֵפי ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה ְ ּב ָכל יֹום‬ ‫ימ ְט ִרּיָ א‬ ַ ִ‫חֹוכי לֹו״ – ל״ו ְ ּבג‬ ֵ ‫״א ׁ ְש ֵרי ָּכל‬ ַ – ‫ ָהא‬:‫יתא ָהווּ! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ָּ ‫ְּת ָל ִתין וְ ׁ ִש‬ .‫ ָהא – דְּ ָעיְ ִילי ְ ּב ָלא ַ ּבר‬,‫דְּ ָעיְ ִילי ְ ּב ַבר‬

The Gemara asks further: And are those who view the Divine Presence through a bright partition so few? But didn’t Abaye say: The world has no fewer than thirty-six righteousn people in each generation who greet the Divine Presence every day, as it is stated: “Happy are all they that wait for Him [lo]” (Isaiah 30:18)? The numerological value of lo, spelled lamed vav, is thirty-six, alluding to the fact that there are at least thirty-six fullfledged righteous individuals in each generation. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement of Abaye is referring to those who enter to greet the Divine Presence by requesting and being granted permission,n while that statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai is referring to those who enter even without requesting permission, for whom the gates of Heaven are open at all times. They are very few indeed.

notes

I am able to absolve the entire world – ‫ יָ כֹול ֲאנִי ִל ְפטֹור ֶאת ָּכל‬their lofty spiritual level. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai and his son ‫עֹולם ּכו ּּלֹו‬ ָ ‫ה‬:ָ Rabbeinu Ĥananel writes that because he lived in a were forced into hiding and resided in a cave for many years. cave for thirteen years, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai enjoyed many Jotham merely ruled as a substitute for his father but never asdivine revelations. One was that he was informed by divine serted his own rulings. Because they were not rewarded, their sources that he was a full-fledged righteous individual. That is reward is atonement for the sins of others (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). why he could make these audacious statements without being Furthermore, Jotham ben Uzziah is the only king in the Bible guilty of presumptuousness. with regard to whom there are absolutely no disparaging remarks, only praise. Apparently, he possessed no imperfections. Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Shimon, Jotham ben Uzziah – ,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬In Bereshit Rabba, as well as in the Jerusalem Talmud in tractate ‫יֹותם ֶ ּבן עוּּזִ ּיָ ה ּו‬ ָ ,‫ר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬:ַ This concept of grouping righteous Berakhot, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai suggested the addition of people together evokes the story of Sodom, where God was other righteous individuals to him and his son, e.g., Abraham willing to spare each of the cities thanks to the righteous who and the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite. lived there. Based on the extent of their spiritual prominence, Members of the caste of the prominent – ‫בנֵי ֲע ִלּיָ יה‬:ּ ְ This is a righteous people have the ability to affect a greater area for a reference to individuals who are privileged to rise to the highest longer period of time. For a discussion whether the merit of levels of the Garden of Eden (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai benefited his generation, see Arukh LaNer. View through a bright, mirror-like partition – ‫ִמ ְס ַּת ְּכ ִלי‬ With regard to the grouping of these three particular indi- ‫ב ַא ְס ּ ַפ ְק ַל ְריָ א ַה ְּמ ִא ָירה‬:ּ ְ The Maharsha asks: Doesn’t the Gemara viduals, some explain that it is due to the fact that although say none of the prophets were privileged to view the Divine these three were full-fledged righteous individuals, none were Presence through a bright, mirror-like partition other than Moprivileged to derive benefit from this world proportional to ses, as the Torah states explicitly (see Numbers 12:8)? Why then

222 

Perek IV . 45b . ‫המ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

does the Gemara here indicate that other righteous individuals achieved that level? He answers that in some respects a Torah scholar is superior to a prophet and merits to reach heights unattainable by a prophet, albeit not by means of prophecy. Others suggest that the distinction between Moses and the other prophets is during their lifetime, as their corporeal existence obstructed their spiritual enlightenment. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai is referring to righteous people who died and ascended to the purely spiritual world, where they are privileged to view God through a bright partition. Thirty-six righteous – ‫ת ָל ִתין וְ ׁ ִש ָּיתא צַ דִּ ֵיקי‬:ְּ Some explain that the number thirty-six represents a majority of the Sanhedrin, the court that justifies the continued existence of the world (Nezer HaKodesh; see HaBoneh on Berakhot). Who enter by being granted permission [bar] – ‫דְּ ָעיְ ִילי ְ ּב ַבר‬: Some explain that this means that they ascend together with their son [bar]. This is based on the notion that there are only few among the righteous privileged to have a child as righteous as they (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Arukh).

.‫אֹומ ִרים״ וכו׳‬ ְ ‫״ב ׁ ְש ַעת ּ ְפ ִט ָיר ָתן ָמה ֵהן‬ ִּ ,‫וְ ָהא ָקא ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּתף ׁ ֵשם ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ ‫ ָּכל ַה ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּתף ׁ ֵשם ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬:‫וְ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫״ב ְל ִּתי ַלה׳‬ ּ ִ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫נֶע ָקר ִמן ָה‬ ֱ ‫מֹודים‬ ִ ‫ ְליָ ּה ֲאנַ ְחנ ּו‬:‫ְל ַבדּ ֹו״! ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ָ‫ ו ְּלך‬,‫מֹודים‬ ִ ‫ ְליָ ּה ֲאנַ ְחנ ּו‬,‫ו ְּלךָ ָאנ ּו ְמ ׁ ַש ְ ּב ִחין‬ .‫ָאנ ּו ְמ ַק ְּל ִסין‬

§ The mishna asks: At the time of their departure at the end of the

Festival, what would they say? The mishna answers that they would praise the altar and glorify God. The Gemara challenges this: But in doing so aren’t they joining the name of Heaven and another entity, and it was taught in a baraita: Anyone who joins the name of Heaven and another entityh is uprooted from the world, as it is stated: “He that sacrifices unto the gods, save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:19)? The Gemara answers that this is what the people are saying when they depart the Temple: To the Lord, we acknowledge that He is our God, and to you, the altar, we give praise; to the Lord, we acknowledge that He is our God, and to you, the altar, we give acclaim. The praise to God and the praise to the altar are clearly distinct.

‫ ַמאי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫״כ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ּו ַ ּבחֹול״‬ ְּ § The mishna continues: As its performance during the week, so :‫רֹוקה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬is its performance on Shabbat. And according to Rabbi Yoĥanan ‫ ַא ַחת ַל ּלו ָּלב וְ ַא ַחת‬,‫״כ ּפֹות״ – ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ַּ ben Beroka, on the seventh day of the Festival they would bring palm branches to the Temple. Rav Huna said: What is the .‫״כ ּ ַפת״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ַּ :‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫ ַל ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ra­tion­ale for the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka? It is as it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm” (Leviticus 23:40). Branches in the plural indicates that two branches must be taken, one for the lulav and one for placement around the altar.n And the Rabbis say: Although the word is vocalized in the plural, based on tradition it is written kappot, without the letter vav. Therefore, it is interpreted as if it were written kappat, indicating that only one palm branch need be taken.

halakha

The name of Heaven and another entity – ‫ׁ ֵשם ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ ‫וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬: It is prohibited to take an oath in the name of another entity together with the mention of God’s name, even if the other entity is sacred. Whoever does so is uprooted from the world (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Shevuot 11:2). The blessings over sukka and lulav – ‫ב ְר ּכֹות סו ָּּכה וְ לו ָּלב‬:ּ ִ One recites the blessing over both the sukka and the lulav when fulfilling the mitzva, on all days of the Festival (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 639:1, 658:1, 662:1). notes

Placing of the branches – ‫ח ּבוּט ֲח ָריֹות‬:ִ Apparently, according to Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka, they would place the palm branches each day, but on the seventh day they would place more of them. Therefore, that day was called: The day of placing of the palm branches (Rid). The mitzva of lulav is by rabbinic law – ‫לו ָּלב דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬: The Ritva is of the opinion that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion has far-reaching ramifications: No blessing is recited over a mitzva by rabbinic law. Consequently, in his opinion one does not recite a blessing over mitzvot like the ritual washing of hands or the kindling of Shabbat lights.

‫ ַמה ָּת ָמר זֶ ה ֵאין‬,‫ ְּכ ָת ָמר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵלוִ י‬Rabbi Levi says: The rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan ‫ לֹו ֶא ָּלא ֵלב ֶא ָחד – ַאף יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֵאין ָל ֶהם‬ben Beroka is not based on a verse. Rather, it is a custom that devel.‫יהם ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵלב ֶא ָחד ַל ֲא ִב‬oped to express praise for the Jewish people, likening them to a date palm. Just as the date palm has only one heart, as branches do not grow from its trunk but rather the trunk rises and branches emerge only at the top, so too, the Jewish people have only one heart directed toward their Father in Heaven. ‫ לו ָּלב‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫ וְ סו ָּּכה יֹום ֶא ָחד‬,‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫לו ָּלב דְּ ִמ ְפ ְס ִקי ֵלילֹות ִמּיָ ִמים – ָּכל‬ ‫ סו ָּּכה דְּ ָלא‬,‫יה הוּא‬ ּ ‫יה נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ּ ‫ִמצְ וָ ה ְ ּב ַא ּ ֵפ‬ ‫ִמ ְפ ְס ִקי ֵלילֹות ִמּיָ ִמים – ּכו ְּּלה ּו ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ .ּ‫יכא דָּ מו‬ ָ ‫יֹומא ֲא ִר‬ ָ ‫ְּכ ַחד‬

§ Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The blessing over the mitzva

‫ סו ָּּכה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫ וְ לו ָּלב יֹום ֶא ָחד‬,‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ – ‫ לו ָּלב דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫אֹוריְ ָיתא – ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ַ ְּ‫סו ָּּכה ד‬ .‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫יה ְ ּב ַחד‬ ּ ‫ַסגִ י ֵל‬

But Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The blessing over the mitzva of sukka is recited seven days and the blessing over the mitzva of lulav is recited one day. What is the rationale for this distinction? The Gemara explains: The mitzva of sukka is a mitzva by Torah law all seven days of the Festival. Therefore, a blessing is recited for seven days. However, the mitzva of lulav, other than on the first day, is a mitzva by rabbinic law,n as the Sages instituted an ordinance to take the lulav for all seven days to commemorate the practice in the Temple. Therefore, it is enough to recite the blessing one day, on the first day.

‫ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ נְ קֹוט‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫וְ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫מֹור ֵאי‬ ָ ‫ דְּ כו ְּּלה ּו ֲא‬, ְ‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ְ ּביָ ָדך‬ .‫יה ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ֵ ָ‫ימי ְּכו‬ ִ ְ‫ָקי‬ ּ ‫ות‬

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: One recites a blessing over both this, the mitzva of sukka, and over that, the mitzva of lulav,h all seven days. Rav Yosef said: Take the statement of Rabba bar bar Ĥana in your hand, as all the amora’im who transmitted statements of Rabbi Yoĥanan hold in accordance with his opinion in matters related to sukka.

of lulav is recited seven days and the blessing over the mitzva of sukka is recited one day. What is the rationale for this distinction? It is written explicitly in the Torah that the mitzva to sit in the sukka applies all seven days. The Gemara explains: With regard to the lulav, where the nights are distinct from the days, as the mitzva of lulav is not in effect at night, each day is a mitzva in and of itself. A separate blessing is recited over each mitzva. However, with regard to sukka, where the nights are not distinct from the days, as the mitzva of sukka is in effect at night just as it is during the day, the legal status of all seven days of the Festival is like that of one long day.

:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: 

‫המ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 45b 

223

Perek IV Daf 46 Amud a notes

One who prepares a lulav – ‫עֹושה לו ָּלב‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ה‬:ָ The Me’iri explained that although one no longer recites a blessing over binding the lulav, one recites the blessing of time when binding the four species. The Ra’avad distinguishes between mitzvot over which one recites the blessing of time because they contain an element of pleasure and joy, e.g., binding one’s own lulav, and mitzvot over which one does not recite the blessing because there is no pleasure or joy, i.e., binding a lulav for another. To reside [leishev] in the sukka – ‫ישב ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ל‬:ֵ The author of the Me’iri writes, as do many subsequent authorities, that the verb leishev in the context of sukka is not referring to its literal meaning of sitting, but rather as it appears in the verse: “And you resided [vateshvu] in Kadesh many days” (Deuteronomy 1:46), meaning remained in one place. As a result, there are differing opinions with regard to the appropriate time to recite the blessing, as there is a dispute with regard to the practical definition of the term leishev in the context of sukka.

‫״ברו ְּך‬ ּ ָ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫עֹושה לו ָּלב ְל ַעצְ מֹו‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ָה‬ .‫יענ ּו ַלּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה״‬ ָ ‫ימנ ּו וְ ִה ִ ּג‬ ָ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱחיָ ינ ּו וְ ִקּי‬ ‫״ברו ְּך ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬ ּ ָ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫נְ ָטלֹו ָלצֵ את ּבֹו‬ ‫ילת‬ ַ ‫�ֹותיו וְ צִ ָּונ ּו ַעל נְ ִט‬ ָ ְ‫ִקדְּ ׁ ָשנ ּו ְ ּב ִמצ‬ ‫ וְ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵ ּב ַיר ְך ָע ָליו יֹום‬.‫לו ָּלב״‬ .‫אשֹון – חֹוזֵ ר ו ְּמ ָב ֵר ְך ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ‫״ברו ְּך‬ ּ ָ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫עֹושה סו ָּּכה ְל ַעצְ מֹו‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ָה‬ ‫ישב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ נִ ְכנַ ס ֵל‬.‫ימנוּ״ כו׳‬ ָ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱחיָ ינ ּו וְ ִקּי‬ ‫�ֹותיו‬ ָ ְ‫״א ׁ ֶשר ִקדְּ ׁ ָשנ ּו ְ ּב ִמצ‬ ֲ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ֵ ּב ֵיר ְך‬.‫ישב ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה״‬ ֵ ׁ ‫וְ צִ ָּונ ּו ֵל‬ . ְ‫אשֹון – ׁשוּב ֵאינֹו ְמ ָב ֵרך‬ ׁ ‫יֹום ִר‬

One who prepares a lulavn for himself, but not one who prepares for others, recites when preparing it on the eve of the Festival: Blessed…Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time.h When he takes it during the Festival in order to fulfill his obligation, he says: Blessed…Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us concerning the taking of a lulav. And even though he recited the blessing over the lulav on the first day of the Festival, he repeats and recites the blessing over the lulav all seven daysh when fulfilling the mitzva. One who establishes a sukka for himself recites: Blessed…Who has given us life,h sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he enters to sit in the sukka, he recites: “Blessed…Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to reside in the sukka.n And once he recited the blessing on the first day, he no longer recites it on the rest of the days, as all seven days are considered a single unit.

‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א סו ָּּכה‬,‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א לו ָּלב ַא ּלו ָּלב‬Now, the halakha cited in this baraita that the blessing over lulav !‫ ַא ּסו ָּּכה‬is recited all seven days is difficult; it contradicts the halakha stated by Rabba bar bar Ĥana in the name of Rabbi Yoĥanan, that the blessing over lulav is recited only on the first day. The halakha cited in this baraita that the blessing over sukka is recited only on the first day is likewise difficult, as it contradicts the halakha that Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said, that the blessing over sukka is recited all seven days. ;‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא לו ָּלב ַא ּלו ָּלב ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ,‫ָּכאן – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים‬ .‫ָּכאן – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים‬ !‫ֶא ָּלא סו ָּּכה ַא ּסו ָּּכה ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬

The Gemara continues: Granted, the contradiction between the halakha with regard to lulav in the baraita and the halakha with regard to lulav stated in the name of Rabbi Yoĥanan is not difficult. Here, in the baraita, where the halakha is to recite the blessing each day, it is referring to a time when the Temple is in existence, where the mitzva of lulav is performed all seven days. There, in the case of the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan that the blessing is recited only on the first day, it is referring to a time when the Temple is not in existence. However, the contradiction between one halakha of sukka and the other halakha of sukka remains difficult, as Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement indicates that the mitzva of sukka during the Festival is considered seven separate mitzvot, while the halakha in the baraita indicates that it is one extended mitzva.

ִּ ‫ ְּת ִפ‬:‫ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא; דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ ָּכל זְ ַמן‬,‫ילין‬ .‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ִיחן ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ֲע ֵל‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ּנ‬ ‫ ֵאינֹו ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ֶא ָּלא‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ .‫ׁ ַש ֲח ִרית ִ ּב ְל ָבד‬

The Gemara answers: This matter is related to a general dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to phylacteries, every time one dons them he recites the blessing over them;h this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: One recites the blessing only in the morning. Apparently, these tanna’im would dispute the issue of sukka as well: Does one recite the blessing each time he performs the mitzva or only the first time he performs it at the beginning of Sukkot?

halakha

The blessing, Who has given us life, for a lulav – ‫ ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱחיָ ינ ּו‬Gemara and the practice according to most opinions, one re‫על ַה ּלו ָּלב‬:ַ After reciting the blessing over the lulav, prior to cites the blessing over the lulav each day it is taken. However, taking the lulav, or prior to adjoining the etrog to the lulav, one the blessing is recited only once a day, even if he takes it several recites the blessing: Who has given us life. It is not customary to times over the course of the day (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim recite this blessing when preparing the lulav. This is either due 622:1, and in the comment of the Rema according to Rabbi to the opinion of Rav Kahana or due to the statement in tractate Ya’akov Weil). Menaĥot that one recites the blessing only at the conclusion of the mitzva (Rosh; Ritva). One recites this blessing on the first day The blessing, Who has given us life, in the sukka – ‫ִ ּב ְר ַּכת‬ that he takes the lulav. If he forgot to recite the blessing at that ‫ש ֶה ֱחיָ ינ ּו ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה‬: ֶ ׁ One recites the blessing: Who has given us life, point, he may recite it on the day that he remembers to do so when fulfilling the mitzva of sukka. However, one does not (Ĥayyei Adam; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 651:5–6). recite the blessing when he constructs the sukka, for the same He repeats and recites the blessing over the lulav all seven reason that one does not recite the blessing when preparing days – ‫חֹוזֵ ר ו ְּמ ָב ֵר ְך ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬: Based on the conclusion of the the lulav. Rather, he recites the blessing when reciting kiddush

224 

Perek IV . 46a . ‫ומ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

inside the sukka, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 641). ִּ ‫ב ְר ַּכת ְּת ִפ‬: The blessing over phylacteries – ‫ילין‬ ּ ִ If one dons phylacteries several times during a single day, he recites the blessing each time. This is because fundamentally, virtually all authorities rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. In a case where one’s phylacteries were dislodged, or he removed them intentionally, some require him to recite the blessing again. However, the custom is not to recite the blessing again if he removed the phylacteries for a short period of time with the intent to don them again immediately (Rema, based on Tur; see Shulĥan Arukh HaRav and Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 25:12).

‫ וְ ָר ָבא‬,‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬,‫ִא ְּת ַמר‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָמ ִרי ְ ּב ָר ּה‬.‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫יה ְל ָר ָבא דְּ ָלא‬ ּ ‫ ָחזֵ ינָ א ֵל‬:‫דְּ ַבת ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ַמ ְקדִּ ים וְ ָק ֵאי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָע ֵביד ִּכ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ נָ ֵפיק ּו ָמ ׁ ֵשי יְ ֵד‬,‫וְ ָעיֵ יל ֵבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא‬ ‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫יך ז‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִכי ִאצְ ְט ִר‬. ְ‫ו ַּמ ַּנח ְּת ִפ ִּילין ו ְּמ ָב ֵרך‬ ‫ וְ נָ ֵפיק ו ָּמ ׁ ֵשי‬,‫ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָעיֵ יל ְל ֵבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא‬ ‫ וַ ֲאנַן נַ ִמי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬. ְ‫ ו ַּמ ַּנח ְּת ִפ ִּילין ו ְּמ ָב ֵרך‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יְ ֵד‬ .‫ ו ְּמ ָב ְר ִכין ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬,‫ָע ְב ִדינַן‬

Apropos phylacteries, it was stated that Abaye said: The hala­kha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said: I observed Rava, who did not act in accordance with his own hala­kha and recite the blessing over phylacteries only once. Rather, he rises early, and enters the bathroom, and exits, and washes his hands, and dons phylacteries, and recites the blessing. And when he needs to go another time, he enters the bathroom, and exits, and washes his hands, and then dons phylacteries, and then recites the blessing. And we too, in the case of sukka, act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and recite the blessing all seven days.h

‫ דְּ ָכל‬,‫יה ְל ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ִפי‬ ּ ‫ ָחזֵ ינָ א ֵל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָמר זו ְּט ָרא‬Mar Zutra said: I observed Rav Pappi, who recited the bless‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן ְד ֵבי ַרב‬. ְ‫ימת דְּ ַמ ַּנח ְּת ִפ ִּילין ְמ ָב ֵרך‬ ַ ‫ ֵא‬ing whenever he donned phylacteries. The Sages of the the blessing whenever they .‫ימת דְּ ַמ ׁ ְש ְמ ׁ ִשי ְ ּבה ּו ְמ ָב ְר ִכי‬ ַ ‫ ָּכל ֵא‬,‫ ַא ׁ ִשי‬school of Rav Ashi recited touched the phylacteriesn that they were donning. ‫ ִמצְ וַ ת לו ָּלב‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְהו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ יֹום‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ָא ַמר‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָיל ְך ִמצְ וַ ת‬,‫אשֹון ִמצְ וַ ת לו ָּלב‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ‫יֹומא ִמצְ וַ ת‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר‬.‫זְ ֵקנִים‬ ‫ימא ָלן‬ ָ ְ‫אשֹון?! וְ ָהא ַקי‬ ׁ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו יֹום ִר‬.‫זְ ֵקנִים‬ ‫ ַ ּבר ִמּיֹום‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יתא! ֵא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫אשֹון ד‬ ׁ ‫דְּ יֹום ִר‬ !‫יְהֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ .‫ וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬

§ Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The blessing over the

.‫ ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ִמצְ וַ ת לו ָּלב‬:‫וְ ַאף ַרב ָס ַבר‬ :‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬, ְ‫ַה ַּמ ְד ִליק נֵ ר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה צָ ִריךְ ְל ָב ֵרך‬ ְ‫רֹואה נֵ ר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה צָ ִריך‬ ֶ ‫ ָה‬:‫יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ָא ַמר‬ ‫ יֹום‬:‫ ַמאי ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ? ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬. ְ‫ְל ָב ֵרך‬ ‫רֹואה‬ ֶ ‫ ָה‬,‫ ַה ַּמ ְד ִליק ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ְ‫ ַמ ְד ִליק ְמ ָב ֵרך‬, ְ‫ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילך‬.‫ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ .‫רֹואה ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַא ַחת‬ ֶ ְ‫ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ו‬

The Gemara notes: And Rav also held that the blessing over the mitzva of lulav is recited all seven days, and one recites the blessing even on the six days when the mitzva is by rabbinic law, as Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One who lights a Hanukkah light must recite a blessing. Rabbi Yirmeya said: One who sees a burning Hanukkah light must recite a blessing. What blessings does one recite? Rav Yehuda said: On the first day of Hanukkah, the one who lights recites three blessings: To light the Hanukkah light, Who has performed miracles, and the blessing of time. The one who sees burning lights recites two blessings. From this point onward, from the second day of Hanukkah, the one who lights recites two blessings, and the one who sees recites one blessing.h

‫״בר ּו ְך ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִקדְּ ׁ ָשנ ּו‬ ּ ָ – ‫ּו ַמאי ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬ .‫(של) ֲחנו ָּּכה״‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ִמצְ ו ָֹתיו וְ צִ ָּונ ּו ְל ַה ְד ִליק נֵ ר‬ ‫ וְ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר‬.‫יכן צִ ָּונוּ? ִמ״ל ֹא ָתסוּר״‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵה‬ .‫״ש ַאל ָא ִביךָ וְ יַ ֵ ּג ְדךָ ״‬ ְ ׁ :‫יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר‬



mitzva of lulav is recited all seven days of the Festival. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: On the first day, there is the mitzva of lulav by Torah law, and one recites a blessing. From that point onward it is a mitzva of the Elders,n a rabbinic ordinance to commemorate the Temple, and one is not required to recite a blessing. Rabbi Yitzĥak said: On each day of Sukkot it is a mitzva of the Elders. The Gemara wonders: Even on the first day? But don’t we maintain that on the first day the mitzva of lulav is by Torah law? The Gemara emends the citation. Say that Rabbi Yitzĥak said: On each day of Sukkot except for the first day. The Gemara asks: If so, that opinion is the same as that of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi; but they appear to disagree. The Gemara answers: Emend the citation and say: And likewise, Rabbi Yitzĥak said, in agreement with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

The Gemara asks: And what is the first blessing that one recites? He recites: Blessed…Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light. The Gemara asks: And where did He command us? The mitzva of Hanukkah is not mentioned in the Torah, so how can one say that it was commanded to us by God? The Gemara answers: The obligation to recite this blessing is derived from the verse: “You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto you, to the right, nor to the left” (Deuter­ onomy 17:11). From this verse, the mitzva incumbent upon all Jews to heed the statements and decrees of the Sages is derived. Therefore, one who fulfills their directives fulfills a mitzva by Torah law. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said that the mitzva to heed the voice of the Elders is derived from the verse: “Ask your father,n and he will declare unto you, your Elders, and they will tell you” (Deuteronomy 32:7).

halakha

Reciting the blessing over sukka all seven days – ‫סו ָּּכה ָּכל‬ ‫ש ְב ָעה‬: ִ ׁ One recites the blessing: To reside in the sukka, each day of the Festival. On Shabbat and Festivals, one recites the blessing immediately following kiddush. Although most authorities rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi on this issue, it is customary to recite the blessing only before eating in the sukka (Rabbeinu Tam; Mordekhai; and others) and only before eating food that one is required to eat in the sukka. Some recite the blessing only when eating a full-fledged meal in the sukka. If one leaves the sukka to enter another, even if it is adjoining, he must recite another blessing (Shulĥan Arukh HaRav). The Vilna Gaon ruled in accordance with the ruling of the Rif and the Rambam and recited the blessing each time he entered the sukka (Ĥayyei Adam; see also Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 643:3). The blessings on Hanukkah – ‫ב ְר ּכֹות ֲחנו ָּּכה‬:ּ ִ One who kindles the lights of Hanukkah on the first night recites three blessings: To light the Hanukkah light, Who has performed miracles, and the blessing of time. Beginning with the second night, one recites only two blessings, as he does not recite the blessing of time unless he failed to recite the blessings the first night. One who is certain that he will not be kindling the lights himself and has no one performing the mitzva on his behalf recites the blessings upon seeing the Hanukkah lights. However, he does not recite: To light the Hanukkah light. He recites only the other two blessings (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 676:1–3). notes

Whenever they touched the phylacteries – ‫ימת‬ ַ ‫ָּכל ֵא‬ ‫דְּ ַמ ׁ ְש ְמ ׁ ִשי ְ ּבה ּו‬: There are several opinions among the commentaries with regard to the nature of this touching. In Sefer HaEshkol, the three primary opinions are cited: (1) People would touch their phylacteries regularly to avoid distraction from the mitzva, and they would recite the blessing because it is appropriate to recite the blessing at any time that one is donning the phylacteries. (2) Others say one touches them after becoming aware that he had been distracted. Upon reacquiring his focus, he recites the blessing because it is tantamount to fulfilling a mitzva anew. (3) One recites the blessing only in the event that the phylacteries were dislodged from their position. Upon restoring the phylacteries to their prescribed position, one recites a new blessing. From that point onward it is a mitzva of the Elders – ‫ִמ ָּכאן‬ ‫וְ ֵא ָילךְ ִמצְ וַ ת זְ ֵקנִים‬: Some explain that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi instructed that the blessing be recited as follows: On the first day one recites: Who has sanctified…concerning the taking of the lulav. From that point on, one recites the blessing: Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot…concerning a mitzva of the Elders. This is because the biblical mitzva that one is fulfilling when taking the lulav on subsequent days is the mitzva to obey the Sages, and one recites the blessing over the mitzva that he is fulfilling. That is indicated in the Jerusalem Talmud as well (Rashash). You shall not turn aside…Ask your father – …‫ל ֹא ָתסוּר‬ ָ‫ש ַאל ָא ִביך‬: ְ ׁ Some explain that the dispute here with regard to the Torah source for the blessings over the Hanukkah candles is the basis for a more general dispute in the Talmud, as explained by the most prominent early commentaries (Rambam; Ramban; and others). The question is whether the mitzva: You shall not turn aside, applies even to ordinances instituted by the Sages, or only to their interpretations of the Torah. In the opinion of one amora, this mitzva includes even rabbinic ordinances, while according to the second opinion, those ordinances fall under the rubric of the mitzva: Ask your father and he will declare unto you (see Sefat Emet).

‫ומ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 46a 

225

notes

If he is able to introduce a novel element – ‫ִאם יָ כֹול‬ ‫ל ַחדֵּ ׁש…דָּ ָבר‬:ְ According to the Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot, the novel element includes even sweeping the sukka or bringing mattresses into the sukka. However, according to the Ritva, the novel element must be a matter whose addition to the structure facilitates fulfillment of the mitzva, e.g., part of the roofing. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda – ‫ה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬:ִ Later authorities noted that the same dispute exists with regard to the halakhot of blessings on vegetables, as Rabbi Yehuda requires not only a general blessing on the fruit of the ground, but a specific blessing for each species. However, one could distinguish between the two areas of halakha in the following manner: blessings recited over different mitzvot are comparable to blessings recited on different days; each is clearly distinct, and therefore several may be recited. This is not the case with regard to blessings of enjoyment, which are recited over foods, among other things. This is because even according to Rabbi Yehuda, all blessings of enjoyment are fundamentally a single blessing. The blessing over days and mitzvot – ‫ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַהּיָ ִמים‬ ‫וְ ַה ִּמצְ וֹות‬: An allusion to this can be found in the statement of the Sages that the 365 prohibitions in the Torah parallel the 365 days of the year. Just as each day of the year is distinct with regard to its particular blessings, so too, it is appropriate that each mitzva would be similarly distinct (Sefat Emet). halakha

Reciting many blessings together – ‫יַחד‬ ַ ‫ב ָרכֹות ַר ּבֹות‬:ּ ְ One who has several mitzvot to perform at the same time recites the blessing for each mitzva separately and does not include them all in one blessing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 11:10).

!‫ימא ְמ ַמ ֵעט נֵס‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬.‫(מאי ְמ ַמ ֵעט – זְ ַמן‬ ַ ‫ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬.)‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יֹומא ִא‬ ָ ‫נֵס ָּכל‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ְ ּב ֶה ְדיָ א‬ .‫ִמצְ וַ ת לו ָּלב‬

The Gemara asks: What blessing does he omit on the other days of Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: He omits the blessing of time: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The Gemara asks: And say that he omits the blessing of the miracle: Who has performed miracles. The Gemara answers: The miracle is relevant on all of the days, whereas the blessing: Who has given us life, is pertinent only to the first time one performs the mitzva each year. In any event, from the statement of Rav it is clear that one recites a blessing over a rabbinic mitzva, and therefore one recites the blessing over the lulav all seven days. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak taught this halakha in the name of Rav explicitly, and it is unnecessary to infer Rav’s opinion from statements in other areas of halakha. Rav said: On all seven days, one recites the blessing over the mitzva of lulav.

:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫עֹושה סו ָּּכה ְל ַעצְ מֹו‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ישב ָ ּב ּה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ נִ ְכנַס ֵל‬,‫״ברו ְּך ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱחיָ ינוּ״ כו׳‬ ָּ ‫ ָהיְ ָתה‬.‫״ברוּךְ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִקדְּ ׁ ָשנוּ״ כו׳‬ ּ ָ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ִאם יָ כֹול ְל ַחדֵּ ׁש ָ ּב ּה‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ ֶ ְ‫ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ו‬ ‫ ִאם ָלאו – ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּכנֵ ס‬,‫דָּ ָבר – ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬.‫ישב ָ ּב ּה ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֵל‬ ‫יה ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ְלה ּו‬ ּ ‫ָחזֵ ינָ א ֵל‬ .‫ְלכו ְּּלה ּו ַא ָּכ ָסא דְּ ִקדּ ו ׁ ּ ָּשא‬

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: One who establishes a sukka for

:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ,‫ ָהי ּו ְל ָפנָיו ִמצְ וֹת ַה ְר ֵ ּבה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫�ֹותיו וְ צִ ָּונ ּו ַעל‬ ָ ְ‫״ברוּךְ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִקדְּ ׁ ָשנ ּו ְ ּב ִמצ‬ ָּ ‫ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬.‫ַה ִּמצְ �ֹות״‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬.‫ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ ‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬:‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא וְ ִא‬.‫ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ וְ ִכי‬,‫״ברוּךְ ה׳ יֹום יֹום״‬ ּ ָ :‫יְ הו ָּדה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ַ ּבּיֹום ְמ ָב ְר ִכין אֹותֹו ו ַּב ַּליְ ָלה ֵאין ְמ ָב ְר ִכין‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָכל יֹום וְ יֹום‬: ָ‫לֹומר ְלך‬ ַ ‫אֹותֹו? ֶא ָּלא ָ ּבא‬ ‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי ְ ּב ָכל דָּ ָבר‬,‫כֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ֵּתן לֹו ֵמ ֵעין ִ ּב ְר‬ .‫כֹותיו‬ ָ ‫וְ ָד ָבר ֵּתן לֹו ֵמ ֵעין ִ ּב ְר‬

The Sages taught: If one had several mitzvot before him to fulfill, he recites: Blessed…Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot, and commanded us concerning the mitzvot. Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites a blessing over each and every one in and of itself.h Rabbi Zeira said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ĥanina bar Pappa who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.n And Rabbi Zeira said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ĥanina bar Pappa who said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is written: “Blessed is the Lord, day by day” (Psalms 68:20). The question arises: Is it so that one blesses Him by day and does not bless Him at night? Rather, the verse comes to tell you: Each and every day, give the Lord the blessings appropriate for that day. Here too, with regard to each and every matter, give Him blessings appropriate to that matter,n and do not group the blessings together.

‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַ ּבר‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא וְ ִא ֵית‬ ‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫ ּבֹא ו ְּר ֵאה ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּכ ִמדַּ ת ַה ָ ּק‬:‫ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ִמדַּ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם; ִמדַּ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ‫ ְּכ ִלי ֵר ָיקן‬,‫וָ ָדם‬

Apropos the halakha transmitted by this pair of amora’im, the Gemara continues: Rabbi Zeira said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ĥanina bar Pappa who said: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that an empty vessel

‫ ֲא ָבל ִמדַּ ת‬,‫ ָמ ֵלא ֵאינֹו ַמ ֲחזִ יק‬,‫ַמ ֲחזִ יק‬ ‫ ֵר ָיקן‬,‫ ָמ ֵלא ַמ ֲחזִ יק‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫מֹוע‬ ַ ‫ ״וְ ָהיָ ה ִאם ׁ ָש‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֵאינֹו ַמ ֲחזִ יק‬ ,‫מֹוע״ – ִּת ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ַ ‫״אם ׁ ָש‬ ִ ,‫ִּת ׁ ְש ַמע״ וגו׳‬ ‫״אם‬ ִ :‫ דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫וְ ִאם ָלאו – ל ֹא ִּת ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ״וְ ִאם‬,‫״ת ׁ ְש ַמע״ ְ ּב ָח ָד ׁש‬ ִּ – ‫מֹוע״ ְ ּביָ ׁ ָשן‬ ַ ‫ׁ ָש‬ .‫יִ ְפנֶ ה ְל ָב ְבךָ ״ – ׁשוּב ל ֹא ִּת ׁ ְש ַמע‬

holds that which is placed within it, while a full vessel does not hold it. However, the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is: If God adds to someone who is a full vessel in terms of knowledge or good attributes, he holds it; a person who is an empty vessel will not hold it. This is alluded to by the verse where it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, if you will hearken diligently [shamoa tishma] unto the voice of the Lord your God, to observe to do all his commandments” (Deuteronomy 28:1). This verse is interpreted homiletically: If you hearken [shamoa] in the present, you will hearken [tishma] in the future as well; and if not, you will not hearken. Alternatively: If you hearkened to the old, i.e., if you review what you already learned, you will hearken to the new as well. “But if your heart turns away”n (Deutero­nomy 30:17), you will no longer be able to hearken.

himself recites: Blessed…Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he enters to reside in the sukka, he recites: “Blessed…Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to reside in the sukka. If the sukka was already established and standing and was not constructed for the sake of the mitzva of sukka, then if he is able to introduce a novel elementn in the sukka for the sake of the mitzva, he recites the blessing: Who has given us life. And if not, then when he enters to reside in the sukka on the Festival he recites two blessings: To reside in the sukka, and: Who has given us life. Rav Ashi said: I observed Rav Kahana, who recites all these blessings over the cup on which he recites kiddush.

Perek IV Daf 46 Amud b notes

But if your heart turns away – ָ‫וְ ִאם יִ ְפנֶ ה ְל ָב ְבך‬: The homiletic interpretation is based on the same principle: If God adds to someone who is a full vessel in terms of knowledge or good attributes, he holds it; a person who is an empty vessel will not hold it. The verse is understood not as: If your heart turns [yifne] away, but rather as: If your heart is vacant [yippaneh]; an empty vessel holds nothing.

226 

Perek IV . 46b . ‫ומ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

,‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫״מּיָ ד ִּתינֹוקֹות״ וכו׳‬ ִ § The mishna continues: Immediately after fulfilling the mitzva of – ‫ סו ָּּכה‬.‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי – מו ָּּתר‬,‫יעי – ָאסוּר‬ ִ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬taking the four species on the seventh day of Sukkot, children re:‫ וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬.‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ֲאסו ָּרה‬move their lulavim from the binding and eat their etrogim in an expression of extreme joy. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It is prohibited to .‫יעי נַ ִמי מו ָּּתר‬ ִ ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ derive benefit from the etrog on the seventh dayh of the festival of Sukkot; however, on the eighth day it is permitted. It is prohibited to derive benefit from the sukka even on the eighth day.nh And Reish Lakish said: It is permitted to derive benefit from the etrog even on the seventh day, once the mitzva has been fulfilled. ‫ ְל ִמצְ וָ ָת ּה‬:‫יפ ְלגִ י? ָמר ָס ַבר‬ ַ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָקא ִמ‬The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, .‫יֹומא ִא ְת ְקצַ אי‬ ָ ‫ ּכו ֵּּלי‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ ִא ְת ְקצַ אי‬Reish Lakish, holds that the etrog was set aside for its mitzva; once the mitzva has been fulfilled there is no legal barrier to eating the etrog on the seventh day. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that the etrog was set aside for the entire day. Therefore, one may not derive benefit from it even after he fulfills the mitzva. ‫ ִמּיָ ד‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫יה ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ ּ ‫יב‬ ‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ְ‫יהן ו‬ ֶ ‫ֹומ ִטין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ְ ‫ִּתינֹוקֹות ׁש‬ !‫דֹולים‬ ִ ְ‫ ַמאי ָלאו – הוּא ַהדִּ ין ִלג‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ .‫ ִּתינֹוקֹות דַּ וְ ָקא‬,‫ל ֹא‬

Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan from the mishna: Immediately after fulfilling the mitzva, children remove their lulavim from the binding and eat their etrogim. What, is it not that the same is true for etrogim belonging to adults, and it would be permitted to eat those as well? Apparently, it is permitted to derive benefit from the etrog immediately after the mitzva is performed. Rabbi Yoĥanan rejected this: No, the mishna is referring to children specifically, who are not obligated by Torah law to fulfill the mitzva. However, etrogim belonging to adults were set aside for the entire day.

‫יֹוחנָ ן ְל ֵר ׁיש‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵא‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫ית ֵיב‬ ‫ֹומ ִטין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב ֶיהן‬ ְ ‫ ִמּיָ ד ַה ִּתינֹוקֹות ׁש‬:‫ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ,‫ ִּתינֹוקֹות – ִא ין‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵ‫אֹוכ ִלין ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ,‫דֹולים‬ ִ ‫דֹולים – ָלא! הוּא ַהדִּ ין דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּג‬ ִ ‫ְ ּג‬ ‫אֹור ָחא דְּ ִמ ְּל ָתא‬ ְ – ‫וְ ַהאי דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ .‫ָק ָתנֵי‬

Some say another version of the exchange between Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yoĥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from mishna: Immediately after fulfilling the mitzva, children remove their lulavim from the bindingn and eat their etrogim. One can conclude by inference: Etrogim belonging to children, yes, they may be eaten; etrogim belonging to adults, no, they may not be eaten until the conclusion of the Festival. Reish Lakish responded: The same is true for etrogim belonging to adults, i.e., it would be permitted to eat those as well, and the reason that the mishna is teaching specifically about etrogim belonging to children is that it is teaching the manner in which the matter typically occurs, because children are entertained by eating the etrogim.

‫ ַמאי‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Yoĥanan, who ?‫ ׁ ְשנָ א סו ָּּכה ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֶא ְתרֹוג‬holds that an object set aside for a mitzva is set aside for the entire day, what is different with regard to a sukka such that it is prohibited even on the eighth day, and what is different with regard to an etrog? ,‫ סו ָּּכה דְּ ָחזְ יָ א ְל ֵבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יתב‬ ַ ‫יה ְסעוּדָּ ָתא ָ ּב ֵעי ֵמ‬ ְ ‫דְּ ִאי ִא‬ ּ ‫ית ַר ֵמי ֵל‬ ‫וה – ִא ְת ְקצַ אי‬ ּ ָ ‫יכל‬ ַ ‫וה ּו ֵמ‬ ּ ‫(ב ּה) ְ ּב גַ ָּו‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב גַ ָּו‬ ‫ ּו ִמיגּ ֹו דְּ ִא ְת ְקצַ אי ְל ֵבין‬,‫ְל ֵבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות‬ .‫יֹומא דִּ ׁ ְש ִמינִי‬ ָ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות – ִא ְת ְקצַ אי ְלכו ֵּּלי‬ ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג דְּ ָלא ֲחזֵ י ְל ֵבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות – ָלא‬ ‫ִא ְת ְקצַ אי ְל ֵבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות וְ ָלא ִא ְת ְקצַ אי‬ .‫יֹומא דִּ ׁ ְש ִמינִי‬ ָ ‫ְלכו ֵּּלי‬

Abaye said to him: With regard to a sukka, it is suitable for use even during twilightb at the end of the seventh day, as, if a meal happens to present itself to him at that time, he is required to sit in the sukka and eat in the sukka. Therefore, the sukka is set aside for the mitzva for the twilight period, and since it is set aside for the twilight period, it is set aside for the entire eighth day. Since the status of the twilight period is uncertain, it may be the evening of the eighth day, and once it is set aside for the potential start of the eighth day, it is set aside for the entire eighth day. However, with regard to an etrog, which, once the mitzva has been fulfilled, is not suitable for use during the twilight period, it is not set aside during the twilight period. Since it was not set aside then, it is not set aside for the entire eighth day.

ּ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ֲא ִפ‬:‫וְ ֵלוִ י ָא ַמר‬ .‫יל ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ָאסוּר‬ ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:‫וַ ֲאבו ּּה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ָקם ֲאבו ּּה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי מו ָּּתר‬,‫ָאסוּר‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ָקם ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ְ ּב ׁ ִש‬,‫יה דְּ ֵלוִ י‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫יט ֵת‬ ּ ‫יט ֵת‬ ‫ ֶא ְתרֹוג‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬.‫דַּ ֲאבו ּּה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ .‫אֹוכ ָל ּה ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ְס ָלה – ָאסוּר ְל‬

And Levi said: It is prohibited to use the etrog even on the eighth day. The father of Shmuel said: It is prohibited to use the etrog on the seventh day, and it is permitted on the eighth day. The Gemara notes that ultimately, the father of Shmuel reconsidered his opinion and assumed the opinion of Levi. Rabbi Zeira, however, assumed the opinion of the father of Shmuel, as Rabbi Zeira said: With regard to an etrog that was rendered unfit for any reason, it is prohibited to eat it all seven days, as it was set aside for the mitzva until the end of the Festival.



halakha

Deriving benefit from the etrog on the seventh day – ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫הנָ ָאה ֵמ ֶא ְתרֹוג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:ֲ It is prohibited to derive benefit from an etrog on the seventh day of Sukkot; however, it is permitted to do so on the Eighth Day of Assembly. Outside Eretz Yisrael it is prohibited to derive benefit from it on the eighth day as well, due to uncertainty whether it is the seventh day. However, it is permitted on the ninth day, even if it follows Shabbat (Tur, citing Rosh), as the prohibition on the eighth day is due to uncertainty, so during twilight at the end of the eighth day, it is not prohibited. Some maintain that in that case, it is prohibited even on the ninth day (Tur, citing Rabbi Shimshon of Saens).These rulings are in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yoĥanan and Abaye (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 665:1). Deriving benefit from the sukka on the seventh and the eighth days – ‫יעי ו ׁ ְּש ִמינִי‬ ִ ‫הנָ ָאה ִמ ּסו ָּּכה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:ֲ It is prohibited to derive benefit from the sukka and from its decorations even on the Eighth Day of Assembly. Outside Eretz Yisrael, it is prohibited even on the ninth day. Some say that if the Festival concludes on Friday, which is impossible according to the fixed calendar in use today, then on Shabbat, the day following the Festival, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the sukka and its decorations until the conclusion of Shabbat. Others permit one to do so (see Tur). The halakha in this matter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 667:1). notes

Sukka…on the eighth day – ‫ה…ב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬ ּ ַ ‫סו ָּּכ‬: The Gemara must be discussing a case where the sukka collapsed on the seventh day or earlier, so that there is no need to demolish it in order to derive benefit from it. Were the sukka still standing, it would be prohibited to dismantle it on the Eighth Day of Assembly, as dismantling is one of the primary categories of labor prohibited on the Festival. Alternatively, the Gemara is not discussing the sukka itself but its decorations. In that case, one could derive benefit even without demolishing the sukka (see Sefer Hashlama and Me’iri). The children remove their lulavim from the binding – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹומ ִטין ֶאת לו ְּל ֵב‬ ְ ‫מּיָ ד ַה ִּתינֹוקֹות ׁש‬:ִ Most commentaries do not explain the Gemara as Rashi does, that the children themselves remove the lulavim from their hands and eat their own etrogim. Of course, no proof for halakhic matters can be cited from the practice of children, since they cannot be relied upon to fulfill all aspects of halakha (see Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna). Some authorities suggest that Rashi’s explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish and the Rambam’s explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan. background

Twilight – ‫בין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות‬:ּ ֵ The twilight period between the end of one day and the beginning of the next day is generally understood to be the period between sunset and the emergence of the stars. The halakhic status of this period is one of uncertainty. Therefore, the stringencies of both days apply.

‫ומ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 46b 

227

notes

A person should not transfer ownership…to a child – ‫ָלא‬ ‫…לינו ָּקא‬ ִ ‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ל ְיקנֵי ִא‬:ִ Many commentaries discuss and seek to determine the legal capacity of a child with regard to purchasing and acquiring objects. According to the Rid, Rabbi Zeira’s problem is only due to a rabbinic ordinance, because by Torah law, a child lacks the legal capacity even to acquire an object. Ran, on the other hand, holds that once the Sages instituted that a child has the legal capacity to acquire objects, the lulav becomes his by Torah law, as the court has the power to declare property ownerless, and the child can take possession of ownerless property. According to the later authorities who discussed this question at length, there is a distinction between acquisition of an object by means of a gift, which is within the capacity of a child, and an acquisition by means of theft, which a child is incapable of accomplishing. The Ritva writes that even according to the opinion of Tosafot that one can give the four species to the child as a provisional gift, the concern remains that the child will somehow acquire full ownership despite the condition. A person should not say to a child – ‫ינִיש ִלינו ָּקא‬ ׁ ‫ימא ִא‬ ָ ‫לא ֵל‬:ָ Some seek to explain the connection between the two statements of Rabbi Zeira in the Gemara. Apparently, in order to solve the problem with regard to giving and receiving gifts from a child, it would be sufficient to mislead the child into believing that he was giving him the four species as a gift, while in fact the adult did not do so at all. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira says that this is not an appropriate solution, because one must be careful to avoid conduct that could teach a child dishonesty and deceit. On the eighth day, with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day – ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ש ִמינִי ְס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִב‬: ְׁ The early commentaries ask the following question, which the Rid raises without providing an answer: Why is the etrog prohibited on the eighth day with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day? Despite the uncertainty, the four species are not taken that day. Why, then, should the etrog be prohibited? The Ritva and the Me’iri explain that the reason the four species are not taken that day is due to the fact that if it is indeed the eighth day, by taking the four species, one would violate the prohibition of set-aside. However, due to the uncertainty, all the prohibitions that apply to the seventh day apply to the eighth day as well.

‫הֹוש ְענָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ ָלא ִל ְיקנֵי ִא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫יֹומא ָט ָבא ַק ָּמא‬ ָ ‫ִלינו ָּקא ְ ּב‬ ,‫ ַא ְקנוּיֵ י – ָלא ַמ ְקנֵי‬,‫דִּ ינו ָּקא ִמ ְקנָ א – ָקנֵי‬ ‫וְ ִא ׁ ְש ַּת ַּכח דְּ ָקא נָ ֵפיק ְ ּבלו ָּלב ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬ .‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬

Rabbi Zeira said: A person should not transfer ownership of the four species to a childnh by means of a gift on the first day of the Festival. What is the rationale for this halakha? It is due to the fact with regard to acquisition, a child is able to acquire objects; however, with regard to transferring ownership, he is not able to transfer ownership to others. In other words, a child is legally able to acquire an item given to him, but he does not have the legal cognizance to transfer ownership of an item to another. In this case, if an adult gives the child the four species as a gift before having fulfilled the mitzva himself, the child will be unable to effect the transfer of ownership back to the adult. And in that case, a situation will result where the adult is seeking to fulfill his obligation with a lulav that is not his.

‫ינִיש ִלינו ָּקא‬ ׁ ‫ימא ִא‬ ָ ‫ ָלא ֵל‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ יָ ֵה ְיבנָ א ָלךְ ִמידֵּ י וְ ָלא יָ ֵהיב ֵל‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יק ָרא‬ ְ ‫יה ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָא ֵתי ְל ַאגְ מ ּו ֵר‬ .‫״ל ְּמד ּו ְל ׁשֹונָ ם דַּ ֶ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶקר״‬ ִ

And Rabbi Zeira said: A person should not say to a child:n I will give you something, and then not give it to him, because he thereby comes to teach him about lying, as it is stated: “They have taught their tongues to speak lies” ( Jeremiah 9:4). One must not accustom a child to fail to honor commitments.

‫יֹוחנָ ן וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ָ ‫ו ִּב ְפלוּגְ ָּתא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ֶא ְתרֹוגִ ין‬:‫ דְּ ִא ְּית ַמר‬,‫ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫ ָּכל ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ְל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה יָ ִמים‬ ‫ וְ ַרב ַא ִסי‬.‫אֹוכ ָל ּה ְל ַא ְל ַּתר‬ ְ ְ‫יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה ו‬ ‫אֹוכ ָל ּה‬ ְ ְ‫ ָּכל ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה ו‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ :‫יפ ְלגִ י? ָמר ָס ַבר‬ ַ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָקא ִמ‬.‫ְל ָמ ָחר‬ ‫ ְלכו ֵּּלי‬:‫ ּו ָמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ְל ִמצְ וָ ָת ּה ִא ְת ְקצַ אי‬ .‫יֹומא ִא ְת ְקצַ אי‬ ָ

The Gemara notes: And other amora’im disagree with regard to the matter of the dispute of Rabbi Yoĥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as it was stated: If one designated seven etrogim for the seven daysh of the Festival. Rav said: With each and every one, he fulfills his obligation with it and he may then eat it immediately. And Rav Asi said: With each and every one, he fulfills his obligation with it and he may then eat it the following day. With regard to what principle do they disagree? One Sage, Rav, holds: The etrog was set aside for the mitzva; once the mitzva has been fulfilled it is no longer prohibited to derive benefit from the item. The other Sage, Rav Asi, holds: It was set aside for the entire day. Deriving benefit from the etrog remains prohibited until the end of the day, even after one has fulfilled the mitzva.

?‫יכי ָע ְב ִדינַ ן‬ ִ ‫יֹומי ֵה‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲאנַ ן דְּ ִאית ָלן ְּת ֵרי‬ ,‫יעי – ָאסוּר‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ְש ִמינִי ְס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִב‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ :‫ימר ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ָמ ֵר‬.‫יעי ְס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִמינִי – מו ָּּתר‬ ִ ‫ְּת ׁ ִש‬ .‫יעי מו ָּּתר‬ ִ ‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ְש ִמינִי ְס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִב‬

The Gemara asks: And we, who live outside of Eretz Yisrael, who have two days of the Festival due to uncertainty whether the eighth day is actually the seventh day of Sukkot, how do we act with regard to deriving benefit from the four species? Abaye said: On the eighth day, with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day,n it is prohibited, as due to that uncertainty, the day retains the sanctity of Sukkot. However, on the ninth day, with regard to which there is uncertainty as it might be the eighth day, it is certainly permitted. Mareimar said: Even on the eighth day, with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day, it is permitted. Since that is also the first day of the Eighth Day of Assembly, no vestige of the sanctity of the festival of Sukkot is attached to it.

Everyone agrees that we reside in the sukka – ‫ֵמ ַיתב ּכו ֵּּלי‬ ‫ע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ יָ ְת ִבינַן‬:ָ Some explain that the reason this is permitted is that by merely sitting in the sukka, one does not appear to be violating the prohibition against adding mitzvot to the Torah, as one is not performing an action. It is possible that the Gemara is just permitting one to sit in a sukka on the eighth day rather than mandating it (Sefat Emet). halakha

Giving a lulav to a child – ‫נְ ִתינַ ת לו ָּלב ְליֶ ֶלד‬: One should not give the four species to a child as a gift on the first day of the Festival until one has fulfilled the mitzva himself. Although a child has the legal capacity to acquire items given him as a gift, he does not have the legal capacity to transfer possession to another. Some authorities rule that once a child reaches the age of approximately six or seven years old, he is capable of transferring possession to others (Ran; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 658:6). Seven etrogim for seven days – ‫ש ְב ָעה ֶא ְתרֹוגִ ין ְל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה יָ ִמים‬: ִׁ If one designated seven etrogim for seven days, one etrog for each day, then once he fulfills the mitzva with the designated etrog of that day, it is permitted to eat it the following day. However, one may not eat the etrog on its designated day, as it is set aside for performance of the mitzva for the entire day. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, as that is the ruling of most halakhic authorities (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 665:2).

228 

Perek IV . 46b . ‫ומ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ַרב ׁ ֵש‬.‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ ְ ּבס ּו ָרא ָע ְב ִד י ְּכ ָמ ֵר‬The Gemara notes: In Sura they acted in accordance with the ‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫יה דְּ ַרב ִא ִידי ָע ֵביד ְּכ ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ֵר‬opinion of Mareimar and derived benefit from the etrog on the .‫ ְּכ ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬eighth day. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, acted in accordance with the opinion of Abaye. The Gemara notes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye. ‫יה דְּ ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ֵר‬ – ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ְש ִמינִי ְס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִב‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֵש ַילת ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יעי ַל ּסו ָּּכה ו ׁ ְּש ִמינִי ַל ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫יתב – ּכו ֵּּלי‬ ַ ‫ ֵמ‬,‫ ׁ ְש ִמינִי ָלזֶ ה וְ ָלזֶ ה‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬,‫ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ יָ ְת ִבינַן‬

§ Apropos the matter of the Eighth Day of Assembly in the Dias-

pora, the Gemara notes: Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: Outside of Eretz Yisrael, on the eighth day, with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day of Sukkot, its status is like that of the seventh day with regard to the mitzva of sukka and like that of the eighth day with regard to the blessing, i.e., in Grace after Meals, in kiddush, and in the Amida prayer, the Eighth Day of Assembly is mentioned. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Its status is like that of the eighth day both with regard to this, the mitzva of sukka, and to that, the blessing. The Gemara explains: Everyone, even Rabbi Yoĥanan, agrees that we reside in the sukkan on the eighth day, with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day. When they disagree is

Perek IV Daf 47 Amud a – ‫יעי ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ִ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ְש ִב‬,‫רֹוכי‬ ֵ ‫ְל ָב‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ְש ִמינִי‬,‫רֹוכי נַ ִמי ְמ ָב ְר ִכינַן‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫רֹוכי ָלא ְמ ָב ְר ִכינַ ן‬ ֵ ‫ָלזֶ ה וְ ָלזֶ ה – ָ ּב‬ ‫ דְּ ַרב‬,‫יֹוחנָ ן ְ ּביָ ָד ְך‬ ָ ‫ נְ קֹוט דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ַרב‬ ‫דֹולי ַהדּ ֹור ִא ְיק ְלע ּו‬ ֵ ‫הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִ ּביזְ נָ א וְ ָכל ְ ּג‬ ‫יתב ָהו ּו‬ ַ ‫ ֵמ‬,‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ַ ּב ּסו ָּּכה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ְס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִב‬ .‫יכי‬ ִ ‫רֹוכי ָלא ָ ּב ֵר‬ ֵ ‫יָ ְת ִבי ָ ּב‬

with regard to whether or not to recite the blessing over residing in the sukka. According to the one who says that the status of the eighth day is like that of the seventh day with regard to the mitzva of sukka, we also recite the blessing: To reside in the sukka. However, according to the one who says that its status is like that of the eighth day both with regard to this and to that, we do not recite the blessing. Rav Yosef said: Take the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan that on the eighth day outside Eretz Yisrael one does not recite the blessing: To reside in the sukka, in your hand, i.e., adopt it as your practice. As Rav Huna bar Bizna and all the prominent scholars of the generation happened to visit a sukka on the eighth day, with regard to which there was uncertainty that it might be the seventh day, and they were sitting in the sukka, but they did not recite the blessing.

‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא ְס ִב ָירא ְלה ּו ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֵּכיוָ ן‬The Gemara suggests: And perhaps the reason they did not recite ‫אשֹון ׁשוּב ֵאינֹו‬ ׁ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵ ּב ַיר ְך יֹום טֹוב ִר‬a blessing is that they hold in accordance with the opinion of .ּ‫ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ? ְ ּג ִמ ִירי דְּ ֵמ ֲא ָפר ָאתו‬the one who said: Once he recited the blessing on the first Festival day he does not recite it again on the subsequent days, and not because it was the eighth day. The Gemara answers: That is not the reason that they did not recite the blessing, as the Sages learned through tradition that these Sages were coming from the fields, where they had been herding their flocks, and that was the first time during the Festival that they sat in a sukka. ‫רֹוכי – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא‬ ֵ ‫ ָ ּב‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ .‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ְל ֵמ ַיתב‬,‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ ָלא ְמ ָב ְר ִכינַן‬ ‫יתב‬ ַ ‫ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ַל ּסו ָּּכה – ֵמ‬ – ‫ ו ְּל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ְש ִמינִי ָלזֶ ה וְ ָלזֶ ה‬,‫יָ ְת ִבינַן‬ :‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫יתב נַ ִמי ָלא יָ ְת ִבינַ ן‬ ַ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ דְּ ָמ ָרא דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא‬, ְ‫יֹוחנָן ְ ּביָ ָדך‬ ָ ‫נְ קֹוט דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יה דְּ ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ּ ‫ַמ ּנִי – ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫יעי ְל ַבר‬ ִ ‫ ו ַּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ְס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִב‬,‫ַ ּבר ׁ ֵש ַילת‬ ,‫יתב יָ ְת ִבינַן‬ ַ ‫ ֵמ‬:‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫ִמ ּסו ָּּכה יָ ֵתיב‬ .‫רֹוכי ָלא ְמ ָב ְר ִכינַן‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב‬

Some say a different version of the dispute: Everyone agrees that we do not recite the blessing; when they disagree it is with regard to whether to reside in the sukka. According to the one who says that the status of the eighth day is like that of the seventh day with regard to the mitzva of sukka, we reside in the sukka.n However, according to the one who says that its status is like that of the eighth day both with regard to this and to that, neither do we reside in the sukka.n Rav Yosef said: Take the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan in your hand, as who is the Master responsible for dissemination of the halakha? It is Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, and on the eighth day, with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day,h he himself resides outside of the sukka. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we reside in the sukka on the eighth day, with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day, but we do not recite the blessing.

‫אֹומ ִרים זְ ַמן ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִמינִי‬ ְ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ § ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said that one recites the blessing: Who has ‫יעי ׁ ֶשל‬ ִ ‫אֹומ ִרים זְ ַמן ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִב‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, on the h .‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬eighth day of the Festival, as the eighth day is a Festival distinct from Sukkot, and one does not recite the blessing of time on the seventh day of Passoverh because it is not a Festival distinct from Passover. ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵלוִ י ַ ּבר ָח ָמא וְ ִא‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי ָחל ּוק‬,‫ ֵּת ַדע‬:‫ָח ָמא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א‬ ְ‫נִיסוּך‬ ּ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ וְ לו ָּלב‬,‫ ְ ּבסו ָּּכה‬:‫ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים‬ ‫ ְ ּבלֹוג ָהיָ ה‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ ‫ְמנַ ֵּס ְך ָּכל ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה – ֲה ֵרי ָחלוּק ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי‬ .‫דְּ ָב ִרים‬



And Rabbi Levi bar Ĥama said, and some say it was Rabbi Ĥama bar Ĥanina who said: Know that the eighth day of Sukkot is a Festival in and of itself and therefore requires its own blessing, as it is distinct from the seven days of Sukkot with regard to three matters:n With regard to sukka, as one is not obligated to sit in the sukka on the eighth day; and with regard to lulav, as one is not obligated to take the four species on the eighth day; and with regard to the water libation, as one does not pour the water libation on the altar on the eighth day. The Gemara notes: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said: With a vessel measuring one log the priest pours the water libation all eight days, including the eighth day, the eighth day is nevertheless distinct from the rest of the Festival with regard to the other two matters.

notes

We reside in the sukka – ‫יתב יָ ְת ִבינַ ן‬ ַ ‫מ‬:ֵ Tosafot ask: If one resides in the sukka on the eighth day due to the uncertainty that it might be the seventh day, why doesn’t one take the four species on that day for the same reason? Ran suggests that taking the four species on the seventh day is a rabbinic ordinance to commemorate the Temple. In cases of uncertainty with regard to rabbinic ordinances, the ruling is lenient. Neither do we reside in the sukka – ‫מ ַיתב נַ ִמי ָלא יָ ְת ִבינַן‬:ֵ The early authorities questioned the rationale for this opinion. Why would one not reside in the sukka on the eighth day? After all, there is uncertainty with regard to the eighth day, and the principle is that in cases of uncertainty with regard to a mitzva by Torah law, the ruling is stringent. Therefore, one should certainly be required to reside in the sukka. They answer that the case in question is with regard to modern times, when there is no longer any uncertainty, as there is a fixed calendar and the dates of the Festivals are known. The second Festival day in the Diaspora is observed only to maintain the custom of our ancestors. On the other hand, were one to sit in the sukka on the eighth day according to this opinion, the concern is that people would belittle the sanctity of the Eighth Day of Assembly. Therefore, they ruled that one does not reside in the sukka on the eighth day (Ran; Ritva). As it is distinct from the seven days of Sukkot with regard to three matters – ‫ש ֲה ֵרי ָחלוּק ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ֹ ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים‬: ֶ ׁ A question was raised by the Sefat Emet and the Rashash: Isn’t there a fourth matter in which the day differs, i.e., the obligation to take the willow branch? The Sefat Emet answers that the separate taking of the willow branch is included in the category of lulav. halakha

The mitzva of sukka on the eighth day with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day – ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫מצְ וַ ות סו ָּּכה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִמינִי ְס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִב‬:ִ Outside Eretz Yisrael, one eats in the sukka on the Eighth Day of Assembly, as there is uncertainty whether it is the seventh day or the eighth day. However, the blessing: To reside in the sukka, is not recited. In kiddush and in the prayers the Eighth Day of Assembly is mentioned, and one recites the blessing of time indicating that it is an independent Festival. Most authorities rule in this matter in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara here. However, there are many different opinions among the halakhic authorities, and correspondingly there are many different customs. Some eat an insubstantial or incomplete meal in the sukka on that day; others eat in the sukka only during the day and not at night. Many authorities rule that one should not sleep in the sukka that night (Maharil; Darkei Moshe; Noda Bihuda) and that is the prevailing custom (see Be’er Heitev, Mishna Berura, and others). In all these matters, everyone should follow his local custom (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 668:1). The blessing of time on the eighth day of the Festival – ‫זְ ַמן‬ ‫ב ׁ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬:ּ ִ One recites the blessing of time at the start of the Eighth Day of Assembly, since it is a Festival in and of itself (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 668:1). The blessing of time on the seventh day of Passover – ‫זְ ַמן‬ ‫יעי ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִ ‫ב ׁ ְש ִב‬:ּ ִ One recites kiddush on the evening of the seventh day of Passover. However, one does not recite the blessing of time, because the seventh day is not a Festival in and of itself (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 490:7).

‫זמ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 47a 

229

halakha

Eating matza on Passover – ‫א ִכ ַילת ַמ ָ ּצה ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬: ֲ There is a positive mitzva by Torah law to eat matza on the first night of Passover. Subsequently, there is no obligation to eat matza; there is merely a prohibition against eating leaven (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 475:7).

‫ ֲה ֵרי‬,‫יעי ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח נַ ִמי‬ ִ ‫ִאי ָה ִכי ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫ ַליְ ָלה‬:‫ָחלוּק ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ַילת ַמ ָ ּצה! דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר‬ – ‫יל ְך‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ – ‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ‫ ָה ִכי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא?! ָה ָתם – ִמ ַּליְ ָלה‬.‫ְר ׁשוּת‬ – ‫ ָה ָכא‬.‫ ִמּיֹום – ֵאינֹו ָחלוּק‬,‫ָחל ּוק‬ .‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמּיֹום נַ ִמי ָחלוּק‬

notes

Bull…bulls…On the day…and on the day – …‫ּ ַפר‬ ‫ים…בּיֹום…ו ַּבּיֹום‬ ַּ ‫פ ִר‬:ָ ּ An alternative explanation is cited in the Sefat Emet. The contrast is not between the eighth day and the seven previous days; rather, the contrast is between the Eighth day of Assembly and the seventh day of Passover. With regard to the seventh day of Passover, it says: Bulls, like it does on all the previous days of Passover, in contrast to the Eighth Day of Assembly, where it says: Bull, unlike the previous days. With regard to the seventh day of Passover it says: And on the day, a continuation of the previous days, as opposed to the Eighth Day of Assembly, where it says: On the day, without the conjunction, indicating that it is a Festival in and of itself. As per the regulation…as per their regulation – ‫ט…כ ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפ ָטם‬ ְּ ‫כ ִּמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפ‬:ַּ Although with regard to the first through sixth days of Sukkot, the verse states: As per the regulation, since on the seventh day it states: As per their regulation, and on the eighth it reverts to: As per the regulation, this indicates that the eighth day is different from the other seven days (Ritva). Failure to bring…prevents – ‫מ ַע ְּכ ִבין‬:ְ Some explain that if one of the offerings is not brought, then the obligation is not fulfilled even with regard to the offerings that were already brought. Others explain that this means that if one realizes ahead of time that one animal is missing, none of the offerings are sacrificed (Me’iri). In tractate Menaĥot, proof that failure to bring all the offerings prevents fulfillment of the obligation with the others is cited from the terms: As per the regulation, and: As per their regulation, indicating that they are sacrificed only when all the offerings are brought.

230 

Perek IV . 47a . ‫זמ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

The Gemara asks: If so, the seventh day of Passover should be considered distinct as well, as it is distinct from the first day in terms of the obligation of eating matza, as the Master said: On the first night of Passover, it is an obligation to eat matza.h From that point onward, it is optional; if one chooses, he eats matza, and if he chooses not to eat matza, he need not, provided that he does not eat leavened foods. The Gemara retorts: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of Passover, the halakha of the seventh day is distinct from the first night; however, it is not distinct from the first day, as on the first day there is no obligation to eat matza. Here, in the case of Sukkot, the eighth day of the Festival is distinct even from the first day.

‫ וְ זֶ ה‬,‫ זֶ ה ָחלוּק ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ְּל ָפנָיו‬:‫ ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמר‬Ravina said a different reason for the distinction between the two Festi.‫ ָחלוּק ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּל ְפנֵי ָפנָיו‬vals: This, the eighth day of Sukkot, is distinct in terms of its halakhot, even from the day just before it, the seventh day. However, that, the seventh day of Passover, is distinct in terms of its halakhot, only from a day previous to the day before, i.e., the first day alone. There is no distinction between the sixth and seventh days. ,‫״פר״‬ ַ ּ ‫ ָה ָכא ְּכ ִתיב‬:)‫(א ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ָ Rav Pappa said another reason why the eighth day of Sukkot is considered .‫״פ ִרים״‬ ָ ּ ‫ ָה ָתם ְּכ ִתיב‬a distinct Festival. Here, with regard to the additional offering sacrificed on the Eighth Day of Assembly, it is written: “And you shall present a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord: One bull” (Numbers 29:36). There, with regard to the additional offering sacrificed on the first day of Sukkot, it is written: “And you shall present a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord: Thirteen bulls” (Numbers 29:13), and on each subsequent day one bull fewer is sacrificed: Twelve on the second day, eleven on the third day, and so on, until seven are sacrificed on the seventh day. Were the eighth day part of the festival of Sukkot, the additional offering on that day should have included six bulls. The fact that it includes only one bull indicates that it is a distinct Festival. ‫ ָה ָכא ְּכ ִתיב‬:‫ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר‬Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Here, it is written: “On the eighth day .‫ ָה ָתם ְּכ ִתיב ״ו ַּבּיֹום״‬,‫״בּיֹום״‬ ּ ַ you shall have a solemn assembly; you shall do no manner of servile labor” (Numbers 29:35). This indicates that this day is distinct from the others, as there, with regard to the other days of Sukkot, it is written: And on the day,n indicating that each of the days from the second through the seventh are all continuations of the first day. ,‫״כ ִּמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט״‬ ַּ ‫ ָה ָכא ְּכ ִתיב‬:‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬Rav Ashi said: Here, with regard to the eighth day, it is written: “Their .‫״כ ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפ ָטם״‬ ְּ ‫ ָה ָתם ְּכ ִתיב‬meal-offering and their libations, for the bull, for the ram, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, as per the regulation” (Numbers 29:37). However, there, with regard to the seventh day, it is written: “And their meal-offering and their libations, for the bulls, and for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, as per their regulation”n (Numbers 29:33). The Gemara understands the use of the plural pronoun: Their, to indicate that the offerings sacrificed on all seven days are related. ‫ ַה ּ ָפ ִרים ָה ֵא ִילים‬:‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ַה ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים – ְמ ַע ְּכ ִבין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה‬ ‫ ּ ָפ ִרים – ֵאין ְמ ַע ְּכ ִבין זֶ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ .‫הֹול ִכין‬ ְ ְ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי ִמ ְת ַמ ֲע ִטין ו‬,‫ֶאת זֶ ה‬

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan that one recites the blessing of time on the eighth day. Failure to bring either the bulls, or the rams, or the sheep on the Festival preventsn fulfillment of one’s obligation with the other animals, as they are considered one offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: Failure to bring the bulls does not prevent fulfillment of one’s obligation with the other animals, since they decrease progressively each day. The Torah displays flexibility with regard to the bulls. Therefore, apparently, even if they are not brought at all one fulfills his obligation with the others.

‫ וַ ֲה ל ֹא ּכ ּו ָּל ן ִמ ְת ַמ ֲע ִטין‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ִמינִי‬:‫הֹול ִכין ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי! ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ְב ַעת‬,‫ֶרגֶ ל ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו הוּא‬ ‫יְ ֵמי ֶה ָחג ְטעוּנִין ָק ְר ָ ּבן וְ ׁ ִשיר ו ְּב ָר ָכה‬ ‫וְ ִלינָ ה – ַאף ׁ ְש ִמינִי ָטעוּן ָק ְר ָ ּבן וְ ׁ ִשיר‬ .‫ו ְּב ָר ָכה וְ ִלינָ ה‬

The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda: But don’t the numbers of all the animals eventually decrease on the eighth day, as on the other days two rams and fourteen sheep are sacrificed and on the eighth day it is one ram and seven sheep? Rabbi Yehuda said to them: The Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself. As just as the seven days of the festival of Sukkot require an offering, and a song sung by the Levites, and a blessing unique to the festival of Sukkot, and there is a mitzva of staying overnight in Jerusalem after the first Festival day, so too, the eighth day requires an offering, and a song sung by the Levites, and a blessing unique to the Eighth Day of Assembly, and there is a mitzva of staying overnight in Jerusalem at its conclusion.

Perek IV Daf 47 Amud b ‫ ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון‬,‫ ַמאי ָלאו – זְ ַמן? ל ֹא‬What, is it not that the blessing mentioned is the blessing of time, in .‫ ו ְּת ִפ ָּלה‬support of the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan? The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, the blessing here is Grace after Meals and the Amida prayer, where mention is made of the Eighth Day of Assembly and not of Sukkot. Therefore, there is no support for the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan that one recites the blessing of time on the Eighth Day of Assembly. ְ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתך‬.‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬ ‫יכא? ָהא ָלא‬ ָּ ‫זְ ַמן – זְ ַמן ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ִמי ִא‬ ְ‫ דְּ ִאי ָלא ְ ּב ִריךְ ָה ִאידָּ נָ א – ְמ ָב ֵרך‬,‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ .‫יֹומא ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ָ ‫ אֹו ְל‬,‫ְל ָמ ָחר‬

The Gemara says: So too, it is reasonable that this is the proper understanding of the baraita, as should it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to the blessing of time, is there a blessing of time all seven days of Sukkot? One recites the blessing only on the first day. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, and that is no proof that the baraita is not referring to the blessing of time, as the baraita could mean that if one did not recite the blessing today, on the first day, he recites the blessing on the next day or on another day of the Festival. Under those circumstances the blessing of time may be recited on any of the seven days.

‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬.‫ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום ּכֹוס ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן‬ ‫ זְ ַמן‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬,‫יה ְל ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ּ‫יל‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬.‫אֹומרֹו ֲא ִפ ּו ַ ּב ׁשוּק‬ ְ ‫יכא? דִּ ְל ָמא‬ ָ ‫ּכֹוס – ּכֹוס ָּכל‬ ָּ ‫יֹומא ִמי ִא‬ .‫יה ּכֹוס‬ ּ ‫דְּ ִא ְיק ַלע ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: How could one recite the blessing of time on each of the days of Sukkot if in any case we require the blessing to be recited over a cup of wine, and not everyone has access to wine during the intermediate days of the Festival? From the fact that the Gemara does not consider this factor, let us say that this baraita supports the opinion of Rav Naĥman, as Rav Naĥman said: One recites the blessing of time even in the marketplace,hn without wine, as, if you say that we require a cup of wine in order to recite the blessing of time, is there a cup of wine available every day that would enable one to recite the blessing during the intermediate days of the Festival? The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the baraita is referring to a case where a cup of wine happened to become available to him. The baraita is not describing the preferred method of reciting the blessing but merely a possibility.

‫וְ ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ׁ ְש ִמינִי ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה? וְ ָהא‬ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫נִית‬ ָ ‫ ״ו ָּפ‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫״ש ׁ ֶשת‬ ֵ ׁ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ַב ּב ֶֹקר וְ ָה ַל ְכ ָּת ְלא ָֹה ֶליךָ ״‬ – ‫ ֵאת ׁ ֶש ָּטעוּן ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬,‫ֹאכל ַמ ּצֹות״‬ ַ ‫יָ ִמים ּת‬ – ‫ ֵאת ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָטעוּן ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬,‫ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה‬ ‫ ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ַמאי? ָלאו‬.‫ֵאינֹו ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה‬ ?‫ְל ַמעו ֵּטי נַ ִמי ׁ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda really hold that the Eighth Day of Assembly requires one to stay overnightn at its conclusion? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived that the second Pesaĥ, when the Paschal lamb is brought by those who were impure and unable to sacrifice it on the first Pesaĥ, does not require staying overnight at its conclusion?n As it is stated with regard to the first Pesaĥ: “And you shall turn in the morning and go unto your tents” (Deuteronomy 16:7), and immediately thereafter it is written: “Six days you shall eat matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:8). From the juxtaposition of these two verses Rabbi Yehuda derives the following: That which requires observance of the six subsequent days requires staying overnight; that which does not require observance of the six subsequent days does not require staying overnight. What does this juxtaposition come to exclude? Is it not to exclude the eighth day of the Festival, as it is not followed by the observance of six days?

halakha

One recites the blessing of time even in the marketplace – ‫אֹומרֹו ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּשוּק‬ ְ ‫זְ ַמן‬: Although generally the blessing of time is recited over a cup of wine, one is not obligated to do so, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naĥman. That explains the validity of the custom to recite the blessing of time on Yom Kippur following the Kol Nidrei prayer (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 619:1).

notes

One recites the blessing of time even in the marketplace – ‫זְ ַמן‬ ּ ‫אֹומרֹו ֲא ִפ‬: ‫יל ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּשוּק‬ ְ Although there is no inherent connection between the blessing of time and drinking a cup of wine, apparently, whenever it is possible to recite a blessing along with a fixed requirement, it is preferable to do so. This is the practice with regard to several other halakhot as well. The reason for this might be that the cup of wine creates a sense of joy when one recites a blessing over it.

quent days requires staying overnight; Pesaĥ that does not require observance of six subsequent days does not require remaining overnight. This excludes the second Pesaĥ and does not exclude other Festivals or offerings.

Second Pesaĥ and staying overnight – ‫פ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי וְ ִלינָ ה‬:ֶ ּ The Gemara here cites a statement in the name of Rabbi Yehuda and then proceeds to question it by citing another statement of his that apparStay overnight – ‫לינָ ה‬:ִ It is a mitzva for anyone who brings an of- ently contradicts the first. The Gemara resolves the contradiction fering to the Temple in Jerusalem to stay overnight and not head in a manner that allows for Rabbi Yehuda to be the author of both home immediately. Tosafot ask in tractate Pesaĥim: Why does one statements. Later authorities note, however, that in tractate Pesaĥim, who offers the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ not stay the night where the same contradiction is raised, a different solution is proas well? The Paschal lamb should be no different from any other vided: The two opinions of Rabbi Yehuda were cited differently by individual offering. The Me’iri explains that Rabbi Yehuda holds different tanna’im. Some explain that a different solution is cited that this halakha is a biblical decree, as it is derived by means of here because the resolution here better resolves the contradiction a juxtaposition: Only Pesaĥ that requires observance of six subse- (see Arukh LaNer, Sefat Emet, and others).



‫זמ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 47b 

231

background

First fruits – ‫יכו ִּרים‬ ּ ‫ב‬:ּ ִ The first fruits of a new harvest were given to the priests (see Deuteronomy 26:1–11). In the time of the Temple, a farmer would select the first of the seven types of fruit with which Eretz Yisrael is favored (see Deuteronomy 8:8). He would bring them to the Temple in a basket, place them before the altar, and recite prayers of thanks to God. Afterward, the fruit was given to the priests and eaten under the same restrictions governing teruma. First fruits were brought to the Temple between the festivals of Shavuot and Sukkot. If they were not brought during that period, an extension was granted until Hanukkah. An entire tractate of the Mishna, Bikkurim, is devoted to the details of this mitzva. notes

Require a peace-offering – ‫טעוּנִין ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬:ְ Two offerings were typically brought with the first fruits. First, one placed turtledoves and pigeons on the basket of the first fruits, as adornment. These birds were sacrificed as burnt-offerings. In addition, peace-offerings were brought with the first fruits, in fulfillment of the verse: “You shall rejoice with all the good” (Deuteronomy 26:11). In the Temple, rejoicing was possible only with the meat of peace-offerings (see Me’iri). Song – ‫שיר‬: ִ ּ ׁ In tractate Arakhin, the requirement to accompany the first fruits with song is derived from a verbal analogy between two verses. One verse states: “You shall rejoice with all the good” (Deuteronomy 26:11), and the other states with regard to the offerings on the Festivals: “With rejoicing and with glad heart” (Deuteronomy 28:47). Just as the rejoicing referred to in the latter verse is accompanied by song, so too, the rejoicing referred to in the former is accompanied by song. Under the hand of the owner – ‫ת ַחת יַ ד ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬:ַּ See Tosafot, who point out that this does not mean that the priest physically places his hands beneath those of the owner; rather, he places them lower on the basket than the point where the owner is grasping the basket. That is because Tosafot are insistent that there be no interposition between the owner’s hands and the basket. Rashi and the Ritva do not insist upon this, because in their opinion, the essential waving is performed by the owner, and the waving of the priest is not essential. However, others explain that the essential waving is the one performed by the priest, not by the owner. Nevertheless, they maintain that interposition between the priest’s hands and the basket is not a problem. Others explain that the issue is not one of interposition. Rather, the question is who provides the primary force for the waving (see Sefat Emet). What halakhic conclusion was reached – ‫מאי ָהוֵ י ֲע ָל ּה‬:ַ This question is typically raised in instances where there is an extensive halakhic discussion involving citation of numerous and varied sources that do not lead to a clear conclusion. In these cases the question is asked: What conclusion was reached with regard to the question that opened the discussion, which was forgotten in the course of the lengthy discussion?

.‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי דִּ ְכו‬,‫ָלא‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ‫ ַה ִ ּב ּיכו ִּרים‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬ .‫ וְ ִלינָ ה‬,‫ ו ְּתנו ָּפה‬,‫ וְ ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ְטעוּנִין ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬ – ‫יה דַּ ֲא ַמר ְּתנו ָּפה‬ ּ ‫ַמאן ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬ .‫ וְ ָק ָא ַמר ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬

The Gemara rejects this: No, it comes to exclude the second Pesaĥ, which is similar to the first Pesaĥ in terms of its offering, and it teaches that since it is not followed by the observance of six days there is no obligation to stay overnight. The Gemara says: So too, it is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehuda is excluding the second Pesaĥ, as we learned in a mishna: The first fruitsb require a peaceofferingn to be brought with them, a songn unique to the occasion, sung by the Levites, waving,h and staying overnight.h Whom did you hear who said that first fruits require waving? It is Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna is saying that first fruits require staying overnight. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda excludes only the second Pesaĥ from the requirement of staying overnight.

:‫אֹומ ר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָד ה‬,‫דְּ ַת נְ יָ א‬ ‫אֹומר זֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ָּתה‬.‫״וְ ִה ַּנ ְח ּתֹו״ – זֹו ְּתנו ָּפה‬ ?‫ אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ַה ָּנ ָחה ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬,‫ְּתנו ָּפה‬ ‫אֹומר ״וְ ִה ּנִיחֹו״ – ֲה ֵרי‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ‫ ָהא ָמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים‬,‫ַה ָּנ ָחה ָאמוּר‬ .‫״וְ ִה ַּנ ְח ּתֹו״ – זֹו ְּתנו ָּפה‬

Rabbi Yehuda holds that first fruits require waving, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that it is stated with regard to first fruits: “And you shall set it down before the Lord your God,” (Deuter­onomy 26:10), and this is referring to waving before the altar the basket containing the first fruits. Do you say that this is referring to waving, or perhaps it is referring only to actually setting it down adjacent to the altar? When the Torah says: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:4), setting it down is already stated. How, then, do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And you shall set it down”? This is referring to waving.

‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִד ְל ָמא ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ״וְ ָל ַקח ַה ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ֶּטנֶ א‬:‫ִהיא? דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫יכ ּו ִרים‬ ֵּ ‫ִמ ּיָ ֶדךָ ״ – ִל‬ ּ ‫ימד ַעל ַה ִ ּב‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ׁ ֶש ְּטעוּנִין ְּתנו ָּפה‬ .‫ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב‬

The Gemara asks: And perhaps the baraita that requires one to stay overnight when bringing first fruits to Jerusalem is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. Rather, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who also holds that first fruits require waving. As it was taught in a baraita that it is written: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand” (Deuter­ onomy 26:4), which taught concerning first fruits that they require waving. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן‬ ֶ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ,‫יַ ֲעקֹב – ָא ְתיָ א ״יָ ד״ ״יָ ד״ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ‫ ״וְ ָל ַקח ַה ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ֶּטנֶ א‬:‫ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא‬ ‫יאינָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ ״יָ ָדיו ְּת ִב‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬,‫ִמּיָ ֶדךָ ״‬ .‫ֶאת ִא ׁ ּ ֵשי ה׳״‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? How does he derive the waving of the first fruits from this verse? The Gemara answers: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term “hand” written with regard to first fruits and the term “hand” written with regard to a peace-offering. It is written here, with regard to first fruits: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand,” and it is written there, with regard to a peace-offering: “His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire; the fat with the breast shall he bring, that the breast may be waved before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30).

‫ ו ַּמה‬.‫ַמה ָּכאן ּכ ֵֹהן – ַאף ְל ַה ָּלן ּכ ֵֹהן‬ .‫ְּל ַה ָּלן ְ ּב ָע ִלים – ַאף ָּכאן ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ‫ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ּכ ֵֹהן ַמ ּנ ִַיח יָ דֹו ַּת ַחת יַ ד‬ .‫ ו ֵּמנִיף‬,‫ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬

In addition, one can derive by means of the verbal analogy that just as here, with regard to first fruits, a priest performs the waving, so too, with regard to a peace-offering, a priest performs the waving. And just as there, with regard to a peace-offering, the owner performs the waving, so too here, with regard to first fruits, the owner performs the waving. How so? How can both the priest and the owner perform the waving? The owner places his hands beneath the peace-offering or under the first fruits, and the priest places his hand under the hand of the ownern and waves it together with him.h In any event, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov requires waving of the first fruits. Therefore, it is possible that the baraita is stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and no conclusive proof can be cited with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

:‫ַמאי ָהוֵ י ֲע ָל ּה? ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר‬ ‫ וְ ַרב‬,‫אֹומ ִרים זְ ַמן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬ ְ ‫אֹומ ִרים זְ ַמן‬ ְ ‫ ֵא ין‬:‫ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָא ַמר‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ :‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬ .‫זְ ַמן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬

What halakhic conclusion was reachedn concerning the blessing of time? Rav Naĥman said: One recites the blessing of time on the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot. And Rav Sheshet said: One does not recite the blessing of time on the eighth day of the Festival. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one recites the blessing of time on the eighth day of the Festival.

halakha

Offering, song, waving – ‫ק ְר ָ ּבן וְ ׁ ִשיר ו ְּתנו ָּפה‬:ָ First fruits must be waved before the altar and are accompanied by peaceofferings as an expression of rejoicing. In addition, they are accompanied by a song in honor of the first fruits, which is sung by the Levites as the people enter the Temple courtyard with the first fruits (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 3:12). Staying overnight with the first fruits – ‫יכו ִּרים‬ ּ ‫לינָ ה ִעם ַה ִ ּב‬:ִ One who brings first fruits to the Temple in Jerusalem does not leave after completing the ceremony. Rather, he remains in the city overnight (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 3:14). Waving the first fruits – ‫יכו ִּרים‬ ּ ‫הנָ ַפת ַה ִ ּב‬:ֲ The first fruits are waved in the following manner: The owner places his hands under the basket, and the priest places his hands under those of the owner, and they wave it together (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 3:12).

232 

Perek IV . 47b . ‫זמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

‫ ׁ ְש ִמינִי‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬The Gemara notes: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the ּ ‫ות‬ opinion of Rav Naĥman: The eighth day

Perek IV Daf 48 Amud a ‫ ּ ַפיִ יס‬:‫ֶרגֶ ל ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו ְל ִענְיַ ן פז״ר קש״ב‬ ‫ ֶרגֶ ל ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬,‫ זְ ַמן ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬,‫ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬ ‫ ׁ ִש ָירה ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬,‫ ָק ְר ָ ּבן ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬,‫ַעצְ מֹו‬ .‫ ְ ּב ָר ָכה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬,‫ַעצְ מֹו‬

is a Festival in and of itselfn with regard to the matter of: Peh, zayin, reish; kuf, shin, beit. This is an acronym for: A lottery [payis] in and of itself,h i.e., a new lottery is performed on that day to determine which priests will sacrifice the offerings that day, and the order established on Sukkot does not continue; the blessing of time [zeman], i.e., Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, in and of itself, as it is recited just as it is recited at the start of each Festival; a Festival [regel ] in and of itself, and there is no mitzva to sit in the sukka (see Tosafot); an offering [korban] in and of itself,h as the number of offerings sacrificed on the Eighth Day is not a continuation of the number sacrificed on Sukkot but is part of a new calculation; a song [shira] in and of itself,n since the psalms recited by the Levites as the offerings are sacrificed on the Eighth Day are not a continuation of those recited on Sukkot; a blessing [berakha] in and of itself,nh as the addition to the third blessing of Grace after Meals and to the Amida prayer (see Tosafot) is phrased in a manner different from that of the addition recited on Sukkot.

mishna 

This mishna elaborates upon the first mishna ?‫ ֵּכיצַ ד‬,‫מתני׳ ַה ַה ֵּלל וְ ַה ּ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה‬ in this chapter. The obligation to recite hallelh ‫ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם ַ ּב ַה ֵּלל ו ַּב ּ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ and the mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival by sacrificing and eating ‫ ו ִּב ְכבֹוד יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג ִּכ ׁ ְש ָאר‬the meat of peace-offerings are always for eight days.h The mishna .‫ ָּכל יְ מֹות ֶה ָחג‬explains: How so? This teaches that a person is obligated in hallel, and in the mitzva of rejoicing, and in reverence for the last day of the Festival like he is for all the other days of the Festival.

gemara 

The Gemara asks: From where are these ‫ית‬ ָ ִ‫ ״וְ ָהי‬:‫גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ matters, that on the eighth day of the Festival .‫ַאךְ ָ ׂש ֵמ ַח״ ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון‬ one is obligated to rejoice, derived? It is as the Sages taught that the ‫אשֹון? ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ׁ ‫ אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬verse states with regard to Sukkot: “And you shall be altogether joy.‫״אךְ ״ – ִח ֵּלק‬ ַ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ful” (Deuteronomy 16:15).n The verse comes to include the evenings of the last day of the Festival, i.e., then too, one is obligated to rejoice by partaking of the meat of the peace-offerings sacrificed the previous day. The Gemara asks: Does the verse come to include the evening of the eighth day? Or perhaps it comes to include only the evening of the first day of the Festival. The Gemara answers: When the verse says: Altogether, it is exclusionary, and it has distinguished this night from the other nights of the Festival. ‫ו ָּמה ָר ִא ָית ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון‬ ‫אשֹון? ְמ ַר ֶ ּבה‬ ׁ ‫ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ‫ֲאנִי ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון – ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ וּמֹוצִ יא ֲאנִי ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬,‫ְל ָפנָיו‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְל ָפנָיו‬

The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to include the evenings of the last day of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing and to exclude the evenings of the first day of the Festival? Why not require one to sacrifice peace-offerings on the afternoon preceding the Festival to be eaten on the first night? The Gemara answers: I include the evenings of the last day of the Festival, before which there is a day of rejoicing, as it is reasonable that the rejoicing should continue, and I exclude the evenings of the first day of the Festival, before which there is not a day of rejoicing, as there is no obligation to sacrifice offerings on the afternoon preceding the Festival. halakha

A lottery in and of itself – ‫פיִ יס ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬:ַ ּ The lottery for the Eighth Day of Assembly is unrelated to the lottery conducted among the priestly watches on Sukkot (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 10:13).

The obligation to recite hallel is for eight days – ‫ה ַה ֵּלל ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה‬:ַ Hallel is recited in its complete form during the seven days of Sukkot and on the Eighth Day of Assembly, and a blessing is recited before hallel both communally and individually (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 644:1).

An offering in and of itself – ‫ק ְר ָ ּבן ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬:ָ The offerings sacrificed on the Eighth Day of Assembly are not a continuation of The mitzva of rejoicing is for eight days – ‫ה ּ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה‬:ַ the offerings sacrificed on Sukkot. This day has its own distinct There is a positive mitzva that by Torah law to rejoice during additional offering (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin the seven days of Sukkot and the Eighth Day of Assembly. Al10:5). though the rejoicing in the Torah involves bringing peaceA blessing in and of itself – ‫ב ָר ָכה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬:ּ ְ On the Eighth Day of offerings, included in this mitzva is a person and the members Assembly, both in prayers and in Grace after Meals, one mentions of his family rejoicing in any appropriate manner (Rambam the Eighth Day of Assembly and not Sukkot (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:17; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 668:1). Ĥayyim 669:1).



notes

A Festival in and of itself – ‫רגֶ ל ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬:ֶ There are many explanations of this phrase, and several commentaries address it at length (see Ramban and Ritva). Rashi and the Rid understand that the Eighth Day of Assembly is not part of Sukkot, and therefore there is no obligation to observe the mitzvot of sukka and lulav. Many commentaries (Rif; Ran; Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Arukh; Rabbeinu Yehonatan) explain this in accordance with the opinion of the ge’onim that it is referring to the halakhot of mourning. The Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself in terms of canceling the seven-day period of mourning as well as the thirty-day period of mourning. Some explain that this is referring to the obligation to remain overnight in Jerusalem, as one is required to do on other Festivals (Rabbeinu Tam; Me’iri). Others say that the day is considered a Festival in and of itself in terms of being considered one of the three Festivals that must pass in order to violate the prohibition: You shall not be slack in paying one’s vows (Ramban). Yet others explain this as referring to the obligation to bring the burnt-offering of appearance and the Festival peace-offering. On the Eighth Day of Assembly it is possible to compensate for failure to bring these offerings during Sukkot; however, should one who was not obligated when Sukkot began become obligated over the course of the Festival, e.g., if a minor reaches majority or if one who was ill recovers, the Eighth Day of Assembly is considered a separate Festival, and such an individual would be obligated to bring those offerings on the eighth day (Ramban; Ritva). A song in and of itself – ‫ש ָירה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬: ִ ׁ Although there was a song recited on each of the days of Sukkot, some say that unlike the days of Sukkot, a complete psalm was recited on the Eighth Day of Assembly. Others explain that unlike the psalms on the other days of Sukkot, the psalm of the Eighth Day of Assembly was not displaced by the psalm of Shabbat (Ritva). Yet others explain that on the Eighth Day of Assembly, the theme of the psalm is different from the theme of the psalms recited on the days of Sukkot, which all discuss gifts to the poor (see Me’iri and others). A blessing in and of itself – ‫ב ָר ָכה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬:ּ ְ Most commentaries explain that this means that one mentions the Eighth Day of Assembly and not Sukkot in prayers and in Grace after Meals. Rashi, citing the Tosefta, notes that there was a special blessing for the king recited that day. And you shall be altogether [akh] joyful – ְ‫וְ ָהיִ ָית ַאך‬ ‫ש ֵמ ַח‬‎ ׂ ָ : There is a well-known question discussed in this context: The term akh is usually interpreted as indicating restriction or exclusion; how is it interpreted here inclusively? One answer is that in this case it is restrictive in that it comes to rule out any conduct other than rejoicing; one must be altogether joyful. Others understand that the word joyful in this context is superfluous, as the Torah already mentioned joy in the context of the Festival. Therefore, the apparently superfluous word joyful comes to include rejoicing on other days, and the term akh comes to restrict that rejoicing to the Eighth Day of Assembly (Me’iri). The Vilna Gaon explains that akh excludes all obligations of Sukkot, other than rejoicing, from applying to the Eighth Day of Assembly (Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes).

‫חמ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 48a 

233

notes

He should not dismantle his sukka – ‫ל ֹא יַ ִּתיר ֶאת‬ ‫סו ָּּכתֹו‬: Rabbeinu Yehonatan adds an additional reason for this halakha: Dismantling one’s sukka before the end of the Festival can be misinterpreted as a display of contempt for the mitzva. He reduces the roofing of the sukka by four handbreadths – ‫ֹוחת ָ ּב ּה ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֵ ‫פ‬:ּ The commentaries discuss why the Gemara requires that four handbreadths be removed if three are generally sufficient to render a sukka unfit. Rabbeinu Yehonatan explains that were one to leave a gap of three handbreadths, it would be too uncomfortable to sit in the sukka. Therefore, the Gemara recommends replacing the fit roofing with unfit roofing materials. However, a sukka is unfit only if there are four handbreadths of unfit materials. In Sefer Hashlama it is written that while three handbreadths are technically sufficient to render a sukka unfit, four are removed in order to render it more conspicuous. Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh explains that the four handbreadths are removed from the wall in a small sukka since it is more accessible than the roofing. Fill…from the Siloam pool – ‫ילֹוח‬ ַ ‫מ ַמ ֵּלא ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬‎ְ : There is a dispute whether drawing the water from the Siloam pool is merely the optimal manner of performing the mitzva; however, if doing so is impossible one may draw the water from any other source of pure water, even rainwater (Rambam), or whether water for the water libation may be drawn exclusively from a spring, based on the verse: “With joy you shall draw water out of the springs of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3; see Tosafot). background

Jug – ‫לֹוחית‬ ִ ְ‫צ‬: This image depicts the reverse side of a silver zuz coin from the bar Kokheva revolt. The jug imprinted upon it is very likely representing a jug used for the water libation since the branch seems to be that of a willow tree.

Zuz from the bar Kokheva revolt depicting a jug for libation Libation basins – ‫ס ְפ ֵלי ַה ּנ ִּסו ְּך‬:ִ

mishna 

The mitzva of sukka is seven days. How does one ‫ ֵּכיצַ ד? ָ ּג ַמר‬,‫מתני׳ סו ָּּכה ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ fulfill this obligation for seven full days? When ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ִמ ֶּל ֱאכֹול – ל ֹא יַ ִּתיר ֶאת סו ָּּכתֹו‬ one finished eating on the seventh day, he should not dismantle his ‫מֹוריד ֶאת ַה ֵּכ ִלים ִמן ַה ִּמנְ ָחה ו ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ִ sukkan immediately, because the obligation continues until the end of .‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ְכבֹוד יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬the day. However, he takes the vessels down from the sukka into the house from minĥa time and onward in deference to the last day of the Festival,h when he will require the vessels in the house. ‫הֹוריד ַמהוּ? ֵאין‬ ִ ‫גמ׳ ֵאין לֹו ֵּכ ִלים ְל‬ ‫לֹו ֵּכ ִלים?! ֶא ָּלא ִּכי ִא ׁ ְש ַּת ַּמ ׁש ְ ּב ַמאי‬ ‫הֹוריד‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין לֹו ָמקֹום ְל‬:‫ִא ׁ ְש ַּת ַּמ ׁש? ֶא ָּלא‬ :‫ֵּכ ָליו ַמהוּ? ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַ(רב) ָא ַמר‬ ‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ֹוחת ָ ּב ּה ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ .‫ ַמ ְד ִליק ָ ּב ּה ֶאת ַה ֵּנר‬:‫ָא ַמר‬

gemara 

The Gemara asks: If one does not have vessels to take down from the sukka, what should he do? The Gemara asks: One does not have vessels? But when he utilized his sukka during the Festival, with what vessels did he eat when he utilized the sukka? Rather, this is the question: If he has no place into which he can take down his vessels and he must continue eating in the sukka, what is the halakha? What can he do to underscore the fact that he is eating there not to fulfill a mitzva, thereby violating the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah, but only due to the lack of an alternative? Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Rav said: He reduces the roofing of the sukka by four handbreadths,n thereby rendering the sukka unfit. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: He lights a lamp inside the sukka, which is prohibited during the festival of Sukkot.

.ּ‫ וְ ָהא – ְלהו‬,‫ ָהא – ָלן‬:‫ וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree with regard to the halakha. Instead, they are providing different solutions for different locations. This is for us, who live outside Eretz Yisrael, and this is for them, who live in Eretz Yisrael. Those who live in Eretz Yisrael reduce the roofing, since the obligation to sit in the sukka no longer applies. However, those who live outside of Eretz Yisrael, who are obligated to sit in the sukka on the eighth day with regard to which there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh day, must find another way to distinguish the eighth day from the days of the Festival of Sukkot. ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ סו ָּּכה ְ ּג‬,‫ָהא ִּתינַ ח סו ָּּכה ְק ַט ָּנה‬ ‫ימר? דִּ ְמ ַעּיֵ יל ָ ּב ּה‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ַמאי ִא‬ ‫ ָמאנֵי‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫יכ ָלא‬ ְ ‫ָמאנֵי ֵמ‬ ‫ ָמאנֵ י‬,‫יכ ָלא – ַ ּבר ִמ ְּמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬ ְ ‫ֵמ‬ .‫ִמ ׁ ְש ְּתיָ א – ִ ּב ְמ ַט ַּל ְל ָּתא‬

‫לֹוחית‬ ִ ְ‫ ֵּכיצַ ד? צ‬,‫נִיסוּךְ ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ ּ ‫מתני׳‬ ‫ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב ַמ ֲחזֶ ֶקת ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה לו ִ ּּגים ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ ִה ִ ּגיע ּו ְל ׁ ַש ַער‬,‫ילֹוח‬ ַ ‫ְמ ַמ ֵּלא ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬ ‫ ָע ָלה‬.‫ַה ַּמיִ ם ָּת ְקע ּו וְ ֵה ִריע ּו וְ ָת ְקע ּו‬ ‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ְס ָפ ִלים‬.‫ַ ּב ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ו ָּפנָ ה ִל ְ ׂשמֹאלֹו‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ֶּכ ֶסף ָהי ּו ׁ ָשם‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו מ ּו ׁ ְש ָח ִרין‬,ּ‫ׁ ֶשל ִסיד ָהיו‬ ‫ ו ְּמנו ָ ּּק ִבין‬.‫נֵיהם ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ֶ ‫ּ ְפ‬

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to a small sukka, since it is prohibited to light a lamp due to the danger of a conflagration, and lighting a lamp will underscore the distinction. However, with regard to a large sukka, in which there is no prohibition and therefore no distinction, what can be said? The Gemara answers: One underscores the distinction in that he brings eating vessels, e.g., pots in which food was cooked, into the sukka, as Rava said: Eating vessels are taken out of the sukka; drinking vessels remain in the sukka. By leaving the pots and pans in the sukka, he indicates that the sukka is no longer involved in fulfillment of the mitzva.

mishna 

With regard to the rite of water libationh performed in the Temple during the Festival, how was it performed? One would fill a golden jugb with a capacity of three log with water from the Siloam pool.n When those who went to bring the water reached the Gate of the Water, so called because the water for the libation was brought through this gate leading to the Temple courtyard, they sounded a tekia, sounded a terua, and sounded another tekia as an expression of joy. The priest ascended the ramp of the altar and turned to his left. There were two silver basinsb there into which he poured the water. Rabbi Yehuda said: They were limestone basins, but they would blacken due to the wine and therefore looked like silver. The two basins were perforated at the bottom halakha

Sukka on the last day of Sukkot – ‫סו ָּּכה ְ ּביֹום ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשל סו ּּכֹות‬: After the morning meal on the seventh day of Sukkot one may not dismantle the sukka. However, in the late afternoon one may remove all the vessels that were used therein, to prepare for the Eighth Day of Assembly. If he has nowhere to place the vessels and he wishes to eat in the sukka on the eighth day as well, he must remove a four-by-four-handbreadth section of the roofing as a conspicuous indicator that by sitting in the sukka his intention is not to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. However, no indicator is required if one wishes to sit in the sukka on any other day of the year. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, where one is required to sit in the sukka on the eighth day because there is uncertainty that it might be the seventh, if one wishes to eat in the sukka on the ninth day, he may not remove any roofing,

Replica of silver libation basin

234 

Perek IV . 48a . ‫חמ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

since the eighth day is a Festival day. In that case, he must indicate that he does not intend to fulfill the mitzva in a different way, e.g., by bringing a lamp into a small sukka or by bringing his cooking utensils into a large one. This ruling is in accordance with the distinction in the Gemara: This is for us and this is for them (Rosh; Rif; and others; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 666:1). Water libation – ‫נִיסוּךְ ַה ַּמיִ ם‬: ּ The water libation rite is performed on the altar on each of the seven days of Sukkot. This is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The water is poured each morning together with the wine libation, each in its own specific location, accompanying the daily morning offering (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 10:6).

Perek IV Daf 48 Amud b ‫ (וְ ֶא ָחד) ְמעו ֶ ּּבה וְ ֶא ָחד‬,‫חֹוט ִמין דַּ ִּקין‬ ָ ‫ְּכ ִמין ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ָרבֹו‬.‫נֵיהם ָּכ ִלין ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת‬ ֶ ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיְה ּו ׁ ְש‬,‫דַּ ק‬ ְ‫ ֵע ָירה ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם ְלתֹוך‬.‫ ִמזְ ָרחֹו ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם‬ .‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן ְלתֹוךְ ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם – יָ צָ א‬,‫ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬

with two thin perforated nose-like protrusions. One of the basins, used for the wine libation, had a perforation that was broad, and one, used for the water libation, had a perforation that was thin, so that the flow of both the water and the wine, which do not have the same viscosity, would conclude simultaneously.n The basin to the west of the altar was for water, and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine. However, if one poured the contents of the basin of water into the basin of wine,n or the contents of the basin of wine into the basin of water, he fulfilled his obligation, as failure to pour the libation from the prescribed location does not disqualify the libation after the fact.

.‫נַסךְ ָּכל ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה‬ ֵּ ‫ ְ ּבלֹוג ָהיָ ה ְמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּ ַפ ַעם ֶא ָחד‬,‫״הגְ ַ ּב ּה יָ ְדךָ ״‬ ַ :‫אֹומר לֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫נַסך‬ ֵּ ‫וְ ַל ְּמ‬ ‫נִ ֵּס ְך ֶא ָחד ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַרגְ ָליו ו ְּרגָ מוּה ּו ָּכל ָה ָעם‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵ‫ְ ּב ֶא ְתרֹוג‬

Rabbi Yehuda says: The basin for the water libation was not that large; rather, one would pour the water with a vessel that had a capacity of one log on all eight days of the Festival and not only seven. And the appointee says to the one pouring the water into the silver basin: Raise your hand,h so that his actions would be visible, as one time a Sadducee priest intentionally poured the water on his feet, as the Sadducees did not accept the oral tradition requiring water libation, and in their rage all the people pelted him with their etrogim.

‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ּו ַ ּבחֹול ָּכ ְך ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְמ ַמ ֵּלא ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ָח ִבית ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב‬ ‫יח ּה‬ ָ ‫ ּו ַמ ִּנ‬, ‫ילֹוח‬ ַ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵא ינָ ּה ְמק ּודֶּ ׁ ֶשת ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬ ‫נִש ּ ְפ ָכה נִ ְת ַ ּג ְּל ָתה – ָהיָ ה ְמ ַמ ֵּלא ִמן‬ ְ ׁ .‫ַ ּב ִּל ׁ ְש ָּכה‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַהּיַ יִ ן וְ ַה ַּמיִ ם ְמגו ִּּלין ּ ְפסו ִּלין ְלגַ ֵ ּבי‬.‫ַה ִּכּיֹור‬ .‫ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬

Rabbi Yehuda continues: As its performance during the week, so is its performance on Shabbat,h except that on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated for exclusive use in the Temple from the Siloam pool, and he would place it in the Temple chamber and draw water from there on Shabbat. If the water in the barrel spilled, or if it was exposed overnight, leading to concern that a snake may have deposited poison in the water, one would fill the jug with water from the basin in the Temple courtyard, as exposed wine or water is unfit for the altar. Just as it is prohibited for people to drink them due to the potential danger, so too, they may not be poured on the altar.

ֵּ ‫גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ילי? ָא ַמר ַרב ֵעינָ א‬ .‫ ״ו ׁ ְּש ַא ְב ֶּתם ַמיִ ם ְ ּב ָ ׂש ׂשֹון״ וגו׳‬:‫ְק ָרא‬

gemara 

With regard to the customs accompanying the drawing of the water, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?n Rav Eina said that it is as the verse states: “With joy [sason] you shall draw water out of the springs of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), indicating that the water was to be drawn from the spring and the rite performed in extreme joy.

‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ָ ׂש ׂשֹון וְ ַחד ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ ַחד ׁ ְש ֵמ‬,‫ָהנְ ה ּו ְּת ֵרי ִמינֵי‬ ‫ ֲאנָ א‬:‫יה ָ ׂש ׂשֹון ְל ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ‫״ש ׂשֹון וְ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה יַ ּ ִ ׂשי ּגוּ״‬ ׂ ָ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬, ְ‫ָע ִד ְיפנָ א ִמינָ ך‬ ‫ ֲאנָ א ָע ִד ְיפנָ א‬:‫יה ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְל ָ ׂש ׂשֹון‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫וגו׳‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫״ש ְמ ָחה וְ ָ ׂששׂ ֹון ַלּיְ הו ִּדים״‬ ׂ ִ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬, ְ‫ִמינָ ך‬ ְ‫יֹומא ׁ ְש ָבקוּךְ וְ ׁ ַשוְ יוּך‬ ָ ‫ ַחד‬:‫יה ָ ׂש ׂשֹון ְל ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫״כי ְב ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ֵתצְ אוּ״‬ ִּ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ּ ַפ ְרוַ ונְ ָקא‬ ‫יֹומא ׁ ְש ָבקו ְּך ו ִּמ ּל ּו‬ ָ ‫ ַחד‬:‫יה ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְל ָ ׂש ׂשֹון‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ ״ו ׁ ְּש ַא ְב ֶּתם ַמיִ ם ְ ּב ָ ׂש ׂשֹון״‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ָ ּבךְ ַמּיָ א‬

Apropos this verse, the Gemara relates: There were these two heretics, one named Sason and one named Simĥa. Sason said to Simĥa: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain joy [sason] and happiness [simĥa], and sorrow and sighing shall flee” (Isaiah 35:10). The verse mentions joy first. Simĥa said to Sason, On the contrary, I am superior to you, as it is written: “There was happiness [simĥa] and joy [sason] for the Jews” (Esther 8:17). Sason said to Simĥa: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger [parvanka],l as it is written: “For you shall go out with happiness [simĥa]” (Isaiah 55:12). Simĥa said to Sason: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With joy [sason] you shall draw water.”n

‫יה ָ ׂש ׂשֹון ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫יה ַההוּא ִמינָ א דִּ ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ,‫ ֲע ִת ִידית ּו דִּ ְת ַמלּ ּו ִלי ַמיִ ם ְל ָע ְל ָמא דְּ ָא ֵתי‬:ּ‫ַא ָ ּבהו‬ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ ״ו ׁ ְּש ַא ְב ֶּתם ַמיִ ם ְ ּב ָ ׂש ׂשֹון״‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬,‫״ל ָ ׂש ׂשֹון״ – ִּכ ְד ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ ְ ‫ִאי ֲהוָ ה ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫יה דְּ ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬ ּ ְ ‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ּ ‫״ב ָ ׂש ׂשֹון״״ – ַמ ׁ ְש ֵכ‬ .‫יה ַמּיָ א‬ ּ ‫ ו ָּמ ֵלינַן ֵ ּב‬,‫יה גּ ו ָּדא‬ ּ ‫ַמ ׁ ְשוֵ ינַן ֵל‬

The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain heretic named Sason said to Rabbi Abbahu: You are all destined to draw water for me in the World-to-Come, as it is written: “With sason you shall draw water.” Rabbi Abbahu said to him: If it had been written: For sason, it would have been as you say; now that it is written: With sason, it means that the skin of that man, you, will be rendered a wineskin, and we will draw water with it.



notes

The procedure of the water libation – ‫נִיסו ְּך‬ ּ ‫ֵס ֶדר‬ ‫ה ַּמיִ ם‬:ַ The water libation ritual was not performed in one continuous process, as the mishna seems to indicate. Rather, it took place in stages over a longer period of time. As it does in similar descriptions of other matters, the mishna cites all the procedures together (Arukh LaNer). If one poured the contents of the basin of water into the basin of wine – ‫תֹוך ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬ ְ ‫ע ָירה ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם ְל‬:ֵ From the Rambam (Hilkhot Temidin 10:6) it is clear that if one mixed the two by pouring the water into the wine or vice versa, and then poured them together on the altar, he fulfilled the obligation. From where are these matters derived – ‫ְמנָ א ָהנֵי‬ ‫מ ֵּילי‬:ִ Apparently, the Gemara is asking this question with regard to several issues: Drawing water from the spring, sounding the shofar, and rejoicing, as the verse cited applies to all those matters (Ritva). In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained that the water was drawn with much fanfare to publicly rebuff the position of the Sadducees, who did not acknowledge the validity of this practice. In fact, according to the Rid, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, the only reason that the water was drawn from the Siloam pool and not taken from the Temple basin was in the interest of publicity. The dispute between the heretics – ‫לֹוקת ַה ִמינִים‬ ֶ ‫מ ֲח‬:ַ It is not clear why these exchanges are cited here and what they mean. Some suggest that after citing the verse from Isaiah, these exchanges are cited to mock the heretics. The early heretics would interpret verses, especially those adjacent to the depiction of the Messiah in Isaiah, as referring to themselves or their leaders. These exchanges demonstrate how ridiculous these interpretations were, and how each interprets the texts in his own honor to indicate that he is mentioned in the visions of the prophets. The false prophets would employ similar tactics, adducing allusions from the Torah. These exchanges expose the meagerness of their claims. The same can be seen from the reply of Rabbi Abbahu, who was renowned for his anti-heretic polemics, to those who utilized their own exegetical methods (see Maharsha and others). halakha

Raise your hand – ָ‫הגְ ַ ּב ּה יָ ְדך‬:ַ The appointees would say to the one pouring: Raise your hand, because once a Sadducee priest intentionally poured the water on his feet, the people pelted him with their etrogim (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 10:8). The water libation on Shabbat – ‫נִיסו ְּך ַה ַּמיִ ם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬: ּ The ritual of the water libation was performed on Shabbat as it was conducted during the week, except that when the libation was performed on Shabbat, they filled a golden barrel that was not one of the consecrated Temple vessels and placed it in a chamber on Friday. On the next day, Shabbat, they filled a pitcher with that water and poured it on the altar. If the water in the barrel spilled or was exposed, they would fill the pitcher with water from the Temple basin and pour it (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 10:9). language

Messenger [parvanka] – ‫פ ְרוַ ונְ ָקא‬:ַ ּ From the Middle Iranian parwānak, meaning guide or messenger. ‫חמ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 48b 

235

halakha

Ascending and circling the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫ע ִלּיָ ה וְ ַה ָ ּק ָפה ַ ּב ִּמ‬‎ֲ : All those who climb the altar ascend on the right side, circle the altar, and descend on the left, with three exceptions. Those three rituals are the wine libation, the water libation, and the bird sacrificed as a burntoffering. For those three elements of the Temple service, performed at the southwest corner of the altar, the priest climbs the ramp to the ledge of the altar and immediately turns left to the southwest corner, performs the service, and descends the way he ascended. The reason he does not circle the altar with these three items before their service is due to the concern lest the wine or water become tainted, or lest the bird suffocate from the smoke of the fire as he circles the altar (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:11). notes

Perforated at the bottom with two thin perforated nose-like protrusions – ‫חֹוט ִמין‬ ָ ‫מנו ָ ּּק ִבים ְּכ ִמין ׁ ְשנֵי‬:ְ Due to several considerations, the basins, whether made of silver or limestone, were apparently permanently fixed to the altar (see Ritva and Me’iri). With regard to the nose-like protrusions, Rashi explains that there were small tubes protruding from the outer surface of the basins, like nostrils (see Tosafot). Ritva explains that these nose-like protrusions were situated beneath the bowls and aligned with the altar’s drainpipes. A small, tube-like protrusion jutted out from the bowl and led directly into the drainpipe to ensure that not even one drop of the libation would spill. background

Poured on his feet – ‫נִיס ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַרגְ ָליו‬: ֵּ This incident is cited in several places in the Talmud and is described at length in the works of Josephus. The individual who poured the water on his feet is identified as Alexander Yannai, the Hasmonean king, who, due to his Sadducee leanings, rejected the tradition of the water libation. Therefore, instead of pouring the water on the altar, he poured it on his feet. This elicited outrage among the people, who reacted by pelting him with their etrogim. He, in turn, summoned his gentile guard, who proceeded to kill many of those present in the Temple.

236 

Perek IV . 48b . ‫חמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

‫ ָּתנ ּו‬.‫״ע ָלה ַ ּב ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ו ָּפנָ ה ִל ְ ׂשמֹאלֹו״ כו׳‬ ָ ‫עֹולין דֶּ ֶר ְך‬ ִ ‫עֹולים ַל ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ִ ‫ ָּכל ָה‬:‫ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ חוּץ‬.‫יֹור ִדין דֶּ ֶר ְך ְ ׂשמֹאל‬ ְ ְ‫ ו ַּמ ִּק ִיפין ו‬,‫יָ ִמין‬ ‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש‬,ּ‫עֹולה ִל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ַה ָּללו‬ ֶ ‫ִמן ָה‬ :‫ וְ ֵאלּ ּו ֵהן‬,‫דֶּ ֶרךְ ְ ׂשמֹאל וְ חֹוזְ ִרין ַעל ֶה ָע ֵקב‬ ‫עֹולת ָהעֹוף‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬,‫נִיסו ְּך ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ּ ְ‫ ו‬,‫נִיסו ְּך ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ ּ .‫ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָר ְב ָתה ַ ּב ִּמזְ ָרח‬

§ The mishna continues: The priest ascended the ramp of the altar

‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא דְּ יַ יִ ן‬.‫״א ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ַמ ׁ ְש ִח ִירין״‬ ֶ ‫ דְּ ַמּיָ א ַא ַּמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ִחיר? ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ַמ ׁ ְש ִחיר‬ ‫ ֵע ָירה ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם ְלתֹוךְ ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם‬,‫וְ ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן ְלתֹוךְ ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם – יָ צָ א‬ .‫חֹורי‬ ֵ ‫ָא ֵתי ְל ַא ׁ ְש‬

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda said that they were limestone, not silver, basins, but they would blacken due to the wine. The Gemara asks: Granted, the basin for wine blackened due to the wine; however, why did the basin for water blacken? The Gemara answers: Since the Master said in the mishna: However, if one inadvertently poured the contents of the basin of water into the basin of wine or the contents of the basin of wine into the basin of water, he fulfilled his obligation. Then even the basin for water would come to blacken over the course of time as well.

and turned to his left. The Sages taught: All who ascend the altar ascend and turn via the right, and circle the altar,h and descend via the left. This is the case except for one ascending to perform one of these three tasks, as the ones who perform these tasks ascend via the left, and then turn on their heel and return in the direction that they came. And these tasks are: The water libation, and the wine libation, and the bird sacrificed as a burnt-offering when there were too many priests engaged in the sacrifice of these burnt-offerings in the preferred location east of the altar. When that was the case, additional priests engaged in sacrificing the same offering would pinch the neck of the bird west of the altar.

‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬.‫חֹוט ִמין״ וכו׳‬ ָ ‫ § ״ו ְּמנו ָ ּּק ִבים ְּכ ִמין ׁ ְשנֵי‬The mishna continues: And the two basins were perforated at the n ,‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫נִיתין ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִהיא וְ ל ֹא ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬bottom with two thin, perforated, nose-like protrusions, one broad ‫נַס ְך ָּכל‬ ֵּ ‫ ְ ּבלֹוג ָהיָ ה ְמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬and one thin. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not with that of the !ּ‫ דְּ ִאי ַר ָ ּבנַן – ִּכי ֲה ָד ֵדי נִינְ הו‬,‫ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה‬ Rabbis, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One would pour the water with a vessel that had a capacity of one log on all eight days of the Festival, unlike the wine libation, for which a three-log basin was used. According to his opinion, there is a difference between the capacity of the wine vessel and that of the water vessel; therefore, it is clear why the opening in the wine vessel was broader. As, if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, they are the same as the capacity of the water basin, three log. Why, then, were there different sized openings? ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬The Gemara answers: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance ‫יך ַמּיָ א‬ ְ ‫ ַח ְמ ָרא ְס ִמ‬,‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ֵּת‬ .‫ ְק ִל ׁיש‬with the opinion of the Rabbis, the reason for the different-sized openings is that wine is thick and water is thin, and therefore wine flows more slowly than water. In order to ensure that the emptying of both basins would conclude simultaneously, the wine basin required a wider opening. – ‫ דְּ ִאי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָר ָחב וְ ָקצָ ר ִאית ֵל‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶשל‬,‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ַק ְ ׂשוָ ואֹות ָהי ּו ׁ ָשם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶשל‬,‫יה ָר ָחב‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן ּ ִפ‬,‫ַמיִ ם וְ ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬ ‫נֵיהם ָּכ ִלין‬ ֶ ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו ׁ ְש‬,‫יה ָקצָ ר‬ ָ ‫ַמיִ ם ּ ִפ‬ .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת‬

So too, it is reasonable to establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, unlike the description of the two openings in the mishna as broad and thin, elsewhere he is of the opinion that the openings as wide and narrow, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two small pipes there, one for water and one for wine. The mouth of the pipe for wine was wide and the mouth of the pipe for water was narrow, so that the emptying of both basins would conclude simultaneously. The disparity between wide and narrow is greater than the disparity between broad and thin, thereby facilitating the simultaneous emptying of the threelog and one-log basins according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬:‫״מ ֲע ָרבֹו ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם״‬ ַ ,‫ִיס ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַרגְ ָליו‬ ֵּ ‫דֹוקי ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ ִ ְ‫ִ ּבצ‬ ‫ וְ אֹותֹו‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵ‫ו ְּרגָ מוּה ּו ָּכל ָה ָעם ְ ּב ֶא ְתרֹוג‬ ‫ וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ּבוּל‬,‫ַהּיֹום נִ ְפ ְ ּג ָמה ֶק ֶרן ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ‫ ל ֹא ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשהו ְּכ ׁ ַשר‬,ּ‫ׁ ֶשל ֶמ ַלח ו ְּס ָתמוּהו‬ ‫בֹודה ֶא ָּלא ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יֵ ָר ֶאה ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ָ ‫ַל ֲע‬ .‫ּ ָפגוּם‬

§ The mishna continues: The basin to the west of the altar was for

water, and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine, and they would tell the one pouring the water to raise his hand. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one Sadducee priest who poured the water on his feet,b and in anger all the people pelted him with their etrogim. And that day, the horn of the altar was damaged as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. They brought a fistful of salt and sealed the damaged section, not because it rendered the altar fit for the Temple service, but in deference to the altar, so that the altar would not be seen in its damaged state.

Perek IV Daf 49 Amud a ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּכל ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ל ֹא ֶּכ ֶב ׁש וְ ל ֹא ֶק ֶרן‬As any altar that lacksn a ramp, or a horn, or a base, or the shape .‫בֹודה‬ ָ ‫יבו ַּע – ּ ָפסוּל ַל ֲע‬ ּ ‫ וְ ל ֹא יְ סֹוד וְ ל ֹא ִר‬of a square, either because it was not erected as a square or due .‫ ַאף ַה ּס ֵֹובב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬to damage, is disqualified for use in the Temple service. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even the surrounding ledge must be complete, and if it is lacking it disqualifies the altar.h :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫אשית נִ ְב ְרא ּו‬ ִ ׁ ‫יתין ִמ ׁ ּ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי ְב ֵר‬ ִּ ‫ׁ ִש‬ ‫״ח ּמ ּו ֵקי יְ ֵר ַכיִ ְך ְּכמֹו ֳח ָל ִאים‬ ַ :‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫״ח ּמו ֵּקי יְ ֵר ַכיִ ךְ ״ – ֵאלּ ּו‬ ַ .‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה יְ ֵדי ָא ָּמן״‬ ‫חֹול ִלין‬ ָ ‫״כמֹו ֳח ָל ִאים״ – ׁ ֶש ְּמ‬ ִ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬ ְּ ,‫יתין‬ – ‫״מ ֲע ֵ ׂשה יְ ֵדי ָא ָּמן״‬ ַ ,‫יֹור ִדין ַעד ַה ְּתהֹום‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ְ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּך‬ ׁ ‫זֹו ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה יְ ֵדי או ָּמנוּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַה ָ ּק‬ ,‫אשית״‬ ִ ׁ ‫״ב ֵר‬ ּ ְ :‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫הוּא‬ .‫אשית״ ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָרא ׁ ִשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫״ב ֵר‬ ּ ְ ‫ַאל ִּת ְיק ִרי‬

§ Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The drain-

‫חֹול ִלין‬ ָ ‫יתין ְמ‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ִש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ‫״א ׁ ִש ָירה‬ ָ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יֹור ִדין ַעד ְּתהֹום‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫נָ א ִל ִיד ִידי ׁ ִש ַירת דּ ִֹודי ְל ַכ ְרמֹו ֶּכ ֶרם ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ וַ יְ ַעּזְ ֵקה ּו וַ יְ ַס ְּק ֵלה ּו‬.‫ִל ִיד ִידי ְ ּב ֶק ֶרן ֶ ּבן ׁ ָש ֶמן‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ָּט ֵעה ּו ׂש ֵֹורק וַ ּיִ ֶבן ִמגְ דָּ ל ְ ּבתֹוכֹו וְ גַ ם יֶ ֶקב‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיִ ָּט ֵעה ּו ׂש ֵֹורק״ – זֶ ה ֵ ּבית‬.‫ָחצֵ ב ּבֹו״‬ ,‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ״וַ ֶּיִבן ִמגְ דָּ ל ְ ּבתֹוכֹו״ – זֶ ה ִמ‬,‫ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ .‫יתין‬ ִ ‫״וְ גַ ם יֶ ֶקב ָחצֵ ב ּבֹו״ – ֵאלּ ּו ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: These drainpipes are hollow and descend to the depths, as it is stated: “Let me sing of my well beloved, a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My well beloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill, and he dug it, and cleared it of stones, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a vat therein” (Isaiah 5:1–2). Rabbi Yosei interprets these verses homiletically as referring to the Temple. “He planted it with the choicest vine”; this is referring to the Temple; “he built a tower therein”;n this is referring to the altar; “and hewed out a vat therein”; this is referring to the drainpipes. As the owner of the vineyard is a parable for God, this indicates that the drainpipes are a natural part of Creation.

‫ לוּל ָק ָטן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַ ּבר צָ דֹוק‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ,‫זְב ַח ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ָרבֹו ׁ ֶשל ֶּכ ֶב ׁש‬ ּ ֵ ‫ָהיָ ה ֵ ּבין ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ְל ִמ‬ ‫יֹור ִדין‬ ְ ‫וְ ַא ַחת ְל ׁ ִש ְב ִעים ׁ ָשנָ ה ּ ִפ ְר ֵחי ְכהו ָּּנה‬ ‫ֹומה‬ ֶ ּ‫ְל ׁ ָשם ו ְּמ ַל ְּק ִטין ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם יַ יִ ן ָקרו ּׁש ׁ ֶשד‬ ‫ ו ָּב ִאין וְ ׂש ְֹור ִפין אֹותֹו‬,‫ילה‬ ָ ‫ְל ִעיגּ ו ֵּלי ְד ֵב‬ ‫״ב ּק ֶֹד ׁש ַה ֵּס ְך נֶ ֶס ְך‬ ּ ַ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ִ ּב ְקד ּו ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫ׁ ֵש ָכר ַלה׳״‬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: There was a small gaph between the ramp and the altar west of the ramp, and once in seventy years young priests would descend theren and gather from there the congealed wine left over from the libations that set over time, which resembled round cakes of dried and pressed figs. They would then come and burn it in sanctity in the Temple courtyard, as it is stated: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation of strong drink unto the Lord” (Numbers 28:7);

pipes [shittin]h built into the altar and extending beneath it were created from the six days of Creation,n as it is stated: “The hidden of your thighs are like the links of a chain, the handiwork of a skilled workman” (Song of Songs 7:2).n The Gemara interprets the verse homiletically: “The hidden of your thighs”; these are the drainpipes that are concealed within the altar; “are like the links of a chain [ĥala’im]”; they are hollow [meĥolalin] and descend to the depths; “the handiwork of a skilled workman”; this is the handiwork of the Holy One, Blessed be He. On a similar note, it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that it is written: “In the beginning [bereshit]” (Genesis 1:1); do not read it as: Bereshit, but rather as: Bara shit,n meaning that God created the pipeline descending from the altar.

halakha

Essential features of the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫ה ְּמ ַע ְּכ ִבים ַ ּב ִּמ‬‎ַ : The four horns of the altar, the ramp, its base, and its square shape are essential features of the altar. The absence of any of them invalidates the altar (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 2:17). Drainpipes – ‫ש ִּיתין‬: ִ ׁ There were two small narrow openings in the southwest corner of the altar. These were the drainpipes through which the blood and other liquids would drain. The blood descended until it reached a water canal that flowed into the Kidron Valley (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 2:11). Small gap – ‫לוּל ָק ָטן‬: Adjacent to the southwest corner of the altar, there was a space of one square cubit covered by a marble tablet with a ring affixed to it. Every so often, young priests would descend through that space to gain access to the drainpipes and clean them (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 2:12).

notes

As any altar that lacks, etc. – ‫זְב ַח ׁ ֶש ֵאין וכו׳‬ ּ ֵ ‫ש ָּכל ִמ‬: ֶ ׁ These elements are essential both in building a new altar as well as in maintaining an existing altar. Even if one were to build an altar that deviates from the specifications of the altar in the Second Temple, it would still be fit for use if these elements are present. Similarly, if an existing altar is damaged and one of these elements is lacking, the altar is unfit for use. Were created from the six days of Creation – ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי‬ ‫אשית נִ ְב ְרא ּו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ב ֵר‬:ְ The early and later authorities discuss the difficulty with Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement, as here he maintains that the drainpipes were created by God, while further on (daf 53a) he mentions that they were excavated by King David. Several solutions were suggested, including the possibility that these were conflicting traditions, or that the drainpipes were clogged



and then unclogged. The Maharsha explains simply that the the world was founded. Therefore, the drainpipes [shittin] are drainpipes created by God are those in the earth beneath the the foundation of the world. altar, which descend to the depths, while the drainpipes excaHe built a tower therein – ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ִמגְ דָּ ל ְ ּבתֹוכֹו‬: In the Jerusalem vated by David are those built into the base of the altar. Talmud, the tower is interpreted as referring to the Sanctuary, The handiwork of a skilled workman – ‫מ ֲע ֵ ׂשה יְ ֵדי ָא ָּמן‬:ַ In the which was one hundred cubits high, like a tower. Jerusalem Talmud the following is cited: Lest one say that these ְ A tradition is cited drainpipes were not beautiful, as not all creations of God are Descend to the drainpipes – ‫יֹור ִדים ַל ׁ ּ ִש ִיתין‬: in responsa literature of the ge’ o nim that the drainpipes were a beautiful, the verse states: “The handiwork of a skilled workman,” to indicate that they were crafted by God and were even more pit one cubit wide and six hundred cubits deep. The Me’iri explains that according to that tradition, the priests clearly could beautiful than the work of a skilled workman. not descend to the bottom to clean the drainpipes. Rather, it Bereshit…bara shit – ‫ית…ב ָרא ׁ ִשית‬ ָּ ‫אש‬ ִ ׁ ‫ב ֵר‬:ּ ְ This homiletic inter- means that they descended as far as they could and cleaned pretation is related to another that teaches that the altar was there, or they used special equipment to reach beyond the built upon the Foundation Rock [Even Shetiyya], upon which point where they could descend no further. ‫טמ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 49a 

237

Perek IV Daf 49 Amud b ‫יפתֹו‬ ָ ‫ִיסוּכֹו ִ ּב ְקד ּו ׁ ּ ָשה ָּכ ְך ְ ׂש ֵר‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ :‫ ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע? ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬.‫ִ ּב ְקד ּו ׁ ּ ָשה‬ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא‬,‫ָא ְתיָ א ״ ק ֶֹד ׁש״ ״ ק ֶֹד ׁש״‬ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬,‫״ב ּק ֶֹד ׁש ַה ֵּס ְך נֶ ֶס ְך ״‬ ַּ ‫ֹותר ָ ּב ֵא ׁש ל ֹא יֵ ָא ֵכל ִּכי‬ ָ ּ‫״וְ ָ ׂש ַר ְפ ָּת ֶאת ַהנ‬ .‫ק ֶֹד ׁש הוּא״‬

just as its pouring is in sanctity, so too must its burning be in sanctity. From where may it be inferred that this is referring to burning? Ravina said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term sanctity written with regard to libations and sanctity written with regard to leftover offerings. It is written here, with regard to libations: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation” (Numbers 28:7), and it is written there, with regard to leftover offerings: “You shall burn the leftovers in fire; they are not to be eaten, for they are sanctity” (Exodus 29:34). Through the verbal analogy it is derived that leftover libations must also be burned.

,‫ נְ ָס ִכים‬:)‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא (דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ָּ ‫ַ ּב ְּת ִח‬ – ‫יתין‬ ִ ‫ יָ ְרד ּו ַל ׁ ּ ִש‬,‫מֹוע ִלין ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ֲ – ‫ילה‬ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַ ּבר‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬.‫מֹוע ִלין ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ֲ ‫ֵאין‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ָהא נָ ֲחת ּו ְלה ּו‬.‫צָ דֹוק ִהיא‬ !‫ַל ְּתהֹום‬

The Gemara notes: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in this mishna? With regard to libations, initially, prior to being poured, one can misuse consecrated property with them, as is the case with all consecrated items. However, once they descended to the drainpipes, one does not violate the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property with them, because the mitzva was already fulfilled. Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who holds that the libations did not descend to the depths but would collect between the ramp and the altar and would be collected once every seventy years. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, how could the libations be misused? Didn’t they already descend to the depths through the drainpipes?

.‫ ִ ּב ְד ִא ְיק ָלט‬,‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it could be referring to a case where some of the wine landed outside the drainpipes and was collected in the space between the ramp and the altar.

halakha

Misuse of libations – ‫נְס ִכים‬ ָ ‫מ ִע ָילה ִ ּב‬:ְ The prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies to wine libations from the moment the wine is consecrated. However, once the wine is poured on the altar and enters the drainpipes, the prohibition no longer applies. With regard to the water libation on Sukkot, as long as the water is in the golden barrel, one may not derive personal benefit from it ab initio. However, if one did so, he did not violate the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. Once the water is placed into the jug with which it is taken to the altar, the prohibition applies (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Me’ila 2:9).

238 

Perek IV . 49b . ‫טמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ִהיא וְ ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִא‬ – ‫ דְּ ִאי ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַ ּבר צָ דֹוק‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ימי! ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬ ִ ְ‫ַא ַּכ ִּתי ִ ּב ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּש ַתיְ יה ּו ָקי‬ ‫ ֵאין ְלךָ דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ּנ ֲַע ָ ׂשה ִמצְ וָ תֹו‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬.‫מֹוע ִלין ּבֹו‬ ֲ ‫ּו‬ ‫נַס ִכין יַ יִ ן ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ּפ ְֹוק ִקין ֶאת‬ ְּ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ‬ ‫״ב ּק ֶֹד ׁש‬ ּ ַ :‫ ְל ַקּיֵ ים ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יתין‬ ִ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬ .‫נֶסךְ ׁ ֵש ָכר ה׳״‬ ֶ ְ‫ַה ֵּסך‬

And some say a different version of this exchange. Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, then the wine that collected between the ramp and the altar remains in its sanctity, as it must be burned, and the prohibition against misuse would still apply. The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed with which one can violate the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.h Reish Lakish said: When they pour wine onto the altar, they plug the top of the drainpipes so that the wine does not descend to the depths, in order to fulfill that which is stated: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation of strong drink [shekhar] unto the Lord” (Numbers 28:7).

– ‫״ש ָכר״‬ ֵ ׁ :‫ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע? ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ .‫ ְל ׁשֹון ׁ ִש ְכרוּת‬,‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ׁשֹון ְ ׂש ִב‬,‫ְל ׁשֹון ׁ ְש ִתּיָה‬ ‫ ִּכי ָ ׂש ַבע‬:‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫רֹונֵיה ָ ׂש ַבע‬ ‫ינִיש ַח ְמ ָרא – ִמ ְ ּג‬ ׁ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫יה‬ ָ ׁ ‫ צו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דְּ ָלא נְ ִפ‬:‫ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ישא ֵל‬ ‫ ַא ָּכ ָסא‬,‫ ָר ָבא‬.‫מֹועי‬ ֵ ‫ַח ְמ ָרא – ִליגְ ַמע ְ ּג‬ .‫מֹועי‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ִב ְר ְכ ָתא ַאגְ ַמע ְ ּג‬

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this is referring to plugging the drainpipes? Rav Pappa said: Shekhar is an expression of drinking, of satiation, of intoxication. In order to underscore all three aspects of the libations, the space between the altar and the ramp would fill with wine. Rav Pappa said: Conclude from this that when a person is satiated from drinking wine, it is from his throat being filled with wine that he is satiated. Unlike food, wine does not satiate a person when it fills his stomach. Rava said: Therefore, let a young Torah scholar, who does not have much wine, swallow his wine in large swigs, filling his throat each time, as he will thereby maximize his enjoyment. And Rava himself, when drinking a cup of blessing, would swallow large swigs so as to drink the wine accompanying the mitzva in an optimal manner.

ְ‫״מה ּיָ פ ּו ְפ ָע ַמיִ ך‬ ַ :‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫דָּ ַר ׁש ָר ָבא‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫מֹות‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּב ּנ ְָע ִלים ַ ּבת נָ ִדיב״ – ַמה ּיָ פ ּו ּ ַפ ֲע‬ ‫״בת‬ ּ ַ ,‫עֹולין ָל ֶרגֶ ל‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְק ָרא‬,ּ‫נָ ִדיב״ – ִ ּב ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַא ְב ָר ָהם ָא ִבינו‬ ‫ ״נְ ִד ֵיבי ַע ִּמים נֶ ֱא ָספ ּו ַעם‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫נָ ִדיב‬ ‫ ֱאל ֵֹהי ַא ְב ָר ָהם וְ ל ֹא ֱאל ֵֹהי‬.‫ֱאל ֵֹהי ַא ְב ָר ָהם״‬ ‫ ֱאל ֵֹהי ַא ְב ָר ָהם ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬:‫יִ צְ ָחק וְ יַ ֲעקֹב? ֶא ָּלא‬ .‫ְּת ִח ָּילה ַּל ֵ ּג ִרים‬

§ Apropos the homiletic interpretations of the verses from Song of

Songs with regard to the drainpipes, the Gemara cites additional interpretations. Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “How beautiful are your steps in sandals, O prince’s daughter” (Song of Songs 7:2)? How beautiful are the feet of the Jewish people at the time when they ascend to Jerusalem for the Festival. “O prince’s daughter”;n this is referring to the daughter of Abraham our Patriarch, who was called prince, as it is stated: “The princes of the peoples are gathered, the people of the God of Abraham” (Psalms 47:10). The verse calls the Jewish people the people of the God of Abraham and not the God of Isaac and Jacob. Why are the Jewish people associated specifically with Abraham? Rather than referring to the three Patriarchs, the verse is referring to the God of Abraham, who was first of the converts, and therefore it is reasonable for the princes of other nations to gather around him.

‫״ח ּמו ֵּקי‬ ַ ‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַרב ָענָ ן‬ – ‫תֹורה ְּכיָ ֵר ְך‬ ָ ‫יְ ֵר ַכיִ ְך״ ָל ָּמה נִ ְמ ׁ ְשל ּו דִּ ְב ֵרי‬ ‫תֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ּיָ ֵרךְ ַ ּב ֵּס ֶתר – ַאף דִּ ְב ֵרי‬: ָ‫לֹומר ְלך‬ ַ .‫ַ ּב ֵּס ֶתר‬

In the school of Rav Anan it was taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The hidden of your thighs” (Song of Songs 7:2)? Why are matters of Torah likened to a thigh? It is to tell you that just as the thigh is always concealed, covered by clothes, so too, matters of Torah are optimal when recited in privateh and not in public.

‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ָ‫״ה ִ ּגיד ְלךָ ָא ָדם ַמה ּטֹוב ו ָּמה ה׳ דּ ֵֹור ׁש ִמ ְּמך‬ ִ ‫ִּכי ִאם ֲע ׂשֹות ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד וְ ַהצְ ַנֵע‬ ‫״ע ׂשֹות ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט״ – זֶ ה‬ ֲ .‫ֶל ֶכת ִעם ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ ״‬ ,‫ ״וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד״ – זֹו ְ ּג ִמילוּת ֲח ָס ִדים‬,‫ַהדִּ ין‬ ‫״וְ ַהצְ ַנֵע ֶל ֶכת ִעם ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ ״ – זֹו הֹוצָ ַאת‬ ‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא דְּ ָב ִרים‬.‫נָסת ַּכ ָּלה ַלחו ּ ָּפה‬ ַ ‫ַה ֵּמת וְ ַה ְכ‬ ‫ֹותן‬ ָ ‫חֹומר; ו ַּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ָּכן ַל ֲע ׂש‬ ֶ ָ‫ַקל ו‬ ,‫״הצְ ַנֵע ֶל ֶכת״‬ ַ ‫ְ ּב ַפ ְר ֶה ְסיָ א – ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫נְעא – ַעל ַא ַחת‬ ָ ִ‫דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ָּכן ַל ֲעשׂ ָֹותן ְ ּבצ‬ .‫ַּכ ָּמה וְ ַכ ָּמה‬

And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8)? “To do justly”; this is justice. “To love mercy”; this is acts of kindness. “To walk humbly with your God”; this is referring to taking the indigent dead out for burial and accompanying a poor bride to her wedding canopy,n both of which must be performed without fanfare.n The Gemara summarizes: And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? If, with regard to matters that tend to be conducted in public, as the multitudes participate in funerals and weddings, the Torah says: Walk humbly, then in matters that tend to be conducted in private, e.g., giving charity and studying Torah, all the more so should they be conducted privately.

‫עֹושה צְ ָד ָקה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָ ּגדֹול ָה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫״ע ׂשה‬ ֲ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יֹותר ִמ ָּכל ַה ָ ּק ְר ָ ּבנֹות‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬.‫צְ ָד ָקה ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט נִ ְב ָחר ַלה׳ ִמּזָ ַבח״‬ ‫יֹותר‬ ֵ ‫דֹולה ְ ּג ִמילוּת ֲח ָס ִדים‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּג‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ ״זִ ְרע ּו ָל ֶכם ִלצְ ָד ָקה‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ִמן ַה ְ ּצ ָד ָקה‬ ‫זֹור ַע – ָס ֵפק‬ ֵ ‫ ִאם ָא ָדם‬.‫וְ ִקצְ ר ּו ִפי ֶח ֶסד״‬ ‫ ָא ָדם קֹוצֵ ר – וַ דַּ אי‬,‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫אֹוכל ָס ֵפק ֵאינֹו‬ ֵ .‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ

§ Rabbi Elazar said: One who performs acts of charity is greater

halakha

Matters of Torah in private – ‫תֹורה ַ ּב ֵּס ֶתר‬ ָ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי‬: Anyone who exerts himself in his Torah study in private grows wise, as it is written: “With the modest is wisdom” (Proverbs 11:2; see Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 246:22).

than one who sacrifices all types of offerings, as it is stated: “To perform charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than an offering” (Proverbs 21:3), including all types of offerings. And Rabbi Elazar said: Acts of kindness, assisting someone in need, are greater than charity, as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness” (Hosea 10:12). This means: If a person sows, it is uncertain whether he will eat or whether he will not eat, since much can go wrong before the seed becomes food. However, if a person reaps, he certainly eats.n In this verse, charity is likened to sowing, while acts of kindness are likened to reaping.

notes

O prince’s daughter – ‫בת ִנָדיב‬:ּ ַ The Festival pilgrims are associated with Abraham because he was the one who left his country and his birthplace to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, those who come to Jerusalem for the Festival leave their homes to make the pilgrimage to the House of God (Iyyei HaYam).

lic forum. However, there are matters that are fulfilled covertly and out of the public eye. The same applies to the performance of many mitzvot. Although only some are mentioned here, they indicate that for all mitzvot, one must carefully weigh and consider which aspects should be performed publicly, in order to serve as a role model, and which should be performed in private (Arukh LaNer).

Taking the dead out and accompanying a bride to her wedding ֵ ‫א ָדם קֹוצֵ ר וַ דַּ אי‬:ָ Occacanopy – ‫נָסת ַּכ ָּלה ַלחו ּ ָּפה‬ ַ ‫הֹוצָ ַאת ַה ֵּמת וְ ַה ְכ‬: The Me’iri explains that If a person reaps he certainly eats – ‫אֹוכל‬ sionally, one inadvertently gives charity to someone who does not although a funeral, a eulogy, and a wedding are typically public gatherings, limits should be placed on the assembly even in those need it. In that case he did not fulfill that mitzva. However, since an act of kindness can be performed even for a wealthy person, one cases (see Rashi). certainly fulfills a mitzva by doing so (Iyyun Ya’akov). In addition, Modesty and publicity – ‫צְ נִיעוּת ו ִּפ ְרסוּם‬: Several statements here, with regard to charity, sometimes the money does not reach the including those of Rav Anan with regard to Torah and those with re- poor person, or it does not help him, e.g., he may lose the money, gard to organizing a wedding for a bride, refer to matters that have but in the case of acts of kindness, which one receives immediately, two aspects, a public aspect and a private aspect. On one hand, the the one who performed the act of kindness certainly fulfills a Torah was given very publicly, and Torah is typically taught in a pub- mitzva (Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto).



‫טמ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 49b 

239

‫ ֵאין צְ ָד ָקה ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֶּל ֶמת‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬And Rabbi Elazar said: The reward for charity is paid from ‫ ״זִ ְרע ּו ָל ֶכם‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ ֶא ָלא ְל ִפי ֶח ֶסד ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה‬Heaven only in accordance with the kindness and generosity n .‫ ִלצְ ָד ָקה וְ ִקצְ ר ּו ִפי ֶח ֶסד״‬included therein and in accordance with the effort and the consideration that went into the giving. It is not merely in accordance with the sum of money, as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness.” ‫דֹולה ְ ּג ִמילוּת‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ְ ּג‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ,‫ צְ ָד ָקה – ְ ּב ָממֹונֹו‬,‫יֹותר ִמן ַה ְ ּצ ָד ָקה‬ ֵ ‫ֲח ָס ִדים‬ .‫ְ ּג ִמילוּת ֲח ָס ִדים – ֵ ּבין ְ ּבגוּפֹו ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ָממֹונֹו‬ ‫ ְ ּג ִמילוּת ֲח ָס ִדים – ֵ ּבין‬,‫צְ ָד ָקה – ַל ֲענִּיִ ים‬ ,‫ צְ ָד ָקה – ַל ַחּיִ ים‬.‫ַל ֲענִּיִ ים ֵ ּבין ַל ֲע ׁ ִש ִירים‬ .‫ְ ּג ִמילוּת ֲח ָס ִדים – ֵ ּבין ַל ַחּיִ ים ֵ ּבין ַל ֵּמ ִתים‬

The Sages taught that acts of kindness are superior to charity in three respects: Charity can be performed only with one’s money, while acts of kindness can be performed both with his person and with his money. Charity is given to the poor, while acts of kindness are performed both for the poor and for the rich. Charity is given to the living, while acts of kindness are performed both for the living and for the dead.

‫עֹושה צְ ָד ָקה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָּכל ָה‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ֵּ ‫יל ּו ִמ‬ ּ ‫ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט – ְּכ ִא‬ ‫עֹולם ּכו ּּלֹו‬ ָ ‫ילא ָּכל ָה‬ ‫״אֹוהב צְ ָד ָקה ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט ֶח ֶסד‬ ֵ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֶח ֶסד‬ ‫ֹאמר ָּכל ַה ָ ּבא‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ּת‬.‫ה׳ ָמ ְל ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ״‬ ‫״מה ּיָ ָקר‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫קֹופץ – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ֵ ‫ִל ְק ּפֹוץ‬ ‫(ח ֶסד ה׳ ָמ ְל ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ)״‬ ֶ ‫ַח ְסדְּ ךָ ֱאל ִֹהים‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ יָ כֹול ַאף יְ ֵרא ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם ֵּכן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬.‫וגו׳‬ .‫עֹולם ַעל יְ ֵר ָאיו״‬ ָ ‫עֹולם וְ ַעד‬ ָ ‫״וְ ֶח ֶסד ה׳ ֵמ‬

And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who performs charity and justice is considered as though he filled the whole world in its entirety with kindness, as it is stated: “He loves charity and justice; the earth is full of the kindness of the Lord” (Psalms 33:5). Lest you say that anyone who comes to leapn and perform an act of kindness may simply leap and do so without scrutiny, the verse states: “How precious is your kindness, O God” (Psalms 36:8). It is a precious and rare occurrence to perform an act of kindness properly. One might have thought that even a God-fearing individual does not always encounter the opportunity to perform acts of kindness. Therefore, the verse states: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him” (Psalms 103:17).

‫ ָּכל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָח ָמא ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ָע ָליו ֵחן ְ ּביָ דו ַּע ׁ ֶשהוּא יְ ֵרא ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ .‫עֹולם ַעל יְ ֵר ָאיו״‬ ָ ‫עֹולם וְ ַעד‬ ָ ‫״ח ֶסד ה׳ ֵמ‬ ֶ ‫״פ ָיה ּ ָפ ְת ָחה‬ ִ ּ ‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ וְ ִכי יֵ ׁש‬,‫תֹורת ֶח ֶסד ַעל ְל ׁשֹונָ ּה״‬ ַ ְ‫ְב ָח ְכ ָמה ו‬ ‫ּת ָֹורה ׁ ֶשל ֶח ֶסד וְ יֵ ׁש ּת ָֹורה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫ ּת ָֹורה ִל ׁ ְש ָמ ּה – זֹו ִהיא ּת ָֹורה‬:‫ֶח ֶסד? ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִל ׁ ְש ָמ ּה – זֹו ִהיא ּת ָֹורה‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ֶח ֶסד‬ ‫ ּת ָֹורה‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ׁ ֶשל ֶח ֶסד‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬,‫ְל ַל ְּמ ָד ּה – זֹו ִהיא ּת ָֹורה ׁ ֶשל ֶח ֶסד‬ .‫ְל ַל ְּמ ָד ּה – זֹו ִהיא ּת ָֹורה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ׁ ֶשל ֶח ֶסד‬

Rabbi Ĥama bar Pappa said: With regard to any person who has grace about him, it is certain that he is God-fearing, as it is stated: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him.” When one sees that a certain individual is endowed with grace and kindness, one can be certain that he is a God-fearing person. And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and a Torah of kindness is on her tongue” (Proverbs 31:26)? The Gemara asks: Is there, then, a Torah of kindness and a Torah that is not of kindness? Rather, it is Torah studied for its own sake that is a Torah of kindness, as one studies it wholeheartedly; and it is Torah studied not for its own sake but for some ulterior motive that is a Torah that is not of kindness. Some say that it is Torah studied in order to teach it to others that is a Torah of kindness; it is Torah studied with the intent of not teaching it to others that is a Torah that is not of kindness.

‫יתי‬ ֵ ְ‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי? נַי‬.‫״כ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ּו ַ ּבחֹול״ כו׳‬ ְּ § The mishna continues: As its performance during the week, ‫ ֵאין ׁ ִשיעוּר‬,‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬:‫ ִ ּב ְמקוּדֶּ ׁ ֶשת! ָא ַמר זְ ִע ִירי‬so is its performance on Shabbat, except that on Shabbat one .‫ ו ְּכ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֵרת ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשין ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִמדַּ ַעת‬,‫ ַל ַּמיִ ם‬would not draw water. Instead, on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated and would place it in the Temple chamber, and water would be drawn from there on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And why should one do so? Let him bring the water in a consecrated barrel. Ze’iri said: The tanna in the mishna holds that there is no requisite measure for the water to be poured for libation, and therefore more than three log could be consecrated; and that Temple vessels consecrate their content if it is fit to be consecrated, even without intent to consecrate it. notes

In accordance with the kindness therein – ‫ל ִפי ֶח ֶסד ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה‬:ְ Some explain this with regard to the mitzva itself: Occasionally the needs of one poor person are urgent, e.g., a hungry person who needs his very next meal. Kindness demands taking the circumstances into consideration and giving to one whose need is greater (Kol Ya’akov). Anyone who comes to leap – ‫כל ַה ָ ּבא ִל ְק ּפֹוץ‬:ָּ Some explain that the Gemara is alluding to different levels of people. For

240 

Perek IV . 49b . ‫טמ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ד‬

certain people, it is inappropriate for them to perform acts of kindness beyond the letter of the law. One must first fulfill his basic obligations in this area and then proceed from there. Furthermore, not everyone is capable of attaining the lofty attribute of piety; therefore, engaging in acts that are not in keeping with one’s level is not necessarily appropriate. However, it is permitted for a truly God-fearing individual to perform acts of kindness immediately, as for him it is not considered a leap at all (Maharsha; Kol Ya’akov).

Perek IV Daf 50 Amud a ‫יתי ִ ּב ְמקוּדֶּ ׁ ֶשת – ִא ְיפ ִסיל ּו ְלה ּו‬ ֵ ְ‫וְ ִאי ַמי‬ ‫ ְּכ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֵרת ֵאין‬:‫ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר‬.‫ְ ּב ִלינָ ה‬ ‫ וּגְ זֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשין ֶא ָּלא ִמדַּ ַעת‬ .ּ‫ֹאמר ּו ְל ַד ַעת נִ ְת ַקדְּ ׁשו‬ ְ ‫י‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֵרת ֵאין‬,‫ימא יֵ ׁש ׁ ִשיעוּר ְל ַמיִ ם‬ ָ ‫ֵּת‬ ‫ וּגְ זֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשין ֶא ָּלא ִמדַּ ַעת‬ .‫ֹאמר ּו ְל ִקידּ ו ּׁש יָ ַדיִ ם וְ ַרגְ ַליִ ם ִמ ְּל ָאן‬ ְ ‫י‬

And if he brings the water in a consecrated barrel, the water will become disqualified for use in the libation by remaining overnight, just as all consecrated items, e.g., offerings, are rendered unfit after remaining overnight. Ĥizkiya said: Temple vessels consecrateh only with specific intent. Therefore, in theory, one could bring water to the Temple in a consecrated vessel, provided he has no intent to consecrate it. And the reason one may not do so is due to a rabbinic decree lest people say, upon seeing the water poured in the morning, that the water was intentionally consecrated. In that case, they might draw the mistaken conclusion that remaining overnight does not disqualify liquids for use in libations. Rabbi Yannai said that Rabbi Zeira said: Even if you say that there is a requisite measure for the water to be poured for libation and no more than three log can be consecrated, and that Temple vessels consecrate only with intent, here there is a rabbinic decree lest they sayn the barrel was filled with water for sanctifying the hands and the feet of the priest, for which there is no measure. Then, when they see the water poured in the morning, they will draw the mistaken conclusion that remaining overnight does not disqualify liquids for use in libations.

?‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי‬.‫״נִש ּ ְפ ָכה אֹו נִ ְת ַ ּג ְּל ָתה״ כו׳‬ ְׁ ‫יתין‬ ִ ִ‫ימא ַמ ְתנ‬ ָ ‫יע ֵביר ִ ּב ְמ ַס ֶּננֶ ת! ֵל‬ ֲ ‫ִל‬ ‫ ְמ ַס ֶּננֶ ת‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה‬ ּ ‫יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ּג‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה‬.‫ילוּי‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫ימ ַתי – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְמגו ָּּלה‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי‬,‫ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ְמכו ָּּסה‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ְמגו ָּּלה – ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּש ּום‬ ּ ‫ִ ּג‬ ,‫ֹומה ִל ְספֹוג‬ ֶ ּ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֶא ֶרס נָ ָח ׁש ד‬.‫ילוּי‬ .‫עֹומד ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫צָ ף ו‬

§ The mishna continues: If the water in the barrel spilled or was

‫ימר דַּ ֲא ַָמר‬ ַ ‫ ֵא‬,‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬ ‫בֹוה – ִמי‬ ַּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַל ָ ּג‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה – ְל ֶה ְדיֹוט‬ ‫״ה ְק ִר ֵיבה ּו‬ ַ :‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר? וְ ֵלית ֵל‬ ‫נָ א ְל ֶפ ָח ֶתךָ ֲהיִ ְרצְ ךָ אֹו ֲהיִ ָ ׂשא ָפנֶיךָ ָא ַמר‬ !?‫ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות״‬

The Gemara answers: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neĥemya, say that Rabbi Neĥemya said his opinion permitting strained water for a common person. However, did he actually say that strained water is permitted even to be sacrificed to God?n Even if it is possible to render this water potable, it is certainly not of the select quality that would render it eligible for use in the Temple service.h Isn’t Rabbi Neĥemya of the opinion that it is inappropriate to sacrifice on the altar any item that one would not give to someone of prominent stature? As it is stated: “And when you offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil; and when you offer the lame and sick, it is no evil. Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you or will he accept your person, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:8).

‫הדרן עלך לולב וערבה‬

exposed overnight, the water is disqualified. The Gemara asks: Why is the water disqualified? Let him pass it through a strainer, eliminating the poison. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neĥemya, as it was taught in a baraita: A vessel covered with a strainer is subject to the halakha of exposureh if the vessel is left unsupervised. Rabbi Neĥemya said: When is this so? It is when the lower vessel, in which the liquid collects after passing through the strainer, is exposed. However, if the lower vessel is covered, even if the upper vessel is exposed, it is not subject to the halakha of exposure, because the poison of a snakeb is like a sponge in that it floats and stays in place.

halakha

Consecration in Temple vessels – ‫קדּ ו ּׁש ִ ּב ְכ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֵרת‬:ִ Temple vessels consecrate items placed in them only if one places the item in the vessel with the intent to consecrate it (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 3:20). A vessel covered with a strainer is subject to the halakha of exposure – ‫מ ַס ֶּננֶ ת ׁיֵש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ּגילּ וּי‬:ְ It is prohibited to drink from a barrel that was left exposed, even if the water was subsequently strained, due to potential danger. Today, because snakes are not commonly found in residential areas, this halakha is not observed (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Rotze’aĥ UShmirat Nefesh 11:14). Libation of wine that was exposed – ‫נֶסךְ יַ יִ ן ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה‬: ֶ Wine that was exposed is disqualified for use upon the altar. Since it is unfit for consumption, it is contemptuous to pour it as a libation in Temple service (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Issurei Mizbe’aĥ 6:10). notes

A decree lest they say – ‫ֹאמר ּו‬ ְ ‫גּזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא י‬:ְ Rabbi Yoĥanan is cited in the Jerusalem Talmud as saying that the primary reason for the decree is due to the appearance of transgression; however, his opinion is not explained further. It is possible to say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, or that of Ĥizkiya, or both together. However, fundamentally, there is no prohibition here. The prohibition is by decree due to the appearance of prohibition. For a common person and to be sacrificed to God – ‫ְל ֶה ְדיֹוט‬ ‫בֹוה‬ ַּ ‫וְ ַל ָ ּג‬‎: In the Jerusalem Talmud proof is cited from another source that whatever is prohibited for a Jew is prohibited to be brought on the altar. Since it is prohibited to drink exposed wine and water, it is also prohibited to sacrifice them on the altar. Apparently, the Babylonian Talmud did not cite this explanation because exposed liquids are prohibited only due to the danger involved, and that danger is irrelevant with regard to the altar (see Tiferet Yisrael and Emek Sukkot). Another proof cited in the Jerusalem Talmud is from the juxtaposition in the verse written with regard to wine: “Which cheers God and men” (Judges 9:13). One may not sacrifice to God that which is unfit for human consumption. background

The poison of a snake – ‫א ֶרס נָ ָח ׁש‬:ֶ The density of snake poison is slightly greater than that of water and slightly less than that of wine. Therefore, it floats in wine and can be strained, while in water it sinks and may even dissolve. Snake venom can be secreted even if the snake does not bite into an object, which is why the Gemara mentions venom mixed into other liquids. Some snakes can even spit their venom from a distance.

Rattlesnake with dripping venom



‫נ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ד קרפ‬. Perek IV . 50a 

241

Summary of Perek IV This chapter included an analysis of the mitzvot of the festival of Sukkot practiced in the Temple, as well as a discussion of what can be learned from those mitzvot with regard to the mitzvot of the Festival practiced everywhere else. One fundamental problem was related to the fulfillment of these mitzvot on Shabbat, as, above and beyond the Torah prohibitions, the Sages issued decrees prohibiting several activities on Shabbat. Although most of those decrees were not in effect in the Temple, some were. With regard to the mitzva of the four species, although the mitzva in the Temple was to take the species all seven days, the Sages instituted that even in the Temple, only on the first day does fulfillment of the mitzva override Shabbat, and outside the Temple, it does not override Shabbat at all. Likewise, the Sages determined that the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple overrides Shabbat only on the seventh day of the Festival. In addition, drawing water for the water libation does not override Shabbat. However, a device was fashioned that enabled the water libation to be poured even on Shabbat. Two significant mitzvot were performed in the Temple during the festival of Sukkot, the mitzva of the water libation and the mitzva to encircle the altar with willow branches. Neither is written in the Torah; they are traditions transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The mitzva of the water libation was detailed extensively in this chapter: How they drew water from the Siloam pool and how they took it up to be poured on the altar in a procession accompanied by trumpet blasts. In addition, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple was detailed extensively, both the surrounding of the altar with upright willow branches and the circling of the altar with willow branches in hand, as were the accompanying pronouncements. Another problem addressed in this chapter relates to the Eighth Day of Assembly, which follows the seven days of Sukkot. On the one hand, it is characterized as a pilgrim Festival in and of itself, independent of Sukkot. However, due to its proximity to the festival of Sukkot, several problems arise, e.g., how does one make the transition from one Festival to another without undermining the sanctity and distinctiveness of each? This is even more problematic in the Diaspora, where there is uncertainty whether the Eighth Day of Assembly is actually the seventh day of Sukkot. Fundamentally, the Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself in every respect, and one recites the blessing of time at the outset of the Festival. However, with regard to residing in the sukka, there are numerous opinions. Even today, there is no firm ruling governing this practice and the custom varies in different areas in the Diaspora.

243

You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days, as you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress. And you shall rejoice in your Festival, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow that are within your gates. Seven days shall you keep a feast unto the Lord your God in the place which the Lord shall choose; because the Lord your God shall bless you in all your increase, and in all the work of your hands, and you shall be altogether joyful. Three times in a year shall all your males appear before the Lord your God in the place which He shall choose; on the festival of Passover, and on Shavuot, and on Sukkot; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty.

Introduction to Perek V

(Deuteronomy 16:13–16) And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month you shall have a holy convocation: you shall do no manner of servile work, and you shall keep a Festival unto the Lord seven days; and you shall present a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord: thirteen young bulls, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish; and their mealoffering, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for every bull of the thirteen bulls, two tenth parts for each ram of the two rams, and a several tenth part for every lamb of the fourteen lambs; and one tenth part for every lamb of the fourteen lambs; and one he-goat for a sin-offering beside the daily burnt-offering, the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof. And on the second day you shall present twelve young bulls, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish. (Numbers 29:12–17)

There are two elements that characterize the sacred Temple service on the festival of Sukkot: Rejoicing and offerings. Those two elements are not unique to this Festival; however, quantitatively and in terms of emphasis, this Festival is indeed unique with regard to those two elements relative to the other Festivals. One mitzva that is especially conspicuous during the festival of Sukkot is the mitzva of rejoicing. Although there is a mitzva to rejoice on all the Festivals, on the festival of Sukkot the mitzva of extreme rejoicing takes center stage. To enhance this mitzva, different innovations and services beyond the standard practice in the Temple were introduced: Musical instruments were played more than on other days, additional lights were added, and in general, ordinances were instituted and other measures were taken to facilitate great rejoicing and at the same time to ensure that it did not become excessive. Another mitzva unique to the festival of Sukkot is the myriad additional offerings. Although there is an additional offering sacrificed on every Festival beyond the daily offerings, the sheer number of additional offerings sacrificed on Sukkot render it unique. The added offerings and the manner in which they were sacrificed, as well as the division of labor between the various priestly watches, are subject to analysis and elucidation. These two matters will be analyzed and described in great detail in this chapter. Related questions will also be addressed, e.g., what is the procedure when Shabbat coincides with the festival of Sukkot? In addition, more general questions will be raised with regard to procedures of the Temple service incidental to analysis of the chapter’s central topics.

245

Perek V Daf 50 Amud a

mishna 

The fluten is played on the festival of Sukkot ‫ זֶ ה ּו‬,‫מתני׳ ֶה ָח ִליל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬ for five or six days.h This is the flute of the ‫ֹוא ָבה ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬ ֵ ‫ֶה ָח ִליל ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּש‬ Place of the Drawing of the Water, whose playing overrides neither ‫ֹוחה ל ֹא ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ל ֹא ֶאת יֹום‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬Shabbat nor the Festival.n Therefore, if the first Festival day oc.‫ טֹוב‬curred on Shabbat, they would play the flute for six days that year. However, if Shabbat coincided with one of the intermediate days of the Festival, they would play the flute for only five days.

halakha

The flute is for five…days – ‫ה ָח ִליל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬:ֶ There was great rejoicing for the Celebration of the Drawing of the Water from the Siloam pool, and the custom was to play musical instruments in the Temple. This rejoicing overrides neither Shabbat nor the Festivals, and therefore when Shabbat and the first day of Sukkot did not coincide there would be only five days of celebration, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in their dispute with Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shofar VeSukka VeLulav 8:13).

notes

The flute – ‫ה ָח ִליל‬:ֶ Although there were many other musical instruments in the Temple, the flute was the most significant one (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna), either because its sound was heard above all others (Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura) or because it was the instrument with which the Levites began and concluded playing the melody that they played in the Temple (Tiferet Yisrael). Whose playing overrides neither Shabbat nor the Festival – ‫ֹוחה ל ֹא ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ל ֹא ֶאת יֹום טֹוב‬ ֶ ּ‫ש ֵאינֹו ד‬: ֶ ׁ Tosafot raise the question: Since all playing of music is prohibited by rabbinic decree on Shabbat and the Festivals to enhance their character as days of rest, and those decrees were not in effect in the Temple, why was it prohibited to play the flute on Sukkot? They answer that only those matters that were actually part of the sacred service were permitted. The flute discussed here was played in the Celebration of the Drawing of the Water. Other commentaries, however, cite proof that even decrees that did not directly affect the Temple service were suspended in the Temple. Many early and later authorities distinguish between different types of decrees designed to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest, concluding that some indeed apply even in the Temple. The Ritva explains that since musical instruments frequently need repair, their use is restricted even in the Temple unless they are an integral part of the service.

Ancient relief of a flute player



‫נ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 50a 

247

Perek V Daf 50 Amud b notes

It is a significant mitzva and it originated from the six days of Creation – ‫ִמצְ וָ ה ֲח ׁשו ָּבה ִהיא ו ָּב ָאה ִמ ׁ ּ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי‬ ‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ב ֵר‬:ְ Rashi cites proof that the drain pipes were created during the six days of Creation, and they were later used for the water libation. The connection between the water libation and Creation seems to be based on the midrash that describes that the lower waters wept after being removed from the heavenly spheres on the second day of Creation. In an effort to console them, God promised that they would be elevated through the rite of the water libation (see Maharsha). The flute overrides Shabbat – ‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ה ָח ִליל ד‬:ֶ Based on Rashi’s commentary, apparently the dispute is specifically with regard to the flute, but it was certainly permitted to play the other musical instruments. A similar conclusion is reached in the Jerusalem Talmud, as other instruments are mentioned in the Bible (II Chronicles 29:25), but not the flute. Furthermore, although at times of rejoicing the verse does state: “The people were playing on flutes” (I Kings 1:40), that is not in the context of rejoicing in the Temple per se, but rather as part of the celebration of Solomon’s coronation. The flute of Moses – ‫א ּבו ָּבא דְּ מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬:ַ It is related that in the Temple there remained one flute from the days of Moses that was crafted from a reed. In deference to the glory of the Temple, the Temple overseers sought to plate it with gold. However, once they did so, they discovered that the sound that the flute produced was no longer as pleasant, and they removed the gold plating. Therefore, there was one Temple vessel made completely of wood. One derives the possible from the impossible – ‫דָּ נִין ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬ ‫מ ׁ ּ ֶש ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬:ִ This problem appears several times in the Gemara. The issue is whether hermeneutic principles, e.g., a fortiori inferences, verbal analogies, etc., are completely logical constructs, or if their implementation is dependent on context. At times, the matter from which the halakha is being derived possesses unique characteristics to which the various halakhot that apply to that case can be attributed. The question is: Do those unique characteristics disqualify that halakha from serving as a paradigm for halakhot where these unique characteristics do not exist?

gemara 

.‫ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה וְ ַרב ֵעינָ א‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫גמ׳ ִא‬ .‫ ֲח ׁשו ָּבה‬:‫ וְ ַחד ָּתנֵי‬,‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ ׁש‬:‫ַחד ָּתנֵי‬ ‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָתנֵי ׁש‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר זו ְּט ָרא‬ ‫ ּו ַמאן דְּ ָתנֵי ֲח ׁשו ָּבה‬,‫ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵ ּב ׁש‬ ‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָתנֵי ׁש‬.‫ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵ ּב ׁש‬ ‫ ״ ּו ׁ ְש ַא ְב ֶּתם‬:‫ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵ ּב ׁש – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָתנֵי ֲח ׁשו ָּבה ל ֹא‬.‫ַמיִ ם ְ ּב ָ ׂש ׂשֹון״‬ ‫ ִמצְ וָ ה‬:‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵ ּב ׁש – דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ‫ ו ָּב ָאה ִמ ׁ ּ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי‬,‫ֲח ׁשו ָּבה ִה יא‬ .‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְב ֵר‬

It was stated that Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina disagreed: One of them teaches that the celebration was called the Celebration of Drawing [sho’eva] and one of them teaches that it was called the significant [ĥashuva] celebration. Mar Zutra said: The one who taught sho’eva is not mistaken, and the one who taught ĥashuva is not mistaken. The one who taught sho’eva is not mistaken, as it is written: “And you shall draw [ushavtem] water with joy from the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), and its name reflects the fact that it is a celebration of the water libation. And the one who taught ĥashuva is not mistaken, as Rav Naĥman said: It is a significant mitzva and it originated from the six days of Creation.n

,‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ ֶה ָח ִליל ד‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה‬ ֵ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ ַאף יֹום טֹוב ֵאינֹו ד‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ,‫לֹוקת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ַרב‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִע‬:‫יֹוסי ָס ַבר‬ ,‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ִ ּב ְכ ִלי‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫דֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ְ‫ ו‬,‫בֹודה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲע‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִע‬:‫ָס ְב ִרי‬ ‫בֹודה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָלאו ֲע‬,‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ַ ּב ּ ֶפה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ וְ ֵאינָ ּה ד‬,‫ִהיא‬ ‫ֹוא ָבה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ׁש‬ .‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ִהיא וְ ֵאינָ ּה ד‬

§ The Sages taught: The flute overrides Shabbat;

n this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It does not override even a Festival. Rav Yosef said: The dispute is with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering. As Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that the primary essence of song is the accompaniment by musical instruments, and consequently these instruments are a component of the Temple service and override Shabbat. The Rabbis hold that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and consequently the instruments are not a component of the service; they merely accompany the singing on occasion and therefore they do not override Shabbat. However, with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water, everyone agrees that it is rejoicing and not a component of the Temple service; therefore it does not override Shabbat.

‫ ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א דִּ ְב ָהא‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ְּכ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֵרת ׁ ֶש ֲע ָ ׂש ָאן‬:‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה‬ ֵ ‫ֹוסל וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ּפ‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ֵעץ‬ ‫ ַמאי ָלאו ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; ַמאן‬.‫ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִע‬:‫דְּ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר ָס ַבר‬ ,‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ִ ּב ְכ ִלי‬ ,‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָפ ֵסיל‬.‫וְ יָ ְל ֵפינַן ֵמ ַא ּבו ָּבא דְּ מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִע‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ ‫ וְ ָלא יָ ְל ֵפינַ ן‬,‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ַ ּב ּ ֶפה‬ .‫ֵמ ַא ּבו ָּבא דְּ מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say that they disagree about this matter? It is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to Temple service vessels that one crafted of wood,h Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda deems them fit. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this matter? The one who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary essence of song is accompaniment by musical instruments, and we derive that sacred vessels may be crafted of wood from the wooden flute of Moses,n which according to this opinion was a service vessel. And the one who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and therefore we do not derive any halakha relevant to service vessels from the wooden flute of Moses, as according to this opinion it was not a service vessel. The Gemara rejects this explanation of the baraita.

ּ ַ ‫ ִע‬:‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ,‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ִ ּב ְכ ִלי‬ ּ ‫וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ָדנִין ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִמ ׁ ֶש ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬ ‫ דָּ נִין‬:‫ ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר ָס ַבר‬.‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫ָק ִמ‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָפ ֵסיל‬,‫ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬ .‫ ל ֹא דָּ נִין ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬:‫ָס ַבר‬

No, that is not necessarily the matter that they dispute, as one could say that everyone agrees: The primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments. And here, it is with regard to whether one derives the possible from the impossiblen that they disagree. Can one establish a principle that applies in all cases based on a case with a unique aspect? The one who deems wooden service vessels fit holds that one derives the possible, i.e., Temple service vessels, from the impossible, i.e., the flute of Moses. Although there was no alternative to crafting the flute of Moses from wood, one may derive from this that sacred service vessels, even when the alternative to craft them from metal exists, may be crafted from wood. And the one who deems wooden service vessels unfit holds that one does not derive the possible from the impossible.

halakha

From what material are Temple service vessels crafted – ‫ְּכ ֵלי‬ ‫נַע ִ ׂשים‬ ֲ ‫ה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ִמ ַּמה‬:ַ The candelabrum and its utensils, the Temple table and its utensils, the incense altar, and all other Temple vessels may be crafted only from metal. Bone, stone, or glass

248 

Perek V . 50b . ‫נ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

utensils are unfit, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the halakha is ruled in his favor in disputes with all other individual Sages (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 1:18).

ּ ַ ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא דְּ ִע‬:‫ימא‬ ‫יקר‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין דָּ נִין ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִאי‬,‫ׁ ִש ָירה ַ ּב ּ ֶפה‬ ‫נֹורה ִ ּב ְכ ָל ֵלי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ֵמ ַילף ְמ‬,‫ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬ .‫ו ְּפ ָר ֵטי אֹו ְ ּב ִר ּבוּיֵ י ו ִּמיעו ֵּטי ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי דָּ ֵר ׁיש ְּכ ָל ֵלי ו ְּפ ָר ֵטי‬ .‫יבוּיֵ י ו ִּמיעו ֵּטי‬ ּ ‫יְ הו ָּדה דָּ ֵר ׁיש ִר‬

And if you wish, say instead in rejection of Rav Yosef ’s proof that everyone agrees that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and one does not derive the possible from the impossible. And here, it is with regard to deriving the halakhot of the Temple candelabrum by means of the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details or by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions that they disagree.n Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets verses by means of the principle of generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions.

‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי דָּ ֵר ׁיש ְּכ ָל ֵלי ו ְּפ ָר ֵטי‬ ,‫ ״זָ ָהב ָטהֹור״ – ּ ְפ ָרט‬,‫נֹורת״ – ְּכ ָלל‬ ַ ‫ְמ‬ .‫נֹורה״ – ָחזַ ר וְ ָכ ַלל‬ ָ ‫״מ ְק ׁ ָשה ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה ַה ְּמ‬ ִ ‫ְּכ ָלל ו ְּפ ָרט ו ְּכ ָלל ִאי ַא ָּתה דָּ ן ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫פֹור ׁש – ׁ ֶשל‬ ָ ‫ ָמה ַה ּ ְפ ָרט ְמ‬,‫ְּכ ֵעין ַה ּ ְפ ָרט‬ .‫ ַאף ּכֹל ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת‬,‫ַמ ֶּת ֶכת‬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse “And you shall make a candelabrum of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. “And you shall make a candelabrum of,” is a generalization, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold,” that is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; “of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,” the verse then generalized again. The result is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from which you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items that are similar to the detail; just as the detail is explicit that the candelabrum is crafted from gold, which is a metal, so too all other materials used in crafting the candelabrum must be of metal. The candelabrum is a prototype for all other Temple service vessels.

‫יב ּויֵ י‬ ּ ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה דָּ ֵר ׁיש ִר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫נֹורת״ – ִר‬ ַ ‫ית ְמ‬ ָ ‫ ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬:‫ו ִּמיעו ֵּטי‬ ‫״מ ְק ׁ ָשה ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה‬ ִ ,‫יעט‬ ֵ ‫״זָ ָהב ָטהֹור״ – ִמ‬ ‫יעט‬ ֵ ‫יבה ו ִּמ‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִר‬.‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫נֹורה״ – ָחזַ ר וְ ִר‬ ָ ‫ַה ְּמ‬ ‫ ַמאי ַר ֵ ּבי – ַר ֵ ּבי ָּכל‬,‫יבה ַה ּכֹל‬ ּ ָ ‫יבה ִר‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִר‬ .‫יעט ׁ ֶשל ֶח ֶרס‬ ֵ ‫יעט – ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ ַמאי ִמ‬,‫ִמ ֵּילי‬

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, however, who deems wooden Temple service vessels unfit, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. “And you shall make a candelabrum of,” is an amplification, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold,” is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; “of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,” the verse repeated and amplified. The result is amplification and restriction and amplification, from which one derives to amplify all items except for those items most dissimilar to the restriction. What did the verse amplify? It amplified all materials, even wood. And what did the verse exclude with this restriction? It excluded a candelabrum crafted of earthen­ware.

:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa said: Rav Yosef stated that the dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis concerning whether or not the flute overrides Shabbat and Festivals is based on the significance and the role of song in the sacrifice of offerings.

notes

Generalization and detail, and amplification and restriction – ‫כ ָלל ו ְּפ ָרט וְ ִר ּבוּי ו ִּמיעוּט‬:ְּ These two hermeneutical principles, associated with the schools of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva respectively, fundamentally disagree with regard to whether general statements are considered generalizations or whether they are considered amplifications; and with regard to whether specific statements are considered details or whether they are considered restrictions. The opinion that considers the general statements to be generalizations creates logical categories relating to the nature of the matter under discussion, and even more so based on the specific examples, i.e., the details, cited in that context. In contrast, the opinion that considers the generalizations



to be amplifications and the specifics to be restrictions has its own logic. The generalization is an indication that this topic has universal applicability and the specific is an indication that there is a specific restriction to its applicability. Consequently, employing the methodology of amplification and restriction always results in a more inclusive conclusion than does the methodology of generalization and detail. In the latter methodology, the detail limits applicability of the generalization to one particular detail, while in the former methodology it indicates merely an exception to the general principle. Therefore, when implementing the methodology of amplification and restriction, the detail furthest removed from the generality is excluded, leaving the principle virtually intact. ‫נ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 50b 

249

Perek V Daf 51 Amud a notes

They were slaves – ‫ע ְב ֵדי כ ֲֹהנִים ָהי ּו‬:ַ The reality was that the best musicians happened to be slaves, and since in the opinion of this Sage it was not required to have men of distinguished lineage serve as the musicians, these slaves played the instruments in the Temple. Song with the mouth and accompanied by an instrument – ‫ש ָירה ַ ּב ּ ֶפה ו ִּב ְכ ִלי‬: ִ ׁ Apparently, there are three matters here. Everyone agrees that song accompanies the offerings, and that this obligation is incumbent upon the Levites, who served as singers and gatekeepers in the Temple, as described in the book of Chronicles. With regard to the playing of instruments, however, there is a distinction. It is a mitzva by Torah law to sound the trumpets when sacrificing the Festival offerings, as stated explicitly in Numbers 10:11. The dispute is only with regard to the other instruments not mentioned in the Torah. See also in the notes for the previous amud that according to some, the flute had its own status, distinct from the other instruments, and was played only on special days.

Singing in the Temple One elevates a Levite from the platform – ‫מ ֲע ִלין ִמדּ ו ָּכן‬:ַ To be precise, some say that the Gemara is not referring to the actual platform of the Temple upon which the Levites stood and sang, but rather to a different location where the musicians stood (see Tosafot). The musicians at the Celebration of the Drawing of the Water clearly did not stand on the platform at all. background

Emma’um – ‫א ָּמאוּם‬:ֶ There is a variant reading, Emmaus, which is a more common name of this city, which was located in Judea approximately 11 km west of Jerusalem. It was considered the border between the Judean Hills and the plains. The city is mentioned as early as in the books of the Hasmoneans. Over time, it developed into a summer resort with hot springs and bathhouses.

,ּ‫ ַע ְב ֵדי כ ֲֹהנִים ָהיו‬:)‫ (דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ַפ ַחת ֵ ּבית ַה ּ ְפגָ ִרים ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ּ ַפ ַחת ֵ ּבית‬ ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ַמ ּ ִ ׂש‬,ּ‫ ו ֵּמ ֶא ָּמאוּם ָהיו‬,‫צִ ּ ְיפ ַרּיָא‬ .‫ַל ְּכהו ָּּנה‬

This dispute is parallel to another dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a mishna in tractate Arakhin: The Temple musicians were slavesn of priests; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The musicians were not slaves; they were Israelites from the family of the House of Happegarim and the family of the House of Tzipperaya. And they were from the city of Emma’um,b and their lineage was sufficiently distinguished that they would marry their daughters to members of the priesthood.

‫אֹומר; ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬ ֵ ‫נְטיגְ נֹוס‬ ִ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ֶ ּבן ַא‬ ‫ ַמאי ָלאו ְ ּב ָהא ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; דְּ ַמאן‬.ּ‫ָהיו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִע‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,ּ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ֲע ָב ִדים ָהיו‬ ‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה‬ :‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,ּ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְלוִ ּיִ ם ָהיו‬,‫ַ ּב ּ ֶפה‬ ּ ַ ‫ִע‬ .‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ִ ּב ְכ ִלי‬

Rabbi Ĥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this; that the one who said that the musicians were slaves holds that the primary essence of songh is singing with the mouth. Since the instrumental music is mere accompaniment, it could be performed by slaves. And the one who said that the musicians were Levites holds that the primary essence of song is accompaniment by musical instruments.n Therefore, the musicians were Levites, who were tasked with the song that was part of the Temple service.h

‫יֹוסי ַמאי ָק ָס ַבר? ִאי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ִת ְס ְ ּב ָרא‬ ּ ‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ַ ּב ּ ֶפה – ֲא ִפ‬ ּ ַ ‫ָק ָס ַבר ִע‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִאי ָק ָס ַבר ִע‬.‫ֲע ָב ִדים נַ ִמי‬ ‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה‬ !‫ יִ ְ ׂש ְר ֵא ִלים – ָלא‬,‫ ְלוִ ּיִ ם – ִאין‬,‫ִ ּב ְכ ִלי‬

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand the mishna that way? According to that explanation, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, then even slaves can also play the instruments. Why then does he require that the musicians be from Israelite families of distinguished lineage? If he holds that the primary essence of song is accompaniment by musical instruments, he should have said: Levites, yes, they may play the instruments, but Israelites, no, they may not.

ּ ַ ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ִע‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, the explanation of the dispute is that everyone agrees that .‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ַ ּב ּ ֶפה‬ ‫ ָה ִכי ֲהוָ ה‬:‫ ו ְּב ָהא ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; דְּ ָמר ָס ַבר‬the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth and the musi.‫ ָה ִכי ֲהוָ ה ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬,‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬cal instruments are merely for accompaniment. And it is with regard to this that they disagree: It is that one Sage holds that the event took place in this manner, i.e., slaves played the instruments, and one Sage holds that the event took place in this manner, i.e., Israelite families of distinguished lineage played the instruments. ‫ ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה? ְל ַמ ֲע ִלין ִמדּ ו ָּכן‬The Gemara asks: What practical halakhic difference is there wheth.‫יֹוח ִסין ו ְּל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ ֲ ‫ ְל‬er one group or another played the instruments? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one elevates a Levite from the platformn to the presumptive status of distinguished lineage and eligibility to receive tithes that they disagree. Is it possible to draw the conclusion that a family is of distinguished lineage or eligible to receive tithes based on the fact that a member or ancestor of that family played a musical instrument on the Temple platform? ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,ּ‫ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֲע ָב ִדים ָהיו‬ .‫ וְ ל ֹא ְל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬,‫יֹוח ִסין‬ ֲ ‫ַמ ֲע ִלין ִמדּ ו ָּכן ְל‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ִלין‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,ּ‫יִש ָר ֵאל ָהיו‬ ׂ ְ ‫ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן‬.‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬,‫יֹוח ִסין‬ ָ ‫ִמדּ ו ָּכן‬ ,‫ ַמ ֲע ִלין ִמדּ ו ָּכן‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,ּ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ְלוִ ּיִ ם ָהיו‬ .‫יֹוח ִסין ֵ ּבין ְל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ ֲ ‫ֵ ּבין ְל‬

The one who said that the musicians were slaves holds that one does not elevate from the platform to the presumptive status of distinguished lineage and eligibility to receive tithes. And the one who said that the musicians were Israelites holds that one elevates a Levite from the platform to the presumptive status of distinguished lineage but not eligibility to receive tithes. And the one who said that the musicians were Levites holds that one elevates a Levite from the platform to the presumptive status of distinguished lineage and eligibility to receive tithes. halakha

ּ ַ ‫ע‬:ִ The primary essence of song in the Temple – ‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ It is a mitzva by Torah law to accompany the bringing of the offerings with song. This song was sung by the Levites, since the primary essence of song, which is the Levites’ Temple duty, is singing with the mouth. The musical instruments served merely as accompaniment and could be played by non-Levites (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 3:3).

250 

Perek V . 51a . ‫אנ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

Who were the Temple musicians? – ‫מי ָהי ּו ַה ְמנַ ְ ּגנִים ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:ִ The Temple musicians consisted of Levites and of Israelites of lineage sufficiently distinguished that they could marry their daughters to priests, as only individuals of distinguished lineage were allowed on the Temple platform, even if it was merely to play a musical instrument. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as the halakha is decided in his favor in disputes with individual Sages (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 3:3).

‫לֹוקת ְ ּב ׁ ִשיר‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר‬ :‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר‬ ֵ ‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶשל ׁש‬ ,‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה יְ ֵת ָירה נַ ִמי ד‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ָ ּ‫ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה יְ ֵת ָירה ֵאינָ ּה ד‬:‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ָק ְר ָ ּבן – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫דֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ְ‫ ו‬,‫בֹודה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ֲע‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹוא ָבה ד‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ׁש‬:‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר יְהו ָּדה‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬.‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ ַאף יֹום טֹוב ֵאינֹו ד‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ .‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬,‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ַרב‬

‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ֹוא ָבה הוּא דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ֵ ‫ימא ְ ּב ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ׁש‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ֶ ּ‫ְ ּב ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ָק ְר ָ ּבן – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ד‬ ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫יהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב‬ ֱ ‫ימא ֶּת‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬,‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ !‫ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי‬

§ The Gemara cites an opinion that disagrees with that of Rav Yosef.

And Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: The dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis is with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that extra rejoicingn also overrides Shabbat, and the Rabbis hold that extra rejoicing does not override Shabbat.h However, with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying an offering,h everyone agrees that it is part of the Temple service, and overrides Shabbat. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef that the dispute is with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering: The song of the Drawing of the Water overrides Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It does not override even the Festival. Apparently, their dispute is with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water. Say that this is a conclusive refutationb of the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation. The Gemara suggests: Let us say, based on this baraita, that it is with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water alone that they disagree; however, with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering, everyone says that it overrides Shabbat. If so, let us say that this will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yosef on two counts. According to Rav Yosef, the dispute is with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water, and not with regard to the song the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering. The above suggestion refutes both aspects of his opinion.

,‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ְ ּב ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ׁש‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי דְּ ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י ְ ּב ׁ ִשיר‬.‫וְ הוּא ַהדִּ ין ְל ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬ ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר‬ ֵ ‫יעךָ ּכֹחֹו דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֲ ‫הֹוד‬ ִ ‫ֹוא ָבה – ְל‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶשל ׁש‬ .‫ֹוא ָבה נַ ִמי דָּ ֵחי‬ ֵ ‫ דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו דְּ ׁש‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬

Rav Yosef could have said to you: They disagree with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water and the same is true for the song that the Levites sang accompanying an offering. And the fact that they disagree specifically with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water and do not specifically mention the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering is to convey to you the farreaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, that even the song of the Drawing of the Water also overrides Shabbat.

‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ זֶ ה ּו ֲח ִליל ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫וְ ָהא ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫ֹוחה ל ֹא ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ל ֹא ֶאת‬ ֶ ּ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ד‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל דְּ ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬,‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ זֶ ה ּו דְּ ֵאינֹו ד‬,‫יֹום טֹוב‬ – ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה‬ ֵ ‫נֵימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ּנִי? ִאי‬,‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹוא ָבה נַ ִמי ד‬ ֵ ‫ָה ָא ַמר ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ׁש‬ !‫יֹוסף ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי‬ ֵ ‫ ו ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב‬,‫ָלאו – ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ .‫ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna: This is the flute of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the Festival. By inference, this is the flute that does not override Shabbat; however, the flute that accompanies the daily offering overrides Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? If we say it is Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, didn’t he say that the song of the Drawing of the Water also overrides Shabbat? Rather, is it not the Rabbis, and say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav Yosef on two counts. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

ּ ַ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִע‬ ‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה‬ ‫ֹאמר ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ּו ַה ֲעלֹות‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּי‬:‫ִ ּב ְכ ִלי – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫עֹולה ֵה ֵחל‬ ָ ‫עֹולה ְל ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ו ְּב ֵעת ֵה ֵחל ָה‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ְ‫ׁ ִשיר ה׳ וְ ַה ֲחצֹוצְ רֹות וְ ַעל יְ ֵדי ְּכ ֵלי ָדוִ יד ֶמ ֶלך‬ .‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments? The Gemara answers: It is as it is written: “And Hezekiah commanded to sacrifice the burnt-offering upon the altar. And when the burnt-offering began, the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets, together with the instruments of David, king of Israel” (II Chronicles 29:27), indicating that the song of God that accompanies the offering is played by trumpets and other instruments.

notes

Extra rejoicing – ‫ש ְמ ָחה יְ ֵת ָירה‬: ׂ ִ There is a mitzva to rejoice on every Festival, and an explicit mitzva in the Torah to rejoice on Sukkot. Therefore, the addition of musical instruments was necessary only to further enhance the rejoicing. However, since the musical instruments are not an essential element in the rejoicing of the Festival, failure to play them does not invalidate the rejoicing. halakha

Extra rejoicing does not override Shabbat – ‫ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫יְ ֵת ָירה ֵאינָ ּה ד‬: The added rejoicing of the song of the Drawing of the Water does not override Shabbat or the Festival (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shofar VeSukka VeLulav 8:13). The song accompanying an offering – ‫שיר ׁ ֶשל ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬: ִׁ On twelve days of the year the flute accompanies the bringing of the offerings: During the slaughter of the Paschal lamb on the first and second Pesaĥ, on the first day of Passover, on Shavuot, and on the seven days of Sukkot and the Eighth Day of Assembly. On those days playing the flute overrides Shabbat, as according to the Gemara’s conclusion, that was not subject to a tannaitic dispute (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 3:6). background

Conclusive refutation [teyuvta] – ‫תיו ְּב ָּתא‬:ְּ An amoraic statement can be refuted on the basis of a tannaitic source that contradicts the statement of the amora. This word, teyuvta, is one of several terms based on the same Aramaic root. For example, where one amora raises an objection to the opinion of another amora by citing a tannaitic source, the expression used is eitivei, meaning Rabbi X raised an objection to Rabbi Y’s opinion. Where an amora raises an objection against an unattributed amoraic opinion by citing a tannaitic source, the expression employed is mativ, i.e., Rabbi X raised an objection. In the case cited above, where the Gemara itself raises the objection by citing a tannaitic source, the expression used is meitivi. When there is no response to the objection, it is deemed a conclusive refutation and the term teyuvta is used, and often, as in this case, is repeated both before and after the name of the amora, effectively disqualifying his opinion.

ּ ַ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִע‬The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one ‫יקר ׁ ִש ָירה‬ ‫צרים‬ ִ ְ‫ ״וַ יְ ִהי ְכ ֶא ָחד ַל ְמ ַחצ‬:‫ ַ ּב ּ ֶפה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬who said: The primary essence of song is singing with the mouth? .‫ וְ ַל ְמ ׁש ְֹור ִרים ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע קֹול ֶא ָחד״‬The Gemara answers: It is as it is written: “And it came to pass, when the trumpeters and the singers were as one to make one sound” (II Chronicles 5:13). Since the verse does not mention any musical instrument played with the singing other than the trumpets, and the trumpets were not sounded as accompaniment for the singers, apparently the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth. The trumpets were sounded in order to accompany the sacrifice of the daily and additional offerings with the requisite sounds of tekia and terua. 

‫אנ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 51a 

251

background

Poles and basins – ‫ע ּמו ִּדים ו ְּס ָפ ִלים‬:ַ

‫ֹאמ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ָה א ְּכ ִתיב ״וַ ּי‬,‫וְ ִא ָיד ְך נַ ִמי‬ ‫״ה ֵחל ׁ ִשיר‬ ֵ :‫ִחזְ ִקּיָ הוּ״ – ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫״על יְ ֵדי ְּכ ֵלי ָדוִ יד ֶמ ֶל ְך‬ ַ ,‫ה׳ ״ – ַ ּב ּ ֶפה‬ .‫ֹומי ָק ָלא‬ ֵ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ – ְל ַב ּס‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna too, who holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, isn’t it written: “And Hezekiah commanded…the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets, together with the instruments,” indicating that the instruments are the primary essence? The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: “The song of the Lord began,” indicates that the primary essence is with the mouth; “with the instruments of David, King of Israel,” is to sweeten the sound, as the instruments are merely to accompany and enhance the singing.

‫ ״וַ יְ ִהי ְכ ֶא ָחד‬:‫ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫וְ ִא ָיד ְך נַ ִמי‬ :‫צרים וְ ַל ְמ ׁש ְֹור ִרים״! ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ִ ְ‫ַל ְמ ַחצ‬ ‫ ַמה‬,‫צרים‬ ִ ְ‫ְמ ׁש ְֹור ִרים דּ ּו ְמיָ א דִּ ְמ ַחצ‬ ‫צרים ִ ּב ְכ ִלי – ַא ף ְמ ׁש ְֹור ִרים‬ ִ ְ‫ְּמ ַחצ‬ .‫ִ ּב ְכ ִלי‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna too, who holds that the primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments, isn’t it written: “And it came to pass, when the trumpeters and the singers were as one,” indicating that the primary essence is with the mouth? The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: Through their juxtaposition, one derives that the singers are similar to the trumpeters; just as trumpeters produce their sound with an instrument, so too the singers produce their song with an instrument.

Celebration in the Temple, with poles and basins in the background

‫מתני׳ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָר ָאה ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת ֵ ּבית‬ .‫ֹוא ָבה ָלא ָר ָאה ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ִמּיָ ָמיו‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג יָ ְרד ּו‬ ׁ ‫ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ּ ‫נָשים ו ְּמ ַת ְּקנִין ׁ ָשם ִּת‬ .‫יקוּן ָ ּגדֹול‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְל ֶעזְ ַרת‬ ‫ וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫ְמנֹורֹות ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב ָהי ּו ׁ ָשם‬ ‫ וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אש‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ְס ָפ ִלים ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב ְ ּב ָר‬ ‫ וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫סו ָּּלמֹות ְל ָכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ ו ִּב ֵידיֶ הם ַּכדִּ ים‬,‫יְ ָל ִדים ִמ ּ ִפ ְיר ֵחי ְכהו ָּּנה‬ ‫ׁ ֶשל ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים לֹוג ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַמ ִּט ִילין‬ ‫נְסי כ ֲֹהנִים‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ְ ּב ָל ֵאי ִמ ְכ‬.‫ְל ָכל ֵס ֶפל וָ ֵס ֶפל‬ ‫ ו ָּב ֶהן‬,‫יעין‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ ֶהן ָהי ּו ַמ ְפ ִק‬,‫ינֵיהן‬ ֶ ָ‫ו ֵּמ ֶה ְמי‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָהיָה ָחצֵ ר ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬.‫ָהי ּו ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין‬ .‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ִא ָירה ֵמאֹור ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּש‬

mishna 

One who did not see the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Waterh never saw celebration in his days. This was the sequence of events: At the conclusion of the first Festival day the priests and the Levites descended from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, where they would introduce a significant repair, as the Gemara will explain. There were golden candelabra atop poles there in the courtyard. And there were four basins made of gold at the top of each candelabrum.b And there were four ladders for each and every pole and there were four children from the priesthood trainees, and in their hands were pitchers with a capacity of 120 log of oil that they would pour into each and every basin. From the worn trousers of the priests and their beltsn they would loosen and tear strips to use as wicks, and with them they would light the candelabra.h And the light from the candelabra was so bright that there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated from the light of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.

‫נְשי ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָהי ּו ְמ ַר ְּק ִדין‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ֲח ִס ִידים וְ ַא‬The pious and the men of actionh would dance before the people ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ִ ּב ְפ‬who attended the celebration,

halakha

The Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water – ‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ש ְמ ַחת ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּש‬: ׂ ִ Although it is a mitzva by Torah law to rejoice on each Festival, there is a special mitzva to rejoice on Sukkot. On the eve of the Festival they would construct a balcony in the Women’s Courtyard so the that the men and the women would not mingle, and the festivities would start at the conclusion of the first Festival day. On each of the intermediate days of the Festival beginning after the sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering they would rejoice and dance for the rest of the day and throughout the night (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shofar VeSukka VeLulav 8:12).

Wicks for the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water – ‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫פ ִתילֹות ְל ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּש‬:ְ ּ The wicks for the lamps that were kindled for the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water were made from the worn pants and belts of the priests (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 8:6). The pious and the men of action – ‫נְשי ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ח ִס ִידים וְ ַא‬:ֲ Not everyone actively participated in the Rejoicing of the Place of the Drawing of the Water; only the Sages of Israel, the pious, the learned Elders, and the men of action would dance and play musical instruments in the Temple. The rest of the people came to watch and hear the celebration (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shofar VeSukka VeLulav 8:14).

notes

From the worn trousers of the priests and their belts – ‫ִמ ְ ּב ָל ֵאי‬ ‫ינֵיהן‬ ֶ ָ‫נְסי כ ֲֹהנִים ו ֵּמ ֶה ְמי‬ ֵ ‫מ ְכ‬:ִ See Tosafot, who raise the question why the tunics were not mentioned. Tosefot Yom Tov asks why Tosafot did not question the fact that the miters were not mentioned. Many commentaries, beginning with the Kesef Mishne, address this question. Some explain that the tunics and the miters were made from very thin material from which it would not be possible to fashion the large, thick wicks necessary to light the candelabra of the Celebration of the Drawing of the

252 

Perek V . 51a . ‫אנ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

Water (Ĥeshek Shlomo based on Kesef Mishne). Others suggest that they used the tunics and the miters to make wicks for the candelabrum in the Temple, something for which they did not use the belts and the trousers; the belts because they were partially made of wool and as determined in the second chapter of tractate Shabbat, a woolen wick does not burn well in a small flame, and the trousers because it is degrading to use them in the Sanctuary (see Rabbeinu Yonatan, Me’iri, and Tiferet Yisrael).

Perek V Daf 51 Amud b ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫אֹומ ִרים ִל ְפ‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ַ ּב ֲאבוּקֹות ׁ ֶשל אֹור ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ֵיד ֶיהן‬ ‫ וְ ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם ְ ּב ִכנּ ֹורֹות‬,‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ׁ ִשירֹות וְ ת ּו ׁ ְש ָ ּבחֹות‬ ‫ו ִּבנְ ָב ִלים ו ִּב ְמצִ ְל ַּתיִ ם ו ַּב ֲחצֹוצְ רֹות ו ִּב ְכ ֵלי ׁ ִשיר‬ ‫ּיֹורדֹות‬ ְ ‫ ַעל ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ַמ ֲעלֹות ַה‬,‫ְ ּבל ֹא ִמ ְס ּ ָפר‬ ‫נָשים ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה‬ ִ ׁ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל ְל ֶעזְ ַרת‬ ׂ ְ ‫ֵמ ֶעזְ ַרת‬ ‫עֹומ ִדין‬ ְ ‫יהן ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲע ֵל‬,‫(מ ֲעלֹות) ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ְּת ִה ִּלים‬ ַ .‫אֹומ ִרים ׁ ִש ָירה‬ ְ ְ‫ִ ּב ְכ ֵלי ׁ ִשיר ו‬

with flaming torches that they would juggle in their hands, and they would say before them passages of song and praise to God. And the Levites would play on lyres, harps, cymbals, and trumpets, and countless other musical instruments.n The musicians would stand on the fifteen stairs that descend from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, corresponding to the fifteen Songs of the Ascents in Psalms, i.e., chapters 120–134, and upon which the Levites stand with musical instruments and recite their song.

‫ּיֹורד ֵמ ֶעזְ ַרת‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָע ְמד ּו ׁ ְשנֵי כ ֲֹהנִים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ַער ָה ֶע ְליֹון ׁ ֶש‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּשנֵי ֲחצֹוצְ רֹות ִ ּב ֵיד‬,‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ֶעזְ ַרת‬ ‫ ִה ִ ּגיע ּו‬.‫ ָּת ְקע ּו וְ ֵה ִריע ּו וְ ָת ְקע ּו‬,‫ָק ָרא ַה ֶ ּג ֶבר‬ ‫ ִה ִ ּגיע ּו‬.ּ‫ ָּת ְקע ּו וְ ֵה ִריע ּו וְ ָת ְקעו‬,‫ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית‬ .ּ‫ָל ֲעזָ ָרה ָּת ְקע ּו וְ ֵה ִריע ּו וְ ָת ְקעו‬

And this was the ceremony of the Water Libation: Two priests stood at the Upper Gate that descends from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, with two trumpets in their hands. When the rooster crowed at dawn, they sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a tekia.n When they who would draw the water reached the tenth stair the trumpeters sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a tekia, to indicate that the time to draw water from the Siloam pool had arrived. When they reached the Women’s Courtyard with the basins of water in their hands, the trumpeters sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a tekia.

‫ ָהי ּו‬.)ּ‫(ה ִ ּגיע ּו ַל ַ ּק ְר ַקע ָּת ְקע ּו וְ ֵה ִריע ּו וְ ָת ְקעו‬ ִ ‫יעין ַל ׁ ּ ַש ַער ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬ ִ ‫הֹול ִכין ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוק ִעין ו‬ ְ ‫ּת‬ ‫ ָה ְפכ ּו‬,‫ ִה ִ ּגיע ּו ַל ׁ ּ ַש ַער ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ִּמזְ ָרח‬.‫ִמ ִּמזְ ָרח‬ ‫בֹותינ ּו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא‬:ּ‫נֵיהן ִמ ִּמזְ ָרח ְל ַמ ֲע ָרב וְ ָא ְמרו‬ ֶ ‫ּ ְפ‬ ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫יכל ו ְּפ‬ ָ ‫יהם ֶאל ַה ֵה‬ ֶ ‫חֹור‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּב ָּמקֹום ַהּזֶ ה ֲא‬ ‫ וְ ָאנ ּו ְליָ ּה‬,‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחוִ ים ֵק ְד ָמה ַל ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמ ׁש‬,‫ֵק ְד ָמה‬ :‫אֹומ ִרין‬ ְ ְ‫ ָהי ּו ׁשֹונִין ו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.ּ‫ֵעינֵינו‬ .‫״אנ ּו ְליָ ּה ו ְּליָ ּה ֵעינֵינוּ״‬ ָ

When they reached the ground of the Women’s Courtyard, the trumpeters sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a tekia. They continued sounding the trumpets until they reached the gate through which one exits to the east, from the Women’s Courtyard to the eastern slope of the Temple Mount. When they reached the gate through which one exits to the east, they turned from facing east to facing west, toward the Holy of Holies, and said: Our ancestors who were in this place during the First Temple period who did not conduct themselves appropriately, stood “with their backs toward the Sanctuary of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16), and we, our eyes are to God. Rabbi Yehuda says that they would repeat and say: We are to God, and our eyes are to God.

‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָר ָאה ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת ֵ ּבית‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬.‫ֹוא ָבה ל ֹא ָר ָאה ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ִמּיָ ָמיו‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ ‫ָר ָאה יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם ְ ּב ִת ְפ ַא ְר ָּת ּה ל ֹא ָר ָאה ְּכ ַרךְ נֶ ְח ָמד‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָר ָאה ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ְ ּב ִבנְיָ נֹו‬.‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ ַמאי ִהיא? ָא ַמר‬.‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫פֹואר ֵמ‬ ָ ‫ל ֹא ָר ָאה ִ ּבנְיָ ן ְמ‬ .‫הֹורדּ ֹוס‬ ְ ‫ זֶ ה ִ ּבנְיַ ן‬:‫ימא ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ִא‬

gemara 

The Sages taught: One who did not see the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, never saw celebration in his life. One who did not see Jerusalem in its glory, never saw a beautiful city. One who did not see the Temple in its constructed state, never saw a magnificent structure. The Gemara asks: What is the Temple building to which the Sages refer?n Abaye said, and some say that it was Rav Ĥisda who said: This is referring to the magnificent building of Herod, who renovated the Second Temple.

notes

Countless other musical instruments – ‫כ ֵלי ׁ ִשיר ְ ּבל ֹא ִמ ְס ּ ָפר‬:ְּ It is possible that this phrase is not an exaggeration with regard to the number of instruments used in the celebration, but rather an indication that there was no set number for the other instruments. Based on circumstances, more could be added or fewer could be used (Rashash).

be rendered unfit for use by remaining in the vessel overnight (see Tosafot; Me’iri).

What is the Temple building to which the Sages refer – ‫ַמאי‬ ‫היא‬:ִ The later authorities asked with regard to the Gemara’s question: Why was the question raised specifically concerning the Temple and not with regard to Jerusalem as well? Some They sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a explain that the term: In its constructed state, creates the imtekia – ‫ת ְקע ּו וְ ֵה ִריע ּו וְ ָת ְקע ּו‬:ָּ Apparently, they established a system- pression that the reference is to a specific structure and not atic procedure for sounding the trumpet blasts and the like to to the Temple in general. Clearly, the term magnificent would extend the procession. They went to the Siloam pool to draw the much better apply to Herod’s structure than it would to the water during the night and did not enter the Temple until day- Temple, which was constructed by the returnees from Babylonia break, so that there would be no concern that the water would (Arukh LaNer).



‫אנ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 51b 

253

language

White marble [marmara] – ‫מ ְר ָמ ָרא‬:ַ From the Greek μάρμαρος, marmaros, meaning marble or sparkling marble. Great synagogue [deyofloston] – ‫יֹופל ְֹסטֹון‬ ְ ְּ‫ד‬: From the Greek

διπλόος, diploos, meaning double, and στοά, stoa, meaning colonnade.

Basilica [basileki] – ‫ב ִס ֵיל ִקי‬:ּ ַ From the Greek βασιλιχη, basilikè, meaning a large and magnificent royal building. It has a unique structure wherein the central portion, called the nave, rises above the flanks of the building. There are often windows in the walls of the nave.

Ruins of Roman basilica in Morocco Golden chairs [katedraot] – ‫ק ֶּת ְד ָראֹות‬:ַ From the Greek

καθέδρα, cathedra, meaning chair, especially a special chair for distinguished people.

‫ ְ ּב ַא ְבנֵי ׁ ַשיְ ׁ ָשא‬:)‫נְיֵה? ָא ַמר ָ(ר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ַ ּב‬ ‫ ְ ּב ַא ְבנֵי ׁ ַשיְ ׁ ָשא‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ו ַּמ ְר ָמ ָרא‬ ,‫ ַא ּ ֵפיק ָ ׂש ָפה וְ ַעּיֵ יל ָ ׂש ָפה‬.‫ּכו ְּח ָלא ו ַּמ ְר ָמ ָרא‬ ‫ ָס ַבר ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ֲעיָ ין‬.‫יכי דִּ ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ִס ָידא‬ ִ ‫ִּכי ֵה‬ ‫ דְּ ָה ִכי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ְש ַב ֵק‬:‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬,‫ְ ּב ַד ֲה ָבא‬ .‫ית ֲחזֵ י ְּכ ִא ְדוָ ָתא דְּ יַ ָּמא‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ִמ‬,‫ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ְט ֵפי‬

The Gemara asks: With what materials did he construct it? Rava said: It was with stones of green-gray marble and white marble [marmara].l Some say: It was with stones of blue marble and white marble. The rows of stones were set with one row slightly protruded and one row slightly indented, so that the plaster would take better. He thought to plate the Temple with gold, but the Sages said to him: Leave it as is, and do not plate it, as it is better this way, as with the different colors and the staggered arrangement of the rows of stones, it has the appearance of waves of the sea.

‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָר ָאה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫לֹוסטֹון ׁ ֶשל ֲא ֶל ְּכ ַסנְ דְּ ִרּיָ א ׁ ֶשל ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ְ ‫יֹופ‬ ְ ְּ‫ד‬ ‫ ְּכ ִמין‬:ּ‫ ָא ְמרו‬.‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ׂ ְ ‫בֹודן ׁ ֶשל‬ ָ ‫ל ֹא ָר ָאה ִ ּב ְכ‬ ,‫ ְס ָטיו ִל ְפנִים ִמ ְּס ָטיו‬,‫דֹולה ָהיְ ָתה‬ ָ ‫ַ ּב ִס ֵיל ִקי ְ ּג‬ ‫(ש ׁ ּ ִשים ִר ּבֹוא ַעל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ וְ ָהי ּו ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ ִּכ ְפ ַליִ ם ְּכיֹוצְ ֵאי ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬,)‫ִר ּבֹוא‬ ‫ׁ ִש ְב ִעים וְ ַא ַחת ַק ֶּת ְד ָראֹות ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב ְּכנֶ גֶ ד‬ ‫ ָּכל‬,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ִש ְב ִעים וְ ַא ַחת ׁ ֶשל ַסנְ ֶה ְד ִרי ְ ּג‬ ‫ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת ֵאינָ ּה ּ ְפח ו ָּתה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ‫ימה ׁ ֶשל ֵעץ‬ ָ ‫ ו ִּב‬.‫וְ ֶא ָחד ִר ּבֹוא ִּכ ְּכ ֵרי זָ ָהב‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫עֹומד ָע ֶל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַחּזַ ן ַה ְּכנֶ ֶסת‬,‫יתה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ֶא ְמצָ ִע‬ – ‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ִה ִ ּג ַיע ַל ֲענֹות ָא ֵמן‬.‫וְ ַה ּסו ָּד ִרין ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ .‫ וְ ָכל ָה ָעם עֹונִין ָא ֵמן‬,‫ַה ָּלה ֵמנִיף ַ ּב ּסו ָּדר‬

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who did not see the great synagogue [deyofloston]l of Alexandria of Egypt never saw the glory of Israel. They said that its structure was like a large basilica [basileki],l with a colonnade within a colonnade. At times there were six hundred thousand men and another six hundred thousand men in it, twice the number of those who left Egypt. In it there were seventy-one golden chairs [katedraot],l corresponding to the seventyone members of the Great Sanhedrin, each of which consisted of no less than twenty-one thousand talents of gold. And there was a wooden platform at the center. The sexton of the synagogue would stand on it, with the scarves in his hand. And because the synagogue was so large and the people could not hear the communal prayer, when the prayer leader reached the conclusion of a blessing requiring the people to answer amen, the sexton waved the scarf and all the people would answer amen.h

‫ ֶא ָּלא זֶ ָה ִבין‬,‫עֹור ִבין‬ ָ ‫יֹוש ִבין ְמ‬ ְ ׁ ‫וְ ל ֹא ָהי ּו‬ ‫ וְ נַ ּ ָפ ִחין‬,‫ וְ ַכ ָּס ִפין ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמן‬,‫ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמן‬ ‫ וְ גַ ְרדִּ ּיִ ים‬,‫ וְ ַט ְר ִסּיִ ים ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמן‬,‫ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמן‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָענִי נִ ְכנָס ׁ ָשם ָהיָ ה ַמ ִּכיר‬.‫ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמן‬ ‫נָסתֹו‬ ָ ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּ ָשם ּ ַפ ְר‬,‫ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי או ָּּמנֻ תֹו וְ נִ ְפנָ ה ׁ ָשם‬ .‫נְשי ֵביתֹו‬ ֵ ׁ ‫נָסת ַא‬ ַ ‫ו ַּפ ְר‬

And the members of the various crafts would not sit mingled. Rather, the goldsmiths would sit among themselves, and the silversmiths among themselves, and the blacksmiths among themselves, and the coppersmiths among themselves, and the weavers among themselves. And when a poor stranger entered there, he would recognize people who plied his craft, and he would turn to join them there. And from there he would secure his livelihood as well as the livelihood of the members of his household, as his colleagues would find him work in that craft.

‫ וְ כו ְּּלה ּו ְק ַט ִלינְ ה ּו ֲא ֶל ְּכ ַסנְדְּ רֹוס‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫יע ׁנְש ּו? ִמ ׁ ּש ּום‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ִא‬.‫מֹוקדֹן‬ ְ ‫תֹוסיפוּן ָל ׁשוּב‬ ִ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫דְּ ָע ְב ִרי ַא ַהאי ְק ָרא‬ .ּ‫ וְ ִאינְ ה ּו ֲהדוּר ָאתו‬,‫ַ ּבדֶּ ֶרךְ ַהּזֶ ה עֹוד״‬

After depicting the glory of the synagogue, the Gemara relates that Abaye said: All of the people who congregated in that synagogue were killed by Alexander the Great of Macedonia.b The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were punishedn and killed? It is due to the fact that they violated the prohibition with regard to Egypt in this verse: “You shall henceforth return no more that way” (Deuteronomy 17:16), and they returned. Since they established their permanent place of residence in Egypt, they were punished.h

:‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ִחינְ ה ּו דְּ ָהו ּו ָקר ּו ְ ּב ִס ְיפ ָרא‬,‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא‬ ,‫ ִמ ְּכ ִדי‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫״יִ ּ ָ ׂשא ה׳ ָע ֶליךָ גּ ֹוי ֵמ ָרחֹוק״‬ ‫ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ֵמ ֵיתי ְס ִפינְ ָתא ַ ּב ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ‫ דַּ ְליֵ ּה זִ ָיקא וְ ָא ֵתי ְס ִפינְ ָתא ְ ּב ַח ְמ ׁ ָשא‬,‫יֹומי‬ ֵ .ּ‫ נְ ַפל ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ו ְּק ַט ִלינְ הו‬,‫יֹומי‬ ֵ

When Alexander arrived, he found them, and saw that they were reading the verse in the Torah scroll: “The Lord will bring a nation against you from far, from the end of the earth, as the vulture swoops down; a nation whose tongue you shall not understand” (Deuteronomy 28:49). He said, referring to himself: Now, since that man sought to come by ship in ten days, and a wind carried it and the ship arrived in only five days, apparently the verse referring a vulture swooping down is referring to me and heavenly forces are assisting me. Immediately, he set upon them and slaughtered them.

background

Alexander the Great of Macedonia – ‫מֹוקדֹן‬ ְ ‫א ֶל ְּכ ַסנְדְּ רֹוס‬:ֲ Some of the early authorities have noted that this is historically impossible, suggesting that the correct reading is Targenos, i.e., Trajan. The Gemara here is describing the suppression of a Jewish revolt in Cyrene and in Egypt by the Roman emperor Trajan, approximately sixty years after the destruction of the Second Temple. notes

What is the reason they were punished – ‫יע ׁנְש ּו‬ ָ ‫מאי ַט ְע ָמא ִא‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai that they violated three prohibitions, as the prohibition against returning to Egypt is written in the Torah three times. They returned to Egypt on three separate occasions and only then were punished. The Maharsha cited a verse in Jeremiah as the reason for the punishment. Not only does the verse prohibit the Judeans from returning to Egypt, it also prophesies that ultimately “they will die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, and none of them shall remain or escape” (Jeremiah 42:17).

halakha

Answering amen – ‫עֹונִים ָא ֵמן‬: If one is obligated to recite a blessing and he knows the prayer leader is presently reciting that very blessing, he may answer amen only if he can actually hear the blessing being recited. That is the conclusion drawn by halakhic authorities based on the Gemara in tractate Berakhot. Some say that even if he is not obligated to recite the blessing he should answer amen only if he knows which blessing is being recited (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 124:8, and in the commentary of the Rema citing the Tashbetz).

254 

Perek V . 51b . ‫אנ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

The prohibition against settling in Egypt – ‫יסוּר יְ ׁ ִש ָיבה‬ ּ ‫ִא‬ ‫ב ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬: ּ ְ It is prohibited for a Jew to settle in any part of Egypt. However, one who violates this prohibition is not punished with lashes, as it is considered a prohibition that does not involve an action. Despite the prohibition, the Rambam himself settled there; some say that the prohibition is specifically referring to leaving Eretz Yisrael to settle in Egypt. In any event, both earlier and later authorities wondered about this ruling, given the presence of a Jewish community

in Egypt throughout the generations (Rabbi Eliezer of Metz, Haggahot Maimoniyyot). Perhaps, since there is no prohibition against residing there temporarily for business purposes and the like, Jews were not scrupulous in observing this halakha, due to the exigencies of Jewish history. Furthermore, if there is an element of mitzva motivating one’s presence in Egypt, it is permitted to reside there (Radbaz; Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Melakhim UMilĥemoteihem 5:7).

ּ ‫ ַמאי ִּת‬.‫״במֹוצָ ֵאי יֹום טֹוב״ כו׳‬ ‫יק ּון‬ ְּ ,ּ‫אֹות ּה ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשנִינו‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ‬:‫ָ ּגדֹול? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫אשֹונָ ה וְ ִה ִּקיפ ו ָּה‬ ׁ ‫ֲח ָל ָקה ָה יְ ָתה ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫יֹושבֹות‬ ְ ׁ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ִה ְת ִקינ ּו ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו‬,‫ְ ּגזוּזְ ְט ָרא‬ .‫נָשים ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה וַ ֲא‬

‫נָשים ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬ ִ ׁ ‫אשֹונָ ה ָהי ּו‬ ׁ ‫ ָ ּב ִר‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ וְ ָהי ּו ָ ּב ִאים ִל ֵידי ַקלּ וּת‬,‫נָשים ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬ ִ ׁ ‫וַ ֲא‬ ‫יֹושבֹות‬ ְ ׁ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ִה ְת ִקינ ּו ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו‬,‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ר‬ ‫ וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין ָהי ּו‬.‫נָשים ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ִמ ַ ּבח ּוץ וַ ֲא‬ ‫ ִה ְת ִקינ ּו ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו‬.‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִאין ִל ֵידי ַק ּלוּת ר‬ ‫יֹושבֹות ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָל ה וַ ֲאנָ ׁ ִשים‬ ְ ׁ ‫נָ ׁ ִשים‬ .‫ִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬

§ The mishna continues: At the conclusion of the first Festival day,

etc., the priests and the Levites descended from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, where they would introduce a significant repair. The Gemara asks: What is this significant repair?n Rabbi Elazar said that it is like that which we learned: The walls of the Women’s Courtyard were smooth, without protrusions, initially. Subsequently, they affixed protrusions to the wall surrounding the Women’s Courtyard. Each year thereafter, for the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, they placed wooden planks on these projections and surrounded the courtyard with a balcony [gezuztra].nl And they instituted that the women should sit above and the men below.

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Initially, women would stand on the inside of the Women’s Courtyard, closer to the Sanctuary to the west, and the men were on the outside in the courtyard and on the rampart. And they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity in each other’s company, as the men needed to enter closer to the altar when the offerings were being sacrificed and as a result they would mingle with the women. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the women should sit on the outside and the men on the inside, and still they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity. Therefore, they instituted in the interest of complete separation that the women would sit above and the men below.

notes

ּ ‫ת‬:ִּ In the Rambam’s ComSignificant repair – ‫יקוּן ָ ּגדֹול‬ mentary on the Mishna he explains this in the sense of a significant repair that brought great benefit. Others say that this separation between men and women was called a significant repair only to distinguish it from the previous attempts to ameliorate the situation, which were less successful. And surrounded the courtyard with a balcony – ‫וְ ִה ִּקיפו ָּה‬ ‫גזוּזְ ְט ָרא‬:ּ ְ When the Gemara later raises the problem of introducing structural changes into the Temple, it is referring to the projections, which were permanent, not to the wooden boards placed on the projections to form the balcony, which were temporary. According to the Rambam, they were placed on the Festival eve. Others hold that they were placed at the conclusion of the first Festival day (see Me’iri). language

Balcony [gezuztra] – ‫גזוּזְ ְט ָרא‬:ּ ְ From the Greek ἐξώστρα, exostra, meaning a projection from the side of a house upon which boards are laid, forming a balcony.

‫״ה ּכֹל ִ ּב ְכ ָתב‬ ַ :‫יכי ָע ֵביד ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬The Gemara asks: How could one do so, i.e., alter the structure of !‫ ִמּיַ ד ה׳ ָע ַלי ִה ְ ׂש ִּכיל״‬the Temple? But isn’t it written with regard to the Temple: “All this I give you in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19), meaning that all the structural plans of the Temple were divinely inspired; how could the Sages institute changes? :‫ ְק ָרא ַא ׁ ְש ַּכח ּו ו ְּדרו ּׁש‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav said: They found a verse, and interpreted it homiletically and acted accordingly:

Perek V Daf 52 Amud a ‫״וְ ָס ְפ ָדה ָה ָא ֶרץ ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפחֹות‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ּנְש‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ְל ָבד ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ַפ ַחת ֵ ּבית דָּ וִ ד ְל ָבד ו‬ :‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא דְּ ָב ִרים ַקל ו‬:ּ‫ ָא ְמרו‬.‫ְל ָבד״‬ ‫עֹוס ִקין ְ ּב ֶה ְס ּ ֵפד‬ ְ ‫ו ַּמה ֶּל ָע ִתיד ָלבֹא – ׁ ֶש‬ ‫וְ ֵאין יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע ׁש ֵֹולט ָ ּב ֶהם – ָא ְמ ָרה‬ ‫ ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו‬,‫נָשים ְל ַבד‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫נָשים ְל ַבד ו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ּת ָֹורה ֲא‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ֲעסו ִּקין ְ ּב ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה וְ יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע ׁש ֵֹולט‬ .‫ָ ּב ֶהם – ַעל ַא ַחת ַּכ ָּמה וְ ַכ ָּמה‬



It is stated: “The land will eulogize,n each family separately; the family of the house of David separately, and their women separate­ly, the family of the house of Nathan separately, and their women separately” (Zechariah 12:12). This indicates that at the end of days a great eulogy will be organized during which men and women will be separate. They said: And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? If in the future, at the end of days referred to in this prophecy, when people are involved in a great eulogy and consequently the evil inclination does not dominate them, as typically during mourning inappropriate thoughts and conduct are less likely, and nevertheless the Torah says: Men separately and women separately; then now that they are involved in the Celebra­ tion of the Drawing of the Water, and as such the evil inclination dominates them, since celebration lends itself to levity, all the more so should men and women be separate.

notes

The land will eulogize, etc. – ‫וְ ָס ְפ ָדה ָה ָא ֶרץ וכו׳‬: In the Jerusalem Talmud this verse is applied to both opinions. According to the opinion that the eulogy is for Messiah ben Yosef, this verse proves that even during times of mourning there must be separation between men and women. According to the opinion that the eulogy is for the evil inclination that was killed, if men and women must be separated when the evil inclination has no dominion, all the more so they must be separated when it does have dominion.

‫בנ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 52a 

255

notes

Messiah, the evil inclination – ‫ יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע‬,‫מ ׁ ִש ַיח‬:ָ The verse in Zechariah cited in the Gemara is referring to an only son, and later in the verse there is reference to the firstborn. Both terms can apply to both Messiah ben Yosef and the evil inclination. Each was unique until their counterparts, Messiah ben David and the good inclination, came into being. And once their counterparts came into being, Messiah ben Yosef and the evil inclination are called firstborn relative to those counterparts. Eulogy for the evil inclination that was killed – ‫ֶה ְס ּ ֵפד‬ ‫על יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱה ַרג‬:ַ Many have suggested homiletic interpretations to explain why the righteous would cry over the evil inclination that was killed. Some say it is because they have painful recollections of past battles with the evil inclination (Rashi). Others explain that the crying is not for the slain evil inclination, but that the tears are shed in the course of begging for mercy on behalf of the wicked (Arukh LaNer and others). Yet others suggest that with the evil inclination gone, the service of God will not be as remarkable as it was before, as there will be no challenge involved (Maharsha). As a high mountain, as a strand of hair – ‫בֹוה ְּכחוּט‬ ַּ ‫ְּכ ַהר ָ ּג‬ ‫ה ּ ַ ׂש ֲע ָרה‬:ַ Many of the early authorities sought to understand why the evil inclination is not perceived by everyone in the same way (see Otzar HaGe’onim, Rav Hai Gaon, and others). One explanation is based on the idea that initially when the evil inclination begins to overcome someone, it is merely with subtle threads of deceit, as the sinner begins with minor transgressions. However, the righteous individual, who resists the initial subtle pull of the evil inclination, is confronted with an evil inclination that continually grows more powerful in its attempt to overcome him, reaching the dimensions of a high mountain. Nevertheless, he successfully overcomes it (Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto). Messiah ben Yosef – ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫מ ׁ ִש ַיח ֶ ּבן‬:ָ Much has been written about Messiah ben Yosef in homilies about the redemption. Most of these sources indicate that a man from the house of Joseph, i.e., from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, will arise and achieve great accomplishments for the Jewish people to the point that it will seem that the ultimate redemption is near. The nations of the world will then wage war against Israel. Israel will suffer a great defeat and Messiah ben Yosef will be killed. That will be the ultimate test of faith that the Jewish people will face to establish the identity of the true believers (Rav Hai Gaon). Messiah ben David will then be revealed and the final redemption will ensue. The evil inclination has seven names – ‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ׁ ֵשמֹות ׁיֵש לֹו‬ ‫ליֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע‬:ְ Many have interpreted these names as symbolizing different gradations of evil, each worse than the one that preceded it. Some explain that the evil inclination is called evil because it is the source of everything evil in a person. Furthermore, it conceals good from the individual, a characteristic represented by the name uncircumcised, as the foreskin conceals. Next, it corrupts even the pure thoughts in the heart of man, as represented by the name impure. It does not do this passively, but plots and takes action against him like an enemy. Worse yet, in order to corrupt one who resists, it employs artifice in order to become an obstacle to entrap him. Once the obstacle is in place it is difficult to remove, as it is hard and heavy as a stone. Finally, the most difficult aspect of the evil inclination is that it acts stealthily, as it is hidden in the heart of man (Arukh LaNer). language

Web [bukhya] – ‫בו ְּכיָ א‬: ּ It appears that this word is not bukhya, but kukhya, the latter of which is used in rabbinic Hebrew and various dialects of Aramaic.

256 

Perek V . 52a . ‫בנ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

‫יה? ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ֶה ְס ּ ֵפ ָידא ַמאי ֲע ִב ְיד ֵּת‬Apropos the eulogy at the end of days, the Gemara asks: For ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ַעל ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח ֶ ּבן‬:‫ ַחד ָא ַמר‬.‫ֹוסא וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ָ ּ‫ ד‬what is the nature of this eulogy? The Gemara answers: Rabbi .‫ ַעל יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱה ַרג‬:‫ וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱה ַרג‬Dosa and the Rabbis disagree concerning this matter. One said that this eulogy is for Messiah ben Yosef who was killed in the war of Gog from the land of Magog prior to the ultimate redemption with the coming of Messiah ben David. And one said that this eulogy is for the evil inclinationn that was killed.n ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַעל ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח ֶ ּבן‬ ‫ ״וְ ִה ִ ּביט ּו ֵא ַלי ֵאת‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱה ַרג – ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ .‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר דָּ ָקר ּו וְ ָס ְפד ּו ָע ָליו ְּכ ִמ ְס ּ ֵפד ַעל ַהּיָ ִחיד״‬ – ‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַעל יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱה ַרג‬ ‫ַהאי ֶה ְס ּ ֵפ ָידא ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ֶמ ֱע ַבד?! ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ָ ּב ֵעי‬ ?ּ‫ְל ֶמ ֱע ַבד! ַא ַּמאי ָ ּבכו‬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that the lament is for Messiah ben Yosef who was killed, this would be the meaning of that which is written in that context: “And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son” (Zechariah 12:10). However, according to the one who said that the eulogy is for the evil inclination that was killed, does one need to conduct a eulogy for this? On the contrary, one should conduct a celebration. Why, then, did they cry?

‫ ֶל ָע ִתיד ָלבֹא ְמ ִביאֹו‬:‫ִּכ ְד ָד ַר ׁש ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ֹוחטֹו ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬ ֲ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ְליֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע וְ ׁש‬ ׁ ‫ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫יקים נִ ְד ֶמה‬ ִ ִּ‫ צַ ד‬.‫יקים ו ִּב ְפנֵי ָה ְר ׁ ָש ִעים‬ ִ ִּ‫ַה ַ ּצד‬ ‫ ו ְּר ׁ ָש ִעים נִ ְד ֶמה ֶהם ְּכחוּט‬,‫בֹוה‬ ַּ ‫ָל ֶהם ְּכ ַהר ָ ּג‬ ‫ צַ דִּ ִיקים‬.‫ וְ ַה ָּלל ּו ּב ִֹוכין‬,‫ ַה ָּלל ּו ּב ִֹוכין‬.‫ַה ּ ַ ׂש ֲע ָרה‬ ‫כֹולנ ּו ִל ְכ ּב ֹׁוש ַהר‬ ְ ָ‫יא ְך י‬ ַ ‫ ֵה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוכין ו‬ ִ ‫ּב‬ ְ‫יאך‬ ַ ‫ ֵה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ְ‫בֹוה ָּכזֶ ה! ו ְּר ׁ ָש ִעים ּב ִֹוכין ו‬ ַּ ‫ָ ּג‬ !‫כֹולנ ּו ִל ְכ ּב ֹׁוש ֶאת חוּט ַה ּ ַ ׂש ֲע ָרה ַהּזֶ ה‬ ְ ָ‫ל ֹא י‬ ,‫דֹוש ָ ּבר ּו ְך הוּא ָּת ֵמ ַּה ִע ָּמ ֶהם‬ ׁ ‫וְ ַא ף ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫״כֹה ָא ַמר ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות ִּכי יִ ּ ָפ ֵלא‬ ּ :‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫ְ ּב ֵעינֵי ׁ ְש ֵא ִרית ָה ָעם ַהּזֶ ה ַ ּבּיָ ִמים ָה ֵהם ַ ּגם‬ .‫ְ ּב ֵעינַי יִ ּ ָפ ֵלא״‬

The Gemara answers: This can be understood as Rabbi Yehuda taught: In the future, at the end of days, God will bring the evil inclination and slaughter it in the presence of the righteous and in the presence of the wicked. For the righteous the evil inclination appears to them as a high mountain, and for the wicked it appears to them as a mere strand of hair.n These weep and those weep. The righteous weep and say: How were we able to overcome so high a mountain? And the wicked weep and say: How were we unable to overcome this strand of hair? And even the Holy One, Blessed be He, will wonder with them, as it is stated with regard to the eulogy: “So says the Lord of hosts: If it be wondrous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, it should also be wondrous in My eyes” (Zechariah 8:6).

ָּ ‫ ַ ּב ְּת ִח‬,‫ יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי‬ ‫ֹומה‬ ֶ ּ‫ילה ד‬ ‫ֹומה ַּכ ֲעבֹותֹות‬ ֶ ּ‫ ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ד‬,‫ְלחוּט ׁ ֶשל ּבו ְּכיָ א‬ ‫מֹוש ֵכי ֶה ָעו‍ֹן ְ ּב ַח ְב ֵלי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ״הֹוי‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ָה ֲעגָ ָלה‬ .‫ַה ׁ ּ ָשוְ א וְ ַכ ֲעבֹות ָה ֲעגָ ָלה ַח ָּט ָאה״‬

Apropos the evil inclination and the battle against it, the Gemara cites that which Rav Asi said: Initially, when it begins to entice someone, the evil inclination is like a strand of a spider’s web [bukhya];l and ultimately it is like the thick ropes of a wagon, as it is stated: “Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as if it were with a wagon rope” (Isaiah 5:18). Initially, the enticement is almost imperceptible, like a thin strand; however, after one sins, it is like wagon ropes tied tightly around him.

‫ ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח ֶ ּבן דָּ וִ ד ׁ ֶש ָע ִתיד ְל ִה ָ ּגלֹות‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ :‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫אֹומר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬ ֵ ,ּ‫ִ ּב ְמ ֵה ָרה ְ ּביָ ֵמינו‬ ‫״א ַס ּ ְפ ָרה‬ ֲ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬, ָ‫ׁ ְש ַאל ִמ ֶּמ ּנִי דָּ ָבר וְ ֶא ֵּתן ְלך‬ ‫ֶאל חֹוק וגו׳ ֲאנִי ַהּיֹום יְ ִל ְד ִּתיךָ ׁ ְש ַאל ִמ ֶּמ ּנִי‬ ‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ָר ָאה ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח‬.‫וְ ֶא ְּתנָ ה גֹויִ ם נַ ֲח ָל ֶתךָ ״‬ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫אֹומר ְל ָפנָיו‬ ֵ ,‫יֹוסף ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱה ַרג‬ ֵ ‫ֶ ּבן‬ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ ֵאינִי ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש ִמ ְּמךָ ֶא ָּלא ַחּיִ ים‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָא ַמ ְר ָּת – ְּכ ָבר ִה ְתנַ ֵ ּבא‬,‫ ַחּיִ ים‬:‫לֹו‬ ָ‫״חּיִ ים ׁ ָש ַאל ִמ ְּמך‬ ַ :‫ָע ֶליךָ דָּ וִ ד ָא ִביךָ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ .‫נָ ַת ָּתה לֹו״ וגו׳‬

The Sages taught: To Messiah ben David, who is destined to be revealed swiftly in our time, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Ask of Me anything and I will give you whatever you wish, as it is stated: “I will tell of the decree; the Lord said unto me: You are My son, this day have I begotten you, ask of Me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession” (Psalms 2:7–8). Once the Messiah ben David saw Messiah ben Yosef,n who was killed, he says to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, I ask of you only life; that I will not suffer the same fate. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to him: Life? Even before you stated this request, your father, David, already prophesied about you with regard to this matter precisely, as it is stated: “He asked life of You, You gave it to him; even length of days for ever and ever” (Psalms 21:5).

‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַר ִ ּבי ֲעוִ ָירא‬ ‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫ ַה ָ ּק‬.‫ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ׁ ֵשמֹות יֵ ׁש לֹו ְליֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע‬:‫ֵלוִ י‬ ‫״כי יֵ צֶ ר ֵלב‬ ִּ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ְק ָראֹו ַ״רע״‬ ,‫״ע ֵרל״‬ ָ ‫ מ ׁ ֶֹשה ְק ָראֹו‬.‫ָה ָא ָדם ַרע ִמ ּנְעו ָּריו״‬ ‫ דָּ וִ ד‬.‫ ״ו ַּמ ְל ֶּתם ֶאת ָע ְר ַלת ְל ַב ְב ֶכם״‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫״לב ָטהֹור ְ ּב ָרא ִלי‬ ֵ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫״ט ֵמא״‬ ָ ‫ְק ָראֹו‬ .‫יכא ָט ֵמא‬ ָּ ‫ֱאל ִֹהים״ – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ִא‬

§  Rabbi Avira, and some say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

taught: The evil inclination has seven names.n The Holy One, Blessed be He, called it evil, as it is stated: “For the inclination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Moses called it uncircumcised, as it is stated: “And circumcise the foreskin of your hearts” (Deuteronomy 10:16). David called it impure, as it is stated: “Create for me a pure heart, O God” (Psalms 51:12); by inference, there is an impure heart that is the evil inclination.

‫״אם‬ ִ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫״שֹונֵ א״‬ ׂ ‫ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ְק ָראֹו‬ ‫ָר ֵעב ׂשנַ ֲאךָ ַה ֲא ִכ ֵילה ּו ָל ֶחם וְ ִאם צָ ֵמא‬ ‫חֹותה ַעל‬ ֶ ‫ַה ׁ ְש ֵקה ּו ַמיִ ם ִּכי גֶ ָח ִלים ַא ָּתה‬ ‫ ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי ״יְ ׁ ַש ֶּלם‬,‫ֹאשֹו וַ ה׳ יְ ׁ ַש ֶּלם ָלךְ ״‬ ׁ ‫ר‬ .‫ימנּ ּו ָלךְ ״‬ ֶ ‫ָלךְ ״ ֶא ָּלא ״יַ ׁ ְש ִל‬

Solomon called it enemy, as it is stated: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord will reward you” (Proverbs 25:21–22). Do not read it as: And the Lord will reward you [yeshalem lakh]; rather read it as: And the Lord will reconcile it to you [yashlimenu lakh]. God will cause the evil inclination to love you and no longer seek to entice you to sin.

:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫״מ ְכ ׁשֹול״‬ ִ ‫יְ ׁ ַש ְעיָ ה ְק ָראֹו‬ ּ ‫״סֹול ּו‬ ּ ‫סֹול ּו ּ ַפנּ ּו ָד ֶר ְך ָה ִרימ ּו ִמ ְכ ׁשֹול‬ ,‫״א ֶבן״‬ ֶ ‫ יְ ֶחזְ ֵקאל ְק ָראֹו‬.‫ִמדֶּ ֶר ְך ַע ִּמי״‬ ‫ ״וַ ֲה ִסר ִֹתי ֶאת ֵלב ָה ֶא ֶבן‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫יֹואל‬ ֵ .‫ִמ ְ ּב ַ ׂש ְר ֶכם וְ נָ ַת ִּתי ָל ֶכם ֵלב ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ ‫ ״וְ ֶאת ַה ְ ּצפֹונִי‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ְק ָראֹו ״צְ פֹונִי״‬ ‫ ״וְ ֶאת‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫ַא ְר ִחיק ֵמ ֲע ֵל‬ ‫יכם״ – זֶ ה יֵ צֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַה ְ ּצפֹונִי ַא ְר ִחיק ֵמ ֲע ֵל‬ ;‫עֹומד ְ ּב ִל ּבֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם‬ ֵ ְ‫ ׁ ֶש ָ ּצפוּן ו‬,‫ָה ַרע‬

Isaiah called it a stumbling block, as it is stated: “And He will say: Cast you up, cast you up, clear the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of My people” (Isaiah 57:14). Ezekiel called it stone, as it is stated: “And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). Joel called it hidden one, as it says: “But I will remove the northern one [hatzefoni] far off from you” ( Joel 2:20). The Sages taught concerning the verse: “But I will remove the northern one [hatzefoni] far off from you,” that this is referring to the evil inclination. And why is the evil inclination referred to as tzefoni? It is due to the fact that it is always hidden [tzafun] in the heart of man.

– ‫״וְ ִהדַּ ְח ִּתיו ֶאל ֶא ֶרץ צִ ּיָ ה ו ׁ ְּש ָמ ָמה״‬ ‫ְל ָמ קֹום ׁ ֶש ֵא ין ְ ּבנֵ י ָא ָד ם ְמצ ּו יִ ין‬ ‫״את ּ ָפנָיו ֶאל ַהּיָ ם‬ ֶ ;‫ְל ִה ְת ָ ּגרֹות ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ‫ַה ַ ּק ְדמֹונִי״ – ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן ֵעינָיו ְ ּב ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ‫אשֹון וְ ֶה ֱח ִריבֹו וְ ָה ַרג ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ּבֹו; ״וְ סֹופֹו ֶאל ַהּיָ ם ָה ַא ֲחרֹון״ – ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן‬ ‫ וְ ָה ַרג‬,‫ֵעינָיו ְ ּב ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש ׁ ֵשנִי וְ ֶה ֱח ִריבֹו‬ ‫ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ׁ ֶש ּבֹו; ״וְ ָע ָלה ָב ְא ׁשֹו‬ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫וְ ַת ַעל צַ ֲחנָ תֹו״ – ׁ ֶש ַּמ ּנ ִַיח או ּּמֹות ָה‬ ;‫יהם ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫ּו ִמ ְת ָ ּג ֶרה ְ ּב ׂשֹונְ ֵא‬ :‫״כי ִהגְ דִּ יל ַל ֲע ׂשֹות״ – ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ִּ .‫יֹותר ִמ ּכו ָּּלם‬ ֵ ‫ו ְּב ַת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬

The baraita continues interpreting the verse in the book of Joel. “And will drive it to a land barren and desolate” ( Joel 2:20), where there are no people for the evil inclination to incite. And what damage does the evil inclination cause? “With its face toward the eastern [hakadmoni] sea” ( Joel 2:20), as it set its eyesn on the First [mukdam] Temple and destroyed it, and killed the Torah scholars that were in it; “and its end toward the western [ha’aĥaron] sea” ( Joel 2:20), as it set its eyes on the Second [aĥaron] Temple and destroyed it, and killed the Torah scholars that were in it; “its foulness may come up, and its ill odor may come up” ( Joel 2:20), as it forsakes the nations of the world and incites the enemies of the Jewish people: In this context, the term the nations is a euphemism for the Jewish people. The evil inclination seeks to corrupt the Jews more than it does the members of any other nation. “Because it has done greatly” ( Joel 2:20): Abayep said: And it provokes Torah scholars more than it provokes everyone else.

‫יה ְל ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ׁ ְש ַמ ֵע‬,‫ִּכי ָהא‬ ‫ נַ ְקדִּ ים וְ נֵיזִ יל‬:‫דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ְל ַה ִהיא ִא ְּת ָתא‬ ‫ ֵאיזִ יל ַא ְפ ְר ׁ ִשינְ ה ּו‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫אֹור ָחא‬ ְ ‫ְ ּב‬ ‫ ֲאזַ ל ַ ּב ְת ַריְ יה ּו ְּת ָל ָתא‬.‫יס ּו ָרא‬ ּ ‫ֵמ ִא‬ ‫ ִּכי ָהו ּו ּ ָפ ְר ׁ ִשי ֵמ ֲה ָד ֵדי‬.‫ּ ַפ ְר ֵסי ְ ּב ַאגְ ָמא‬ ‫אֹור ִחין ְר ִח ָיקא‬ ְ :‫ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינְ ה ּו דְּ ָקא ָא ְמ ִרי‬ .‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ותין ְ ּב ִס‬ ִ ְ‫וְ צַ ו‬

The Gemara illustrates that point. It is like this incident, as Abaye once heard a certain man say to a certain woman: Let us rise early and go on the road. Upon hearing this, Abaye said to himself: I will go and accompany them and prevent them from violating the prohibition that they certainly intend to violate. He went after them for a distance of three parasangsb in a marsh among the reeds, while they walked on the road, and they did not engage in any wrongful activity. When they were taking leave of each other, he heard that they were saying: We traveled a long distance together, and the company was pleasant company.

‫ ִאי ַמאן דְּ ָסנֵי ִלי ֲהוָ ה – ָלא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ ְּת ָלא‬,‫ ֲאזַ ל‬.‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ֲהוָ ה ָמצֵ י ְל‬ ּ ‫יה נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ּ ‫אֹוקֹומ‬ .‫ ִּו ִמצְ ַט ֵער‬,‫יבו ָּרא דְּ ַד ׁ ּ ָשא‬ ּ ‫יה ְ ּב ִע‬ ּ ‫נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ‫ ָּכל ַה ָ ּגדֹול‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ְּתנָ א ֵל‬,‫ֲא ָתא ַההוּא ָס ָבא‬ .ּ‫ימנּ ו‬ ֶ ‫ֵמ ֲח ֵבירֹו יִ צְ רֹו ָ ּגדֹול ֵה‬

Abaye said: In that situation, if instead of that man it had been one whom I hate, a euphemism for himself, he would not have been able to restrain himself from sinning. After becoming aware of so great a shortcoming he went and leaned against the doorpost, thinking and feeling regret. A certain Elder came and taught him: Anyone who is greater than another, his evil inclination is greater than his. Therefore, Abaye should not feel regret, as his realization is a consequence of his greatness.

notes

As it set its eyes – ‫ש ָּנ ַתן ֵעינָיו‬: ֶ ׁ The forces of evil, which adhere more to those on higher levels of sanctity, caused the destruction of both Temples. Those forces appear and intensify wherever there is increased sanctity, affecting Jews more than gentiles, and Torah scholars more than the rank and file (see Maharsha, Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto, and others). background

Three parasangs – ‫ת ָל ָתא ּ ַפ ְר ֵסי‬:ְּ The parasang is an ancient measure of distance originating in Persia. It is the equivalent of four mil. In today’s measurements, three parasangs are approximately 12 km. The map below shows that the parasang was in use even in the nineteenth century.

Map of Persia from 1814 with scale in parasangs

‫ יִ צְ רֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ִמ ְת ַ ּג ֵ ּבר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬Rabbi Yitzĥak said: A person’s inclination overcomes him each day, ‫ ַ״רק‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ ָע ָליו ְ ּב ָכל יֹום‬as it is stated: “Only Personalities

Abaye – ‫א ַ ּביֵ י‬: ַ One of the outstanding Sages of the Talmud, Abaye was a fourth-generation Babylonian amora. Abaye was orphaned at the time of his birth and raised by his paternal uncle, Rabba. Some say that his real name was Naĥmani or Kilil and that Abaye was just a nickname. The woman who assisted his uncle in raising him impressed upon him many life lessons that he quotes in her name. There are several incidents related in the Gemara that illustrate his intelligence even as a child, including some where his adoptive father, Rabba, tests his knowledge. Although Rabba was a priest and the head of his yeshiva, he lived in poverty, as did Abaye.



Abaye was the primary student of Rabba and of Rav Yosef. After Rav Yosef’s death, Abaye succeeded him as the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita. He celebrated the study of Torah and would announce a holiday for the scholars whenever one of them completed a tractate. Growing up in his uncle’s home he was aware of the difficulties of scholars who were without financial means. The Gemara in tractate Berakhot (35b) relates that he testified that many were successful following the path of Rabbi Yishmael, who instructed his students to plow, plant, and harvest in the appropriate time; only very few were successful following the path of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai who taught that

one should devote himself entirely to Torah and ignore worldly concerns. In addition to Abaye’s prominence as a Torah scholar, he was known for his righteousness and his acts of kindness. Abaye’s exchanges and halakhic arguments with his uncle and, even more so, with Rav Yosef, can be found throughout the Talmud. However, his disputes with his colleague Rava are especially significant. Their disputes, known as the discussions of Abaye and Rava, are examples of profound and edifying disputes and are among the foundations of the Babylonian Talmud. In these disputes, with six exceptions, the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rava. ‫בנ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 52a 

257

Perek V Daf 52 Amud b notes

If it is like iron it will be shattered – ‫אם ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל הוּא ִמ ְת ּפֹוצֵ ץ‬:ִ See Tosafot. The early authorities discuss whether the intent is that the iron smashes the rock or that the rock smashes the iron. There is a variant reading: If it is like iron, it will be melted, in which case it is derived from the beginning of the verse: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord” (see Ritva). The evil inclination incites a person to sin in this world, and then testifies against him in the next world – ‫יֵ צֶ ר‬ ‫עֹולם ַה ָ ּבא‬ ָ ‫עֹולם ַהּזֶ ה ו ֵּמ ִעיד ָע ָליו ָל‬ ָ ‫ה ַרע ְמ ִסיתֹו ָל ָא ָדם ְ ּב‬:ָ Once an individual succumbs to his evil inclination, he internalizes that tendency and that conduct becomes part of his very essence. Once it is second nature and an integral part of one’s personality it is virtually impossible to eradicate it. That conduct will ultimately testify against him (Midrash Shlomo).

:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬.‫ַרע ָּכל ַהּיֹום״‬ ‫יִ צְ רֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ִמ ְת ַ ּג ֵ ּבר ָע ָליו ְ ּב ָכל יֹום‬ ‫״צֹופה ָר ׁ ָשע‬ ֶ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ו ְּמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש ַל ֲה ִמיתֹו‬ ‫ וְ ִא ְל ָמ ֵלא‬,‫ַל ַ ּצדִּ יק ּו ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש ַל ֲה ִמיתֹו״‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ׁ ֶשעֹוזֵ ר לֹו – ֵאינֹו יָ כֹול‬ ׁ ‫ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ ״ה׳ ל ֹא יַ ַעזְ ֶבנּ ּו ְביָ דֹו וְ ל ֹא‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫לֹו‬ .‫יענּ ּו ְ ּב ִה ׁ ָש ְפטֹו״‬ ֶ ‫יַ ְר ׁ ִש‬

evil all day” (Genesis 6:5). All day long his thoughts and desires are for evil. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A person’s evil inclination overcomes him each day and seeks to kill him, as it stated: “The wicked watches the righteous and seeks to kill him” (Psalms 37:32); the wicked here is referring to the wickedness inside one’s heart. And if not for the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who assists him with the good inclination, he would not overcome it, as it is stated: “The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor suffer him to be condemned when he is judged” (Psalms 37:33).

‫ ִאם ּ ָפגַ ע ְ ּבךָ ְמנ ּו ָּול‬:‫ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ‫ ִאם ֶא ֶבן‬.‫זֶ ה – ָמ ׁ ְש ֵכה ּו ְל ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬ .‫ ִאם ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל הוּא – ִמ ְת ּפֹוצֵ ץ‬,‫נִימ ַֹוח‬ ּ – ‫הוּא‬ ‫ ״הֹוי ָּכל‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫נִימ ַֹוח‬ ּ – ‫ִאם ֶא ֶבן הוּא‬ ‫״א ָבנִים ׁ ָש ֲחק ּו‬ ֲ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫צָ ֵמא ְלכ ּו ַל ָּמיִ ם״‬ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ִאם ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל הוּא – ִמ ְת ּפֹוצֵ ץ‬.‫ַמיִ ם״‬ ‫״הא כֹה דְּ ָב ִרי ָּכ ֵא ׁש נְ ֻאם ה׳ ו ְּכ ַפ ִּט ׁיש‬ ֲ .‫יְ פֹוצֵ ץ ָס ַלע״‬

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If this scoundrel, the evil inclination, accosted you, seeking to tempt you to sin, drag it to the study hall and study Torah. If it is like a stone, it will be dissolved by the Torah. If it is like iron, it will be shattered. The Gemara elaborates: If it is like stone, it will be dissolved, as it is written: “Ho, everyone who is thirsty, come you for the water” (Isaiah 55:1), water in this context meaning Torah; and it is written: “Stones were worn by water” ( Job 14:19). If it is like iron, it will be shattered,n as it is written: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord; and like a hammer that shatters rock” ( Jeremiah 23:29).

:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן‬ ‫ ו ֵּמ ִעיד‬,‫עֹולם ַהּזֶ ה‬ ָ ‫יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע ְמ ִסיתֹו ָל ָא ָדם ְ ּב‬ ‫ֹוער‬ ַ ּ‫״מ ַפ ֵּנק ִמנ‬ ְ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬.‫עֹולם ַה ָ ּבא‬ ָ ‫ָע ָליו ָל‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְ ּבאטב״ח‬,‫ַע ְבדּ ֹו וְ ַא ֲח ִריתֹו יִ ְהיֶ ה ָמנֹון״‬ .‫״מנֹון״‬ ָ ‫קֹורין ְל ַס ֲה ָדה‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The evil inclination incites a person to sin in this world, and then testifies against him in the next world,n as it is stated: “He that delicately brings up his servant from a child shall have him become a master [manon] at the last” (Proverbs 29:21). Initially, in one’s youth, the evil inclination, which should have been enslaved to him, takes control of him and causes him to sin. Then, ultimately, that same evil inclination becomes his manon. Manon means witness, as in Rabbi Ĥiyya’s coded alphabet in which alef and tet and beit and ĥet, etc., are interchanged. Witness [sahada] is called manon. The letters mem and samekh, nun and heh, and vav and dalet are interchanged with other letters.

‫״כי רו ַּח זְ נוּנִים ִה ְת ָעה״‬ ִּ ‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬:‫ ַרב הוּנָ א ָר ִמי‬Rav Huna raised a contradiction between two verses. It is writ‫ ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף‬,‫״ב ִק ְר ָ ּבם״! ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה ִה ְת ָעם‬ ּ ְ ‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ten: “For the spirit of harlotry caused them to err” (Hosea .‫ ְ ּב ִק ְר ָ ּבם‬4:12), indicating that this spirit was a temporary phenomenon and not an integral part of their persona. And it is also written: “For the spirit of harlotry is within them” (Hosea 5:4), indicating that it is an integral part of their persona. The Gemara explains: Initially, it causes them to err from without, and ultimately, it is from within them. ‫״ה ֶלךְ ״ ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה ְק ָראֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ,‫״א ׁיש״‬ ִ ‫״אֹור ַח״ ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ְק ָראֹו‬ ֵ ‫ְק ָראֹו‬ ‫ּיַחמֹול‬ ְ ַ‫ ״וַ ּיָ בֹא ֵה ֶלךְ ְל ִא ׁיש ֶה ָע ׁ ִשיר ו‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ,‫אֹור ַח״‬ ֵ ‫ָל ַק ַחת ִמ ּצֹאנֹו ו ִּמ ְ ּב ָ ּקרֹו ַל ֲע ׂשֹות‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיִ ַ ּקח ֶאת ִּכ ְב ַ ׂשת ָה ִא ׁיש ָה ָר ׁש‬:‫ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ .‫וַ ּיַ ֲע ֶ ׂש ָה ָל ִא ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ֵא ָליו״‬

Rava said: Initially, the verse called the evil inclination a traveler coming from afar. Subsequently, the verse calls it a guest, as one welcomes it. Ultimately, the verse calls it man, indicating significance, as it became the homeowner. As it is stated in the parable of the poor man’s lamb that Nathan the prophet said to David: “And there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was reluctant to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to prepare for the guest” (II Samuel 12:4). And it is written in the same verse: “And he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man that was come to him.” In other words, the evil inclination that began as a traveler gradually rose in prominence.

,‫ ֵא ֶבר ָק ָטן יֵ ׁש לֹו ָל ָא ָדם‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said: A man has a small organ used in sexual :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ ַמ ְ ׂש ִ ּביעֹו – ָר ֵעב‬,‫ ַמ ְר ִעיבֹו – ָ ׂש ֵב ַע‬relations. If he starves the organ, and does not overindulge, it .‫יתם וַ יִ ְ ׂש ָ ּבעוּ״ וגו׳‬ ָ ‫״כ ַמ ְר ִע‬ ְּ is satiated; however, if he satiates the organ and overindulges in sexual relations, it is starving, and desires more, as it is stated: “When they were fed, they became full, they were filled, and their heart was exalted; therefore have they forgotten Me” (Hosea 13:6).

258 

Perek V . 52b . ‫בנ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵ ּבי ַרב‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ָחנָ א ַ ּבר ַא ָחא‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך‬ ׁ ‫יהן ַה ָ ּק‬ ֶ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ִמ ְת ָח ֵרט ֲע ֵל‬ ,‫ ַּכ ְ ׂשדִּ ים‬,‫ ָ ּגלוּת‬:‫ וְ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬,‫הוּא ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָר ָאם‬ :‫ ָ ּגלוּת – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬.‫ וְ יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע‬,‫אלים‬ ִ ‫וְ יִ ׁ ְש ְמ ֵע‬ ‫״וְ ַע ָּתה ַמה ִּלי פֹה נְ ֻאם ה׳ ִּכי ֻל ַ ּקח ַע ִּמי‬ ‫״הן ֶא ֶרץ‬ ֵ :‫ ַּכ ְ ׂשדִּ ים – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬.‫ִח ָּנם״ וגו׳‬ .‫ַּכ ְ ׂשדִּ ים זֶ ה ָה ָעם ל ֹא ָהיָ ה״‬

Rav Ĥana bar Aĥa said that the Sages in the school of Rav say: There are four creations that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created, yet He, as it were, regrets that He created them,n as they do more harm than good. And these are they: Exile, Chaldeans, and Ishmaelites, and the evil inclination. Exile, as it is written: “Now therefore, for what am I here, says the Lord, seeing that My people is taken away for naught” (Isaiah 52:5). God Himself is asking: For what am I here? Chaldeans, as it is written: “Behold the land of the Chaldeans, this is the people that was not” (Isaiah 23:13), meaning, if only they never were.

‫ ״יִ ׁ ְש ָלי ּו א ָֹה ִלים‬:‫אלים – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ִ ‫יִ ׁ ְש ְמ ֵע‬ ‫ְל ׁש ְֹוד ִדים ו ַּב ּטוּחֹות ְל ַמ ְר ִ ּגיזֵ י ֵאל ַל ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬ :‫ יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬.‫לֹוה ְ ּביָ דֹו״‬ ַּ ‫ֵה ִביא ֱא‬ .‫״וַ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ֲה ֵרע ִֹתי״‬

Ishmaelites, as it is written: “The tents of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure, in whatsoever God brings with His hand” ( Job 12:6). God brought upon Himself these Arabs that dwell in the deserts in tents. The evil inclination, as it is written: “On that day, says the Lord, will I assemble her that is lame, and I will gather her that is driven away, and her that I corrupted” (Micah 4:6). God is saying that He created the evil inclination that led the people to sin and to be cast into exile.

‫ ִא ְל ָמ ֵלא ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ִמ ְק ָראֹות‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יהן ׁ ֶשל‬ ֶ ‫יהם ׁ ֶשל ׂשֹונְ ֵא‬ ֶ ‫מֹוטט ּו ַרגְ ֵל‬ ְ ‫ַה ָּלל ּו נִ ְת‬ ,‫ ״וַ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ֲה ֵרע ִֹתי״‬:‫ ַחד – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫חֹומר ְ ּביַ ד ַהּיֹוצֵ ר‬ ֶ ‫״ה ֵּנה ַכ‬ ִ :‫וְ ַחד – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ וְ ִא ָידךְ – ״וַ ֲה ִסר ִֹתי ֶאת ֵלב‬.‫ֵּכן ַא ֶּתם״ וגו׳‬ .‫ָה ֶא ֶבן ִמ ְ ּב ַ ׂש ְר ֶכם וְ נָ ַת ִּתי ָל ֶכם ֵלב ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Were it not for these three verses that follow that indicate that God controls people’s hearts, the legs of the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, would have collapsed, unable to withstand the repercussions of their sins. One, as it is written: “And her that I corrupted,” indicating God’s regret for doing so. And one, as it is written: “Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel” ( Jeremiah 18:6). And the other verse: “And I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26), indicating that the matter is not solely in human hands, but in the hands of God as well.

notes

There are four creations that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created, yet regrets that He created them – ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָר ָאם‬ ׁ ‫יהן ַה ָ ּק‬ ֶ ‫מ ְת ָח ֵרט ֲע ֵל‬:ִ Although certainly God does not actually experience regret, this is an anthropomorphism to indicate that these creations pain Him (Rav Ya’akov Emden). They serve a purpose as a means for punishing the wicked, as each is an effective outlet for God’s wrath in different circumstances. Four craftsmen – ‫א ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָח ָר ׁ ִשים‬:ַ See Rashi, who explains why each of the four was referred to as a craftsman. Some explain that the four are famous for their victorious battles against the wicked. Some, including Rashi, explain that the righteous priest is Melchizedek, King of Salem (Genesis 14:18), who assisted Abraham in his battle against the four kings (Arukh LaNer). Righteous High Priest – ‫כ ֵֹהן צֶ ֶדק‬:ּ Some explain that the righteous High Priest is the High Priest who will serve in the Temple after the coming of the Messiah, an amalgam of Aaron the High Priest and Ezra the Scribe (see Asara Ma’amarot). Seven shepherds – ‫רֹועים‬ ִ ‫ש ְב ָעה‬: ִ ׁ The Maharsha notes that with regard to most of them it was taught explicitly or even implicitly that they were, at one time or another, actual shepherds, and were therefore called shepherds. That is why Isaac is not listed among them, as he was a farmer (see Rashi).

‫ ״וְ ֶאת רו ִּחי‬:‫ ַאף ֵמ ַהאי נַ ִמי‬:‫ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר‬Rav Pappa said: It is derived from this verse as well: “And I will .‫ ֶא ֵּתן ְ ּב ִק ְר ְ ּב ֶכם״ וגו׳‬put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My ordinances, and do them” (Ezekiel 36:27). ‫ ַמאן נִינְ ה ּו‬.‫״וַ ּיַ ְר ֵאנִי ה׳ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָח ָר ׁ ִשים״‬ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָח ָר ׁ ִשים? ָא ַמר ַרב ָחנָ א ַ ּבר ִ ּביזְ נָ א‬ ‫ ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח ֶ ּבן דָּ וִ ד‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֲח ִס ָידא‬ ‫ ְמ ִתיב‬.‫ וְ כ ֵֹהן צֶ ֶדק‬,ּ‫ וְ ֵא ִליָ הו‬,‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ו ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח ֶ ּבן‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּי‬:‫ ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬:‫ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ ‫ֵא ַלי ֵא ֶּלה ַה ְּק ָרנֹות ֲא ׁ ֶשר זֵ ר ּו ֶאת יְ הו ָּדה״‬ !ּ‫ָהנֵי ְל ׁשו ָּבה ָאתו‬

§ Apropos the end of days, the Gemara cites another verse and

interprets it homiletically. It is stated: “The Lord then showed me four craftsmen” (Zechariah 2:3).n Who are these four craftsmen? Rav Ĥana bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ĥasida said: They are Messiah ben David, Messiah ben Yosef, Elijah, and the righteous High Priest,n who will serve in the Messianic era. Rav Sheshet raised an objection: If so, if that is the identity of the four craftsmen, then that which is written in the previous verse: “And he said to me: These are the horns that scattered Judea” (Zechariah 2:2), is difficult; these four in the first verse are coming for their enemies, and are not redeemers.

‫ ״וְ יָבֹוא ּו‬,‫יה דִּ ְק ָרא‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ְש ִפיל ְל ֵס ֵיפ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫אֹותם ְליַ דּ ֹות ֶאת ַק ְרנֹות‬ ָ ‫ֵא ֶּלה ְל ַה ֲח ִריד‬ ‫ֹוש ִאים ֶק ֶרן ֶאל ֶא ֶרץ יְ הו ָּדה‬ ׂ ְ ּ‫ַהגּ ֹויִ ם ַהנ‬ ‫ ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ָחנָ א‬:‫יה‬ ָ ָ‫ְלז‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫רֹות ּה״ וגו׳‬ .‫ַ ּב ֲאגַ ְד ָּתא ָל ָּמה ִלי‬

Rav Ĥana said to Rav Sheshet: Go to the end of the verse: “These then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.” This indicates that the horns refer to the nations that exiled the Jewish people and that the four craftsmen will hurl those horns aside. Rav Sheshet said to him: Why should I disagree with Rav Ĥana in matters of aggada, where he is more expert than I, and I cannot prevail?

‫״וְ ָהיָה זֶ ה ׁ ָשלֹום ַא ׁ ּשוּר ִּכי יָ בֹא ְב ַא ְרצֵ נ ּו וְ ִכי‬ ‫נֹותינ ּו וַ ֲה ֵקמֹנ ּו ָע ָליו ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ֵ ‫יִ ְדרֹוךְ ְ ּב ַא ְר ְמ‬ ‫ ַמאן נִינְ ה ּו‬.‫יכי ָא ָדם״‬ ֵ ‫רֹועים ו ׁ ְּשמֹנֶ ה נְ ִס‬ ִ ‫ ָא ָדם ׁ ֵשת‬,‫רֹועים? דָּ וִ ד ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬ ִ ‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫ ַא ְב ָר ָהם יַ ֲעקֹב ּומ ׁ ֶֹשה‬,‫ימינֹו‬ ִ ‫ו ְּמתו ׁ ֶּש ַלח ִמ‬ – ‫נְס ֵיכי ָא ָדם‬ ִ ‫ ו ַּמאן נִינְ ה ּו ׁ ְשמֹנָ ה‬.‫ִ ּב ְ ׂשמֹאלֹו‬ ,‫ ּוצְ ַפנְ יָ ה‬,‫ ָעמֹוס‬,‫ ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ וְ ׁ ָשאוּל‬,‫יִ ׁ ַשי‬ .ּ‫ וְ ֵא ִלּיָ הו‬,‫ ו ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח‬,‫צִ ְד ִקּיָ ה‬

The Gemara continues homiletically interpreting verses that relate to the end of days. It is stated: “And this shall be peace: When the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight princes among men” (Micah 5:4). The Gemara asks: Who are these seven shepherds?n The Gemara explains: David is in the middle; Adam, Seth, and Methuselah are to his right; Abraham, Jacob, and Moses are to his left. And who are the eight princes among men? They are Yishai, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephania, Zedekiah, Messiah, and Elijah.



‫בנ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 52b 

259

notes

Were superior – ‫מ ׁשו ָ ּּב ִחין ָהי ּו‬:ְ These priests in training are deemed superior because they climbed a steep ladder, holding on to the ladder in one hand, and a large basin of oil in the other hand, all the while ensuring that the oil would not spill (Ritva). Personalities

Marta, daughter of Baitos – ‫מ ְר ָתא ַ ּבת ַ ּביְ יתֹוס‬:ָ This exceptional personality is mentioned several times in the Talmud and due to her great fortune served as the archetypal woman of wealth and influence. Apparently, she was a member of the wealthy Baitos family, which was one of the most powerful priestly families in Jerusalem during the Second Temple era and which produced High Priests and other prominent Temple functionaries. According to the incidents related in the Talmud surrounding the destruction of the Second Temple, even Marta’s great wealth could not save her, and she died of starvation in the streets of Jerusalem.

‫ גּ ְֹוב ָה ּה ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ ָּתנָ א‬.‫״א ְר ָ ּב ָעה סו ָּּלמֹות״ כו׳‬ ַ ּ ‫ ״וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה יְ ָל ִדים ׁ ֶשל‬.‫נֹורה ֲח ִמ ׁ ִשים ַא ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ְמ‬ ‫יהם ַּכדֵּ י ׁ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶשל ֵמ ָאה‬ ֶ ‫ּ ִפ ְר ֵחי ְכהו ָּּנה ו ִּב ֵיד‬ ‫ ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים לֹוג‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָא ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִא‬.‫וְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים לֹוג״‬ :‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא ְל ָכל ַחד וְ ַחד? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬,ּ‫ּכו ְּּלהו‬ ,‫יהם ַּכדֵּ י ׁ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים לֹוג‬ ֶ ‫ו ִּב ֵיד‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ֵהם ּכו ָּּלם ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים לֹוג‬

§ The mishna continues: And there were four ladders for

‫יֹותר ִמ ְ ּבנָ ּה ׁ ֶשל ָמ ְר ָתא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵהן ְמ ׁשו ָ ּּב ִחין ָהי ּו‬:‫ָּתנָ א‬ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו ַעל ְ ּבנָ ּה ׁ ֶשל ָמ ְר ָתא ַ ּבת‬.‫ַ ּבת ַ ּביְ יתֹוס‬ ‫נֹוטל ׁ ְש ֵּתי יְ ֵריכֹות ׁ ֶשל ׁשֹור‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּביְ יתֹוס ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ ו ְּמ ַה ֵּלךְ ָע ֵקב ְ ּבצַ ד‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ָּלקו ַּח ְ ּב ֶא ֶלף זוּז‬,‫ַה ָ ּגדֹול‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ִה ּנִיחוּה ּו ֶא ָחיו ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ֵּכן‬.‫ּגוּדָּ ל‬ .‫״ב ָרב ַעם ַה ְד ַרת ֶמ ֶלךְ ״‬ ּ ְ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬

One of the Sages taught: And these young priests who held the pitchers were superiorn in strength to the son of Marta, daughter of Baitos,p who was a priest renowned for his might. They said about the son of Marta, daughter of Baitos, that he would take two thighsb of a large bull that was so large that it would be purchased for one thousand zuz, and walk up the ramp in small steps, heel to toe, without hurrying, due to his strength. However, his brethren the priests would not allow him do so, due to the principle: “In the multitude of people is the King’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28). The more priests engaged in the Temple service, the greater glory for God. Therefore, it is preferable for the thighs to be carried to the altar by multiple priests.

background

Two thighs – ‫ש ֵּתי יְ ֵריכֹות‬: ְ ׁ Two thighs of one bull after skinning and the removal of waste can weigh as much as 200 kg or more. In contrast, thirty log of oil weigh only about 40 kg.

each pole. One of the Sages taught: The height of the candelabrum upon the pole is fifty cubits. And there were four children from the priesthood trainees holding and in their hands jugs of oil with a capacity of 120 log of oil. A dilemma was raised: Was it 120 log altogether, or perhaps each and every child carried that amount? Come and hear proof from this baraita: And in their hands were jugs of oil, each with a capacity of thirty log, that were all together 120 log.

‫יֹוק ָרא – ָהנֵי‬ ְ ‫ימא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי ְמ ׁשו ָ ּּב ִחים? ִא ֵיל‬The Gemara asks: In what sense were these young priests ‫ ָה ָתם ֶּכ ֶב ׂש ו ְּמרו ָ ּּבע וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ יַ ִּק ֵירי ְט ֵפי! ֶא ָּלא‬superior? If we say it is due to the weight of the pitchers that .‫ וּזְ ִקיף טו ָּבא‬,‫ ָה ָכא סו ָּּלמֹות‬,‫ זְ ִקיף‬they carried, these two thighs are heavier than the thirty log of oil. The Gemara answers: Rather, the difference is that there, in the case of the son of Marta, he walked on a ramp that was wide, and with a moderate gradient of only one cubit every four cubits of length, and it is not steep; here they climbed ladders, and those are very steep. :‫ ָּתנָ א‬.‫״וְ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה ָחצֵ ר ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם״‬

§ The mishna continues: And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated from the light of the Place of the Drawing of the Water. One of the Sages taught:

Perek V Daf 53 Amud a notes

Happy is our old age that atoned [shekippera] – ‫ַא ׁ ְש ֵרי‬ ‫זִ ְקנו ֵּתנ ּו ׁ ֶש ִּכ ּ ְפ ָרה‬: There is a variant reading, shekifra, from the word kefira, meaning denial. The phrase would then read: Our old age negated the sinful actions of our youth because we repented (Me’iri).

260 

Perek V . 53a . ‫גנ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ָהיְ ָתה ּב ֶֹור ֶרת ִח ִּטים ְלאֹור ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית‬It was so bright that a woman would be able to sort wheat by .‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬the light of the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water. ‫ יֵ ׁש‬,‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫נְשי ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ כו׳‬ ֵ ׁ ‫״ח ִס ִידים וְ ַא‬ ֲ ‫ישה‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫״א ׁ ְש ֵרי יַ ְלדו ֵּתנ ּו ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּבּי‬ ַ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ֶהן‬ ,‫נְשי ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֶאת זִ ְקנו ֵּתנוּ״ – ֵאלּ ּו ֲח ִס ִידים וְ ַא‬ ‫״א ׁ ְש ֵרי זִ ְקנו ֵּתנ ּו ׁ ֶש ִּכ ּ ְפ ָרה‬ ַ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וְ יֵ ׁש ֵמ ֶהן‬ ‫ ֵאלּ ּו וָ ֵאלּ ּו‬.‫ֶאת יַ ְלדו ֵּתנוּ״ – ֵאלּ ּו ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ְּת ׁשו ָּבה‬ ‫ ו ִּמי ׁ ֶש ָח ָטא‬,‫״א ׁ ְש ֵרי ִמי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָח ָטא‬ ַ ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ .‫יָ ׁשוּב וְ יִ ְמחֹול לֹו״‬

§ The mishna continues: The pious and the men of action

would dance before the people who attended the celebration. The Sages taught in the Tosefta that some of them would say in their song praising God: Happy is our youth, as we did not sin then, that did not embarrass our old age. These are the pious and the men of action, who spent all their lives engaged in Torah and mitzvot. And some would say: Happy is our old age, that atonedn for our youth when we sinned. These are the penitents. Both these and those say: Happy is he who did not sin; and he who sinned should repent and God will absolve him.

‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ִה ֵּלל ַהּזָ ֵקן ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ :‫ֹוא ָבה ָא ַמר ֵּכן‬ ֵ ‫ָ ׂש ֵמ ַח ְ ּב ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּש‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ֵאינִי‬,‫ִאם ֲאנִי ָּכאן – ַה ּכֹל ָּכאן‬ ‫ ָמקֹום‬:‫אֹומר ֵּכן‬ ֵ ‫ הוּא ָהיָ ה‬.‫ָּכאן – ִמי ָּכאן‬ ,‫אֹותי‬ ִ ‫מֹוליכֹות‬ ִ ‫אֹוהב ׁ ָשם ַרגְ ַלי‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי‬ ‫יתי – ֲאנִי ָאבֹא ֶאל‬ ִ ‫ִאם ָּתבֹא ֶאל ֵ ּב‬ – ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ ִאם ַא ָּתה ל ֹא ָּתבֹא ֶאל ֵ ּב‬, ָ‫יתך‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּב‬ ‫״ב ָכל‬ ּ ְ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬, ָ‫יתך‬ ְ ‫ֲאנִי ל ֹא ָאבֹא ֶאל ֵ ּב‬ ‫ַה ָּמקֹום ֲא ׁ ֶשר ַאזְ ִּכיר ֶאת ׁ ְש ִמי ָאבֹא‬ .‫ֵא ֶליךָ ו ֵּב ַר ְכ ִּתיךָ ״‬

It is taught in the Tosefta: They said about Hillel the Elderp that when he was rejoicing at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water he said this: If I am here, everyone is here;n and if I am not here, who is here? In other words, one must consider himself as the one upon whom it is incumbent to fulfill obligations, and he must not rely on others to do so. He would also say this: To the place that I love, there my feet take me, and therefore, I come to the Temple. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If you come to My house, I will come to your house; if you do not come to My house, I will not come to your house, as it is stated: “In every place that I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:20).

‫ַאף הוּא ָר ָאה ֻ ּג ְלגּ ֶֹולת ַא ַחת ׁ ֶש ָ ּצ ָפה‬ ‫ ַעל דְּ ַא ֵּט ְפ ְּת‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ּה‬,‫ַעל ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ :‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ו ְּמ ִט ַיפיִךְ יְ טוּפוּן‬, ְ‫ַא ְּטפוּך‬ ,‫יה‬ ׁ ‫לֹוהי דְּ ַבר ִא‬ ִ ְ‫ַרג‬ ּ ‫ינִיש ִאינּ וּן ָע ְר ִבין ֵ ּב‬ .‫יה‬ ִ ‫ית ָ ּב ֵעי ַּת ָּמן‬ ְ ‫ַל ֲא ַתר דְּ ִמ‬ ּ ‫מֹוב ִילין יָ ֵת‬

The Gemara cites another statement of Hillel the Elder. Additionally, he saw one skulln that was floating on the water and he said to it: Because you drowned others, they drowned you, and those that drowned you will be drowned. That is the way of the world; everyone is punished measure for measure. Apropos following one’s feet, Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.

‫ימי ַק ֵּמי‬ ִ ְ‫ָהנְ ה ּו ַּת ְר ֵּתי ּכ ּו ׁ ָש ֵאי דְּ ָהו ּו ָקי‬ ,‫ישא״‬ ָ ׁ ‫״א ִליח ֶֹרף וַ ֲא ִחּיָ ה ְ ּבנֵי ׁ ִש‬ ֱ ,‫ׁ ְשלֹמֹה‬ ‫יה‬ ָ .ּ‫סֹופ ִרים דִּ ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ָהוו‬ ְ ּ ֵ‫יֹומא ַחד ַחזְ י‬ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ַמ ְל ַאךְ ַה ָּמוֶ ת דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָקא ָעצֵ יב‬ ‫ דְּ ָקא ָ ּבע ּו‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַא ַּמאי ֲעצִ ַיבת? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ִמ ַּינאי ָהנֵי ַּת ְר ֵּתי ּכו ׁ ָּש ֵאי דְּ יָ ְת ִבי ָה ָכא‬ ‫ָמ ְס ִרינְ ה ּו ַל ּ ְ ׂש ִע ִירים ׁ ָש ְד ִרינְ ה ּו ִל ְמחֹוזָ א‬ .ּ‫ ִּכי ְמט ּו ִל ְמחֹוזָ א דְּ לוּז ׁ ְש ִכיבו‬.‫דְּ לוּז‬

The Gemara relates with regard to these two Cushites who would stand before Solomon: “Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha” (I Kings 4:3), and they were scribes of Solomon. One day Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was sad. He said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: They are asking me to take the lives of these two Cushites who are sitting here. Solomon handed them to the demons in his service, and sent them to the district of Luz,n where the Angel of Death has no dominion. When they arrived at the district of Luz, they died.

,‫ְל ָמ ָחר ַחזְ יָ א ַמ ְל ַאךְ ַה ָּמוֶ ת דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָק ָב ַדח‬ :‫יה‬ ַ ‫ ַא ַּמאי ְ ּב ִד‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יחת? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ִמּיָ ד‬.ּ‫ַ ּב ֲא ַתר דְּ ָבע ּו ִמ ַּינאי ַּת ָּמן ׁ ְש ַד ְר ִּתינְ הו‬ ‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫לֹוהי דְּ ַבר ִא‬ ִ ְ‫ ַרג‬:‫ּ ָפ ַתח ׁ ְשלֹמֹה וְ ָא ַמר‬ ‫ית ָ ּב ֵעי ַּת ָּמן‬ ְ ‫ ַל ֲא ַתר דְּ ִמ‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִאינּ וּן ָע ְר ִבין ֵ ּב‬ .‫יה‬ ִ ּ ‫מֹוב ִילין יָ ֵת‬

The following day, Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was happy. He said to him: Why are you happy? He replied: In the place that they asked me to take them, there you sent them. The Angel of Death was instructed to take their lives in the district of Luz. Since they resided in Solomon’s palace and never went to Luz, he was unable to complete his mission. That saddened him. Ultimately, Solomon dispatched them to Luz, enabling the angel to accomplish his mission. That pleased him. Immediately, Solomon began to speak and said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.

Personalities

Hillel the Elder – ‫ה ֵּלל ַהּזָ ֵקן‬:ִ Hillel the Elder was Shammai’s partner in the last of the pairs of Sages; he was Nasi of the Sanhedrin, and Shammai was the Head of the Court. Hillel and Shammai lived about one hundred years prior to the destruction of the Temple, at the beginning of Herod’s reign. Despite the fact that each founded a school, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai respectively, both of which continued many years after their passing, they themselves disagreed about only three or four matters. The difference between Hillel and Shammai themselves was mainly one of personality. Hillel was easygoing in his approach to himself and to others, avoiding conflict wherever possible. Shammai took a more exacting approach and scrutinized people’s motives and actions. Tradition has it that Hillel began as an impoverished student engaged in menial labor to earn money to pay the entrance fee to attend the lectures of Shemaya and Avtalyon. Ultimately, the Gemara likens Hillel to Ezra the Scribe, crediting him with reestablishing Torah during a period in history when it was in danger of being forgotten (Sukka 20a). His disciples were praised as well. According to the Gemara, Hillel the Elder had eighty students; thirty were worthy to have the Divine Presence rest upon them like Moses, thirty were worthy to have the sun stand still for them, as it did for Joshua bin Nun; and twenty were considered average. The greatest among them all was Yonatan ben Uziel and the least prominent among them Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai (Sukka 28a).

notes

If I am here, everyone is here – ‫אם ֲאנִי ָּכאן ַה ּכֹל ָּכאן‬: ִ Most commentaries follow Rashi’s explanation that Hillel is speaking in God’s name. If God is present, everything is present, and in God’s absence there is nothing (Rabbeinu Yehonatan, Ritva, and others). Some explain that Hillel is referring to the Jewish people, speaking in the singular as a member of the Jewish people. That is also the understanding in the Jerusalem Talmud: When Hillel saw that the Jewish people were going through the motions in their worship of God, he would say: Does God need their praise? Doesn’t He have millions of angels praising Him? And when he saw that they were worshipping for the sake of Heaven, he would say: If I, the Jewish people, am here, everything is here, because God desires the praise of Israel more than anything else. There are some who add to the explanation that says that Hillel spoke in the name of the Divine Presence: if God is present in a given place, then the place becomes a small area that holds



the multitudes, and everyone could be there. However, if the Divine Presence is not there, then the space would not be able to hold all the people there (Rabbi Meir Arak). Additionally he saw one skull – ‫גֹּולת ַא ַחת‬ ֶ ‫אף הוּא ָר ָאה ֻ ּג ְל‬:ַ In Hillel’s previous statement and in this one, he is referring to the divine attribute of measure for measure, extending it to all aspects of life. There are some who divide this statement into two independent scenarios. Because you drowned others, they drowned you, as a punishment that fits the crime. However, if you are not guilty, those that drowned you will be drowned (Midrash Shmuel). The district of Luz – ‫מחֹוזָ א דְּ לוּז‬:ְ In Judges, chapter 1, there is an incident involving the city of Luz. It is said that it is a city of refuge even from the Angel of Death, as he is not permitted to enter there. ‫גנ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 53a 

261

Personalities

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel – ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬:ַ The reference here is to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder, who followed in the footsteps of his father Rabban Gamliel the Elder and his grandfather Hillel the Elder, and served as Nasi. According to his testimony, he was raised among the Sages (Avot 1:17). Josephus relates that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was appointed Nasi eighteen years prior to the destruction of the Temple. From the little we know about him, he was a forceful yet pious individual. Aside from the story that appears here, the mishna records his sensitivity to community needs and describes how he brought down the price of turtledoves in Jerusalem by ruling that women needed to bring only one sacrifice even after several births (Keritot 8a). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel supported the rebels in their revolt against Roman rule, and according to tradition he was one of the Ten Martyrs killed before the Temple was destroyed. His son, Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, served as Nasi after Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai. King Shapur – ‫שבֹור ַמ ְל ָּכא‬: ְ ׁ This is the Persian King Shapur, Shahpuhre I (241–272 CE), second king of the Sassanid dynasty. He was one of the great Persian kings and expanded the empire. He waged several wars against the Romans and occupied extensive territories, reaching as far as Syria. In one battle, he even captured the Roman emperor Valerian the Elder. However, he did not win all his wars, and in some battles he was routed by the Romans. Unlike other kings in the Sassanid dynasty, Shapur was tolerant of other faiths. There are many incidents related reflecting his close relationship with the Jewish people, as well as his love and appreciation for Jewish customs. In several places the Gemara describes his friendship with the amora Shmuel.

Image of King Shapur I of Persia on a coin minted during his reign halakha

Taking an oath in vain – ‫שבו ַּעת ׁ ָשוְ א‬: ְ ׁ One who takes an oath to perform an impossible task, e.g., one who swears that he will not sleep for three days, has taken an oath in vain. He need not wait until he is overwhelmed by exhaustion; rather, he is flogged and may sleep immediately (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 236:4). notes

One flogs him and he may sleep immediately – ‫ַמ ְל ִקין‬ ‫יָשן ְל ַא ְל ַּתר‬ ֵ ׁ ְ‫אֹותֹו ו‬: In other words, he may go to sleep immediately if he chooses and he need not wait until he submits to exhaustion. The oath is inherently impossible to fulfill, and therefore he is flogged for taking it (Me’iri).

262 

Perek V . 53a . ‫גנ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ‫יאל ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָ ׂש ֵמ ַח ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת ֵ ּבית‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫נֹוטל ׁ ְשמֹנֶ ה ֲאב ּוקֹות‬ ֵ ‫ֹוא ָבה ָהיָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ ‫נֹוטל ַא ַחת וְ ֵאין‬ ֵ ְ‫זֹורק ַא ַחת ו‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ׁ ֶשל אֹור‬ ‫נֹועץ‬ ֵ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחוֶ ה‬.‫נֹוגְ עֹות זֹו ָ ּבזֹו‬ ‫נֹושק ֶאת‬ ֵ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ְשנֵי גו ָּד ָליו ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ וְ ׁש‬ ‫כֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ֵאין ָּכל ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה י‬,‫זֹוקף‬ ֵ ְ‫ָה ִרצְ ּ ָפה ו‬ .‫ וְ זֹו ִהיא ִק ָידה‬.‫ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ֵּכן‬

§ It is taught in a baraita: They said about Rabban Shimon ben

‫ וְ ָהא‬.‫יט ַלע‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ֵלוִ י ַא ְחוֵ י ִק ָידה ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫יה? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ּ ‫ַ ּג ְר ָמא ֵל‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי‬,‫ַאל יָ ִט ַיח ָא ָדם דְּ ָב ִרים ְּכ ַל ּ ֵפי ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫ָא ָדם ָ ּגדֹול ֵה ִט ַיח דְּ ָב ִרים ְּכ ּ ֵפי ַמ ְע ָלה‬ .‫יה‬ ְ ‫וְ ִא‬ ּ ‫ ו ַּמנּ ּו – ֵלוִ י! ָהא וְ ָהא ַ ּג ְר ָמא ֵל‬,‫יט ַלע‬

The Gemara relates: Levi demonstrated a kidda before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and strained his thigh and came up lame. The Gemara asks: And is that what caused him to be lame? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: One should never speak impertinently toward God above; as a great person once spoke impertinently toward God above, and even though his prayers were answered, he was still punished and came up lame. And who was this great person? It was Levi. Apparently his condition was not caused by his bow. The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction. Both this and that caused him to come up lame; because he spoke impertinently toward God, he therefore was injured when exerting himself in demonstrating kidda.

.‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ְ ּב ַת ְמנֵי ַס ִּכינֵי‬ ּ ‫ֵלוִ י ֲהוָ ה ְמ ַטּיֵ יל ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יה ׁ ְשבֹור ַמ ְל ָּכא ִ ּב ְת ַמנְיָא ַמזְ גֵ י‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יה (דְּ ָר ָבא) ִ ּב ְת ַמנְ יָ א‬ ּ ‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ַק ֵּמ‬.‫ַח ְמ ָרא‬ .‫יעי‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ֵ ּב‬,‫יעי‬ ֵ ‫ֵ ּב‬

Apropos the rejoicing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, the Gemara recounts: Levi would walk before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi juggling with eight knives. Shmuel would juggle before King Shapurp with eight glasses of wine without spilling. Abaye would juggle before Rabba with eight eggs. Some say he did so with four eggs. All these were cited.

:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֲח נַ נְ יָ ה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָהיִ ינ ּו ְ ׂש ֵמ ִחים ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּש‬ ‫ ֵּכיצַ ד? ׁ ָש ָעה‬.ּ‫ל ֹא ָר ִאינ ּו ׁ ֵשינָ ה ְ ּב ֵעינֵינו‬ – ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם‬,‫אשֹונָ ה – ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַחר‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ – ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם‬,‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם – ְל ָק ְר ַ ּבן מו ָּסף‬,‫ִל ְת ִפ ָּלה‬ ,‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם – ְל ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬,‫ִל ְת ִפ ַּלת ַה ּמו ָּס ִפין‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם – ִל ְת ִפ ַּלת‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם – ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה ו ׁ ְּש ִתּיָ ה‬ ,‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם – ְל ָת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ְר ַ ּביִ ם‬,‫ַה ִּמנְ ָחה‬ .‫ֹוא ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ – ְל ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּש‬

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya said: When we would rejoice in the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, we did not see sleep in our eyes the entire Festival. How so? In the first hour of the day, the daily morning offering was sacrificed and everyone came to watch. From there they proceeded to engage in prayer in the synagogue; from there, to watch the sacrifice of the additional offerings; from there, to the synagogue to recite the additional prayer. From there they would proceed to the study hall to study Torah; from there to the eating and drinking in the sukka; from there to the afternoon prayer. From there they would proceed to the daily afternoon offering in the Temple. From this point forward, they proceeded to the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.

‫״שבו ָּעה ׁ ֶשל ֹא‬ ְ ׁ :‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ִאינִי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ישן ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה יָ ִמים״ – ַמ ְל ִקין אֹותֹו וְ יָ ׁ ֵשן‬ ַ ׁ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ל ֹא ָט ַע ְמנ ּו‬:‫ְל ַא ְל ַּתר! ֶא ָּלא ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ דַּ ֲהו ּו ְמנַ ְמנְ ִמי ַא ַּכ ְּת ָפא‬,‫ַט ַעם ׁ ֵשינָ ה‬ .‫דַּ ֲה ָד ֵדי‬

The Gemara wonders: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan say: One who took an oath that I will not sleep three days, one flogs him immediately for taking an oath in vain,h and he may sleep immediatelyn because it is impossible to stay awake for three days uninterrupted. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehoshua is saying: We did not experience the sense of actual sleep, because they would merely doze on each other’s shoulders. In any case, they were not actually awake for the entire week.

‫יה ַרב‬ ֲ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫״ח ֵמ ׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ַמ ֲעלֹות״‬ ‫ִח ְסדָּ א ְל ַההוּא ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דַּ ֲהוֵ י ָק ְמ ַסדֵּ ר‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ָלךְ ָהנֵי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַ ּג ְד ָּתא ַק ֵּמ‬ ?‫ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ַמ ֲעלֹות ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ִמי ֲא ָמ ָרם דָּ וִ ד‬ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫הֹומא ו ְּב ִעי‬ ָ ‫ ָק ָפא ְּת‬,‫יתין‬ ִּ ‫ׁ ֶש ָּכ ָרה דָּ וִ ד ׁ ִש‬ ‫ ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה‬,‫ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ְט ָפא ָע ְל ָמא‬ ‫ ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה‬,‫הֹור ָידן! ִאי ָה ִכי‬ ִ ְ‫ַמ ֲעלֹות ו‬ !‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫יֹורדֹות ִמ‬ ְ ?‫״מ ֲעלֹות״‬ ַ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬

§ The mishna continues: The musicians would stand on the fifteen

Gamlielp that when he would rejoice at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, he would take eight flaming torches and toss one and catch another, juggling them, and, though all were in the air at the same time, they would not touch each other. And when he would prostrate himself, he would insert his two thumbs into the ground, and bow, and kiss the floor of the courtyard and straighten, and there was not any other creature that could do that due to the extreme difficulty involved. And this was the form of bowing called kidda performed by the High Priest.

stairs that descend from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, corresponding to the fifteen Songs of the Ascents in Psalms. Rav Ĥisda said to one of the Sages who was organizing aggada before him: Did you hear with regard to these fifteen Songs of Ascents in Psalms, corresponding to what did David say them? He said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoĥanan said: At the time that David dug the drainpipes in the foundation of the Temple, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. Immediately, David recited the fifteen Songs of the Ascents and caused them to subside. Rav Ĥisda asked: If so, should they be called fifteen Songs of the Ascents? They should have been called Songs of the Descents.

,)‫(מ ְּל ָתא‬ ִ ‫הֹואיל וְ ַא ְד ַּכ ְר ָּתן‬ ִ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יתין‬ ִּ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָּכ ָרה דָּ וִ ד ׁ ִש‬:‫ָה ִכי ִא ְּת ַמר‬ ,‫הֹומא ו ְּב ָעא ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ְט ָפא ָע ְל ָמא‬ ָ ‫ָק ָפא ְּת‬ ‫יכא דְּ יָ ַדע ִאי ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִמי ִא‬:‫ֲא ַמר דָּ וִ ד‬ ‫ְל ִמ ְכ ַּתב ׁ ֵשם‬

Rav Ĥisda continued and said to him: Since you reminded me of this matter, this is what was originally stated: At the time that David dug the drainpipes, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. David said: Is there anyone who knows whether it is permitted to write the sacred name

Perek V Daf 53 Amud b ‫הֹומא ו ַּמנַ ח? ֵל ָּיכא‬ ָ ‫יה ִ ּב ְת‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ַא ַח ְס ּ ָפא ו‬ ּ ‫נִש ֵד‬ ‫ ּכֹל דְּ יָ ַדע‬:‫ ֲא ַמר דָּ וִ ד‬.‫יה ִמידֵּ י‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫אֹומר – יֵ ָחנֵ ק ִ ּבגְ רֹונֹו‬ ֵ ‫ימר וְ ֵאינֹו‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ :‫חֹומר ְ ּב ַעצְ מֹו‬ ֶ ָ‫יתֹופל ַקל ו‬ ֶ ‫נָשא ֲא ִח‬ ָׂ ,‫ו ַּמה ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ׁ ָשלֹום ֵ ּבין ִא ׁיש ְל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ִמי ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכ ַּתב ִ ּב ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה‬:‫ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫ ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ׁ ָשלֹום ְל ָכל‬,‫יִ ָּמ ֶחה ַעל ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ .‫עֹולם ּכו ּּלֹו – ַעל ַא ַחת ַּכ ָּמה וְ ַכ ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ .‫ ׁ ָש ֵרי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬

on an earthenware shard? If it is permitted, we will write it and throw it into the depths, and they will subside. There was no one who said anything to him. David said: Anyone who knows what to say and does not say anything may he be strangled in his throat.n Then Ahithophel raised an a fortiori argument on his own and said: And just as in order to make peace between a man and his wife in the case of sota, when the husband suspects his wife of having committed adultery, the Torah said: My Name that was written in sanctity will be erased on the water to establish peace for the whole world in its entirety, all the more so it is permitted. He said to David: It is permitted.

,‫הֹומא‬ ָ ‫ ּו ׁ ְש ֵדי ִל ְת‬,‫ְּכ ַתב ׁ ֵשם ַא ַח ְס ּ ָפא‬ .‫ית ַסר ַא ְל ֵפי ַ ּג ְר ִמ ֵידי‬ ְ ‫הֹומא ׁ ִש‬ ָ ‫וְ נָ ֵחית ְּת‬ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה דְּ ִמ ְיד ִלי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ִּכי ָחזֵ י דְּ נָ ֵחית טו ָּבא‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה‬.‫ְט ֵפי ֵמ ְיר ַטב ָע ְל ָמא‬ ,‫יסר ַא ְל ֵפי גַ ְר ִמ ֵידי‬ ַ ‫יה ֲח ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ַמ ֲעלֹות וְ ַא ְּס ֵק‬ :‫ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬.‫יה ְ ּב ַא ְל ֵפי ַ ּג ְר ִמ ֵידי‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ּ ‫אֹוק ֵמ‬ ‫ ס ּו ְמ ָכא דְּ ַא ְר ָעא ַא ְל ֵפי‬,‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ָחזִ ינַ ן דְּ ָכ ֵרינַ ן ּפ ּו ְר ָּתא‬.‫ַ ּג ְר ִמ ֵידי‬ ‫ ַההוּא‬:‫וְ נָ ְפ ֵקי ַמּיָ א! ָא ַמר ַרב ְמ ׁ ַש ְר ׁ ְשיָ א‬ .‫ִמ ּסו ְּל ָמא דִּ ְפ ָרת‬

He wrote the sacred name on an earthenware shard and cast it into the depths, and the waters in the depths subsided sixteen thousand cubits. When he saw that they subsided excessively, he said: The higher the waters in the aquifers, the moister and more fertile the soil of the world. He recited the fifteen Songs of the Ascents and elevated them fifteen thousand cubits, and established them at a depth of one thousand cubits. Ulla said: Learn from here that the thickness of the earth above the waters of the depths is one thousand cubits. The Gemara asks: But don’t we see that when we dig a little, significantly less than one thousand cubits, water emerges? Rav Mesharshiyya said: That is from the ascent of the Euphrates River, which flows at a higher altitude than do other rivers. The water flows up through underground passages to reach the river. That is why water emerges when one digs in the hills of Babylonia.

notes

Anyone who knows what to say and does not say anything may he be strangled in his throat – ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ימר וְ ֵאינֹו‬ ַ ‫ּכֹל דְּ יָ ַדע ְל ֵמ‬ ‫יֵ ָחנֵ ק ִ ּבגְ רֹונֹו‬: There are some who explain that David said this as a punishment that fits the crime. Drowning is a form of strangulation. Therefore, one who causes the masses to drown should be strangled. The Gemara relates this incident to impart that Ahitophel hated David from the outset (see Arukh LaNer and others). In tractate Makkot it is derived from here that a curse uttered by one of the Sages, even if it was uttered conditionally, will take effect. Ultimately, Ahitophel hanged himself. Tenth stair – ‫מ ֲע ָלה ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית‬:ַ The early and later authorities sought to understand the significance of the tenth stair, in that the blasts were sounded specifically there. Some explain that in the fifth and the tenth of the Songs of Ascents there are allusions to this matter (Arukh LaNer). The Maharsha wrote that the name of God uttered during the water libation was the name yod heh, whose numerological value is ten and five respectively, totaling fifteen. The stairs, the songs, and the blasts all correspond to that number. By inference, from the fact that it is stated: And their faces toward the east – ‫נֵיהם ֵק ְד ָמה‬ ֶ ‫מ ַּמ ׁ ְש ַמע ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ו ְּפ‬:ִ It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud that the verse: “Two evils has My people committed” (Jeremiah 2:13) refers to their bowing both to God and to idolatry. It also explains the unique term in the verse cited here: Mishtaĥavitem (Ezekiel 8:16) in a similar manner.

‫ּיֹורד״‬ ֵ ‫  § ״וְ ָע ְמד ּו ּכ ֲֹהנִים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ַער ָה ֶע ְליֹון ׁ ֶש‬The mishna continues: And two priests stood with two ‫ ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית‬:‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬.‫ כו׳‬trumpets at the Upper Gate that descends from the Israelites’ ‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬,‫ דְּ נָ ֵחית ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ָק ֵאי ַא ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, and when those drawing the water reached the tenth stair they sounded the trumpets. .ּ‫דְּ נָ ֵחית ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה וְ ָק ֵאי ַא ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה? ֵּתיקו‬ Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: Does the phrase reached the tenth stairn mean that he would descend five stairs and stand on the tenth from the bottom? Or perhaps it means that he would descend ten stairs and stand on the fifth from the bottom? The Gemara notes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved. ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ִמ ַּמ ׁ ְש ַמע ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ו ְּפ‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬The mishna describes: When they reached the gate through ‫יהם ֶאל‬ ֶ ‫חֹור‬ ֵ ‫יֹוד ַע ׁ ֶש ֲא‬ ֵ ‫ ֵק ְד ָמה״ ֵאינִי‬which one exits to the east, they turned from facing east to ?‫יכל ה׳‬ ַ ‫ ֵה‬facing west toward the Holy of Holies, and said: Our ancestors who were in this place during the First Temple period did not conduct themselves appropriately and stood “with their backs toward the Sanctuary of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16), and we, our eyes are to God. The Sages taught: By inference, from the fact that it is stated: “And their faces toward the east,”n don’t I know that “their backs were toward the Sanctuary of the Lord”? The Sanctuary was to the west. 

‫גנ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 53b 

263

halakha

One who says: Listen, listen – ‫אֹומר ׁ ְש ַמע ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ֵ ‫ה‬:ָ It is prohibited to recite Shema twice, whether one is repeating the word shema itself or whether he is repeating the entire first verse. If he must repeat the verse because he did not have the requisite intent when he recited it the first time, he should not repeat it immediately, but should pause a bit before repeating it (see Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 61:9). Trumpet blasts in the Temple – ‫ת ִקיעֹות ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:ְּ Each weekday, twenty-one trumpet blasts were sounded in the Temple: Three for the opening of the gates in the morning, nine for the daily morning offering, and nine for the daily afternoon offering. On a day on which additional offerings were sacrificed, nine additional blasts were sounded in honor of the additional offering. Even if multiple additional offerings were offered marking different occasions, e.g., when Shabbat and the New Moon coincided, they sufficed with the same nine blasts as per the mishna, and contrary to the opinion cited later in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 7:5). Trumpet blasts on Shabbat and Festivals – ‫ְּת ִקיעֹות ְ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ּמֹוע ִדים‬ ֲ ‫ו‬: On Friday six additional blasts were sounded: Three to stop the people from their labor, and three to demarcate between the sacred and the profane. On the festival of Sukkot, three additional blasts were sounded for the opening of the lower gate, three for the opening of the upper gate, three for the filling of the water, and three more when pouring the water libation on the altar (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 7:6).

‫יהם ֶאל‬ ֶ ‫חֹור‬ ֵ ‫״א‬ ֲ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬Rather, to what purpose does the verse state: “Their backs ,‫יכל ה׳״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ּפ ְֹור ִעין ַעצְ ָמן‬ ַ ‫ ֵה‬toward the Sanctuary of the Lord”? It is an allusion to the .‫ ו ַּמ ְת ִריזִ ין ְּכ ַל ּ ֵפי ַמ ָּטה‬fact that in addition to turning their backs on the Sanctuary of the Lord, they performed an additional evil. It teaches that they would expose themselves and defecate downward, a euphemism for the direction of the Divine Presence. ‫ ִאינִי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמר‬.‫יָה ֵעינֵינוּ״ כו׳‬ ָ ּ ‫יָה ו ְּל‬ ּ ‫״אנ ּו ְל‬ ‫״ש ַמע״‬ ְ ׁ ‫״ש ַמע״‬ ְ ׁ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכל ָה‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ִא‬ ‫״מֹודים״! ֶא ָּלא‬ ִ ‫״מֹודים״‬ ִ ‫יל ּו ָא ַמר‬ ,‫ ֵה ָּמה ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחוִ ים ֵק ְד ָמה‬:‫ָה ִכי ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ‫ וְ ֵעינֵינ ּו ְליָ ּה‬,)‫מֹודים‬ ִ ‫(אנַ ְחנ ּו‬ ֲ ‫וְ ָאנ ּו ְליָ ּה‬ .‫ְמיַ ֲחלֹות‬

‫ֹוח ִתין ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ַא ַחת‬ ֲ ‫מתני׳ ֵאין ּפ‬ ‫יפין ַעל‬ ִ ‫מֹוס‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ְּת ִקיעֹות ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָכל יֹום ָהי ּו ׁ ָשם‬.‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ּו ׁ ְשמֹנֶ ה‬ ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬:‫ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ַא ַחת ְּת ִקיעֹות ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ‫ וְ ֵת ׁ ַשע ְל ָת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל‬,‫יחת ׁ ְש ָע ִרים‬ ַ ‫ִל ְפ ִת‬ .‫ וְ ֵת ׁ ַשע ְל ָת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ְר ַ ּביִ ם‬,‫ׁ ַש ַחר‬ .‫מֹוס ִיפין עֹוד ֵּת ׁ ַשע‬ ִ ‫ו ַּב ּמו ָּס ִפין ָהי ּו‬

The mishna continues: In the Second Temple period they would say: We are to God, and to God are our eyes. The Gemara asks: Is that so? May one pray in that manner? Didn’t Rabbi Zeira say: One who repeats himself while reciting Shema and says: Listen, listen,h is like one who says: We give thanks, we give thanks, and he is silenced, as it appears that he is worshipping two authorities. How then did they recite God’s name twice, consecutively? Rather, this is what they said: They bow toward the east,n while we give thanks to God, and our eyes turn in hope to God, so that they would not recite God’s name consecutively.

mishna 

One sounds no fewer than twenty-one trumpet blasts in the Temple,h and one sounds no more than forty-eight. The mishna elaborates: Each day there were twenty-one trumpet blasts in the Temple: Three blasts were sounded for the opening of the gates in the morning, nine for the daily morning offering, and nine for the daily afternoon offering,n totaling twenty-one. And on a day when the additional offerings were sacrificed, e.g., the New Moon, with the additional offerings they would add nine additional blasts.

‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬:‫יפין ׁ ֵש ׁש‬ ִ ‫מֹוס‬ ִ ‫ ו ְּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ָהי ּו‬And on Shabbat eve they would add six blasts sounded adjan ‫ וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬,‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַה ְב ִטיל ֶאת ָה ָעם ִמ ְּמ ָל‬cent to the onset of Shabbat: Three to stop the people from .‫ ְל ַה ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין ק ֶֹד ׁש ְלחֹול‬their labor, as the blasts inform the people that Shabbat is approaching and they stop working, and three at the onset of Shabbat to demarcate between sacred and profane. ‫תֹוך ֶה ָח ג ָה י ּו ׁ ָשם‬ ְ ‫ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬ ‫יח ת‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ִל ְפ ִת‬:‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ּו ׁ ְשמֹנֶ ה‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬,‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַל ׁ ּ ַש ַער ָה ֶע ְליֹון‬,‫ׁ ְש ָע ִרים‬ ,‫ וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְל ִמילּ וּי ַה ַּמיִ ם‬,‫ַל ׁ ּ ַש ַער ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹון‬ ‫ ֵּת ׁ ַשע ְל ָת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל‬,‫וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ,‫ וְ ֵת ׁ ַשע ְל ָת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ְר ָ ּביִ ם‬,‫ׁ ַש ַחר‬ ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְל ַה ְב ִטיל ֶאת‬,‫וְ ֵת ׁ ַשע ְלמו ָּס ִפין‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְל ַה ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬,‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ָה ָעם ִמן ַה ְּמ ָל‬ .‫קֹוד ׁש ְלחֹול‬ ֶ

On Shabbat eve during the festival of Sukkot, there were fortyeight blasts.h How so? Three in the morning for the opening of the gates; three for the upper gate; and three for the lower gate; and three for the filling of the vessel with water, as described in the sequence of the ritual of drawing the water for the water libation (48b); and three when pouring the water libation upon the altar; nine for the daily morning offering; and nine for the daily afternoon offering; and nine for the additional offerings; three to stop the people from work; and three more to demarcate between sacred and profane, totaling forty-eight blasts.

notes

They bow toward the east – ‫ה ָּמה ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחוִ ים ֵק ְד ָמה‬:ֵ The question was raised: Why did they denigrate their deceased ancestors? Yad Ne’eman dealt with this issue at length, citing both early and later authorities who explained that there is no prohibition against denigrating the dead unless they were Torah scholars. The Me’iri explained that they mentioned their ancestors only to stir the Jewish people to worship God by reminding them that it was the idolatry of their ancestors that caused the destruction of the First Temple, and that therefore they must intensify their worship of God. Nine for the daily offering – ‫ת ׁ ַשע ְל ָת ִמיד‬:ֵּ It is explained in tractate Tamid that the song sung by the Levites during the

264 

Perek V . 53b . ‫גנ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

sacrifice of the daily offering was divided into three sections, and they would sound the blasts during the breaks between the sections. Six blasts on Shabbat eve – ‫ש ׁש ְּת ִקיעֹות ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬: ֵ ׁ In tractate Shabbat it is explained that there were significant intervals between each of the first three blasts. The first indicated to the farmers in the field that it was time to cease their labor. The second indicated to the people in the city to cease their labor. The third indicated that the time had arrived to insulate the hot water and to kindle the Shabbat lights. They would wait a short period thereafter and sound three consecutive blasts to inform the people that Shabbat had begun.

gemara 

,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫נִיתין דְּ ל ֹא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ ‫גמ׳ ַמ ְת‬ ‫ֹוחת ל ֹא יִ ְפחֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ּפ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫יֹוסיף ַעל ׁ ֵש ׁש‬ ִ ‫ֹוסיף ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַה ּמ‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ַבע‬ ‫יפ ְלגִ י? ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ַ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָקא ִמ‬.‫ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה‬ ‫יעה ַא ַחת‬ ָ ‫יעה ְּתר ּו ָעה ְּת ִק‬ ָ ‫ ְּת ִק‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ ‫יעה ְלחוּד ו ְּתרו ָּעה‬ ָ ‫ ְּת ִק‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬,‫ִהיא‬ .‫ְלחוּד‬

The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who seeks to minimize the number of blasts shall not minimize their number to fewer than seven blasts. And one who seeks to add to the number of blasts shall not add beyond sixteen. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda holds: A series of blasts consisting of tekia, terua, tekia is counted as one blast. And the Rabbis hold: A tekia is counted separately and a terua is counted separately. They agree with regard to the sequence and the number of the blasts, and disagree only with regard to how the blasts are tallied.

:‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה? ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ‫״תר ּו ָעה‬ ְּ :‫״ו ְּת ַק ְע ֶּתם ְּתר ּו ָעה״ (ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫יעה ו ְּתר ּו ָעה‬ ָ ‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ְּת ִק‬.‫יִ ְת ְקעוּ״‬ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן? ַההוּא ִל ְפ ׁשו ָּטה‬.)‫ַא ַחת ִהיא‬ ‫ (וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יה הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא‬ ָ ‫נֶיה ו ְּל ַא ֲח ֶר‬ ָ ‫ְל ָפ‬ ‫יה? נָ ְפ ָקא‬ ָ ‫נֶיה ו ְּל ַא ֲח ֶר‬ ָ ‫ ְל ָפ‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ‫יה ְמ ֵנָל‬ .)‫״שנִית״‬ ֵ ׁ ‫יה ִמ‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as the verse states: “And you shall sound [utkatem] a terua” (Numbers 10:5), and it is written: “A terua they will sound [yitke’u]” (Numbers 10:6). How is it that the Torah uses a verb from the root of tekia to describe the sounding of a terua? Apparently, a tekia and a terua together compose one blast. And how do the Rabbis interpret these verses? This comes to teach that each terua blast is accompanied by a plain unembellished blast, a tekia, preceding it and following it. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive that each terua must be accompanied by a tekia preceding it and following it? The Gemara explains: He derives it from the verse when it says: “And you shall sound [utkatem] a terua a second time” (Numbers 10:6), indicating an additional tekia.

‫ ״ו ְּב ַה ְק ִהיל‬:‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ַמאי ַט ְע ַמיְ יהוּ? דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ וְ ִאי‬,‫ֶאת ַה ָ ּק ָהל ִּת ְת ְקע ּו וְ ל ֹא ָּת ִריעוּ״‬ ,‫יעה ְּתרו ָּעה ַא ַחת ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ְּת ִק‬ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא דְּ ִמצְ וָ ה ָע ֵביד ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא‬ ‫ימנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ַההוּא ְל ִס‬:‫ָלא ָע ֵביד? וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ .‫ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא‬

The Gemara asks: And what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? It is as it is written: “And when congregating the people you shall sound a tekia and shall not sound a terua” (Numbers 10:7). And if it enters your mind that a tekia and a terua are considered one blast, would the Merciful One say to perform half a mitzva and not to perform the other half of the mitzva? Apparently, each is a separate mitzva. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda interpret the verse? The Gemara answers: That single tekia mentioned in the context of congregating the people came merely as a signal to the camps and was not for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva, which, in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, always comes in groups of three.

.‫ וְ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ׁ ַשוְ יָ ּה ִמצְ וָ ה‬,‫ימנָ א הוּא‬ ָ ‫ ִס‬:‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ?‫ ְּכ ַמאן‬,‫יעה ִל ְתרו ָּעה וְ ל ֹא ְכלוּם‬ ָ ‫ֵ ּבין ְּת ִק‬ !‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬,)‫(אי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ .‫ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬

And how do the Rabbis counter that assertion? They say: Indeed, it is a signal to assemble the people; however, the Merciful One rendered it a mitzva. Therefore, one can derive that a single tekia blast is a distinct mitzva. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rav Kahana: There is no pause between a tekia and a terua at alln and they are sounded in one continuous blast? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: If Rav Kahana’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; that is obvious. Why was it necessary for the Gemara to raise the matter at all?

notes

There is no pause between a tekia and a terua at all – ‫יעה ִל ְתרו ָּעה וְ ל ֹא ְכלוּם‬ ָ ‫אין ֵ ּבין ְּת ִק‬: ֵ There are some authorities (Rabbi Yitzĥak ibn Giat; Ramban) who sought to prove from here that one may not pause between the various shofar blasts of Rosh HaShana, even to catch one’s breath; rather, the tekia, terua, tekia must all be sounded in one breath. In practice, there are many customs both with regard to whether it is permitted to pause when sounding the shofar and, if so, with regard to where one may pause. However, most authorities hold that when the Gemara says: There is no pause at all, it does not mean that no pause is allowed, only that the pauses should not be extended and conspicuous (see Me’iri).

Perek V Daf 54 Amud a ּ ‫ימא ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ו ְּל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי‬,‫יל ּו ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ָ ‫ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ‫ ׁ ָש ַמע ֵּת ׁ ַשע ְּת ִקיעֹות‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ְ ּב ֵת ׁ ַשע ׁ ָשעֹות ַ ּבּיֹום – יָ צָ א‬ .‫ָלן‬



The Gemara answers: It is not obvious that Rav Kahana’s statement was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Lest you say that Rav Kahana’s statement is even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that he is coming to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan who said: If one heard nine blasts in nine different hours on the day of Rosh HaShana, despite the considerable gap between them, he fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that Rav Kahana holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda alone and he does not allow even a brief pause between the sounds of the shofar. ‫דנ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 54a 

265

‫ ַמאי ״וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ימא ָה ִכי נַ ִמי! ִאם ֵּכן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: And say it is indeed so that Rav Kahana holds ?‫ ְּכלוּם״‬in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and he merely comes to exclude the view of Rabbi Yoĥanan. The Gemara answers: If so, what is the meaning of the phrase: At all, in Rav Kahana’s statement: There is no pause between a tekia and a terua at all? This indicates that Rav Kahana does not allow even a slight pause between blasts, and that could be only in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. ‫ וְ ִאיל ּו‬.‫״ע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶה ָחג״ כו׳‬ ֶ ‫נִיתין‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬.‫ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית – ָלא ָק ָתנֵי‬ .‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב ִהיא‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ּנִי – ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית‬:‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ .‫ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬

§  The mishna enumerates the number of blasts sounded on

‫אֹומר ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית – ֵא ינֹו‬ ֵ ‫ָה‬ ‫אֹומר ַעל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָה‬,‫אֹומר ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ ֵ ‫אֹומר ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח – ֵאינֹו‬ .‫ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית‬

The Gemara explains: The one who says that the trumpets were sounded upon arriving at the tenth stair does not say that they sounded the trumpets when pouring the water libation upon the altar; and the one who says that they sounded the trumpets when pouring the water libation upon the altar does not say that the trumpets were sounded upon arriving at the tenth stair.

?‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֶ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה‬,‫יחת ׁ ְש ָע ִרים‬ ַ ‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָת ַקע ִל ְפ ִת‬ ‫ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית ָל ָּמה ִלי דְּ ָת ַקע? ַהאי ָלאו‬ ‫ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬,‫ ִה ְל ָּכ ְך‬.‫ׁ ַש ַער הוּא‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָת ַקע ְל ִמילּ וּי‬:‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬.‫ָע ִדיף‬ , ְ‫זְב ַח ָל ָּמה ִלי? ִה ְל ָּכך‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמ‬,‫ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ .‫ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה ָה ֲע ִ ׂש ִירית ָע ִדיף‬

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? The Gemara answers: Since he sounded the trumpet for the opening of the gates, for what do I need to sound it again when arriving at the tenth stair? That is not a gate. Therefore, it is preferable to sound the trumpets when pouring the water libation upon the altar. And the Rabbis hold that since he sounded the trumpets for the filling of the vessel with the water, why do I need an additional trumpet blast when pouring the water libation upon the altar? Therefore, it is preferable to sound the trumpets when arriving at the tenth stair.

,‫רֹומא‬ ָ ָּ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א ִמד‬ ‫ ״ו ְּבנֵי ַא ֲהרֹן‬:‫יה‬ ָ ‫יתי ַמ ְת‬ ֵ ְ‫ַאי‬ ּ ‫נִיתא ִ ּב ֵיד‬ ‫ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים יִ ְת ְקע ּו ַ ּב ֲחצֹוצְ רֹות״ ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָבר נֶ ֱא ַמר‬,‫לֹומר ״יִ ְת ְקעוּ״‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫עֹולֹות‬ ֵ ‫״ו ְּת ַק ְע ֶּתם ַ ּב ֲחצֹוצְ רֹות ַעל‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫יכם״ ו ַּמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַעל זִ ְב ֵחי ׁ ַש ְל ֵמ‬ .‫״יִ ְת ְקעוּ״? ַה ּכֹל ְל ִפי ַה ּמו ָּס ִפין ּת ְֹוק ִעין‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ :‫הוּא ָּתנֵי ָל ּה וְ הוּא ָא ַמר ָל ּה‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ּת ְֹוק ִעין ַעל ָּכל מו ָּסף וּמו ָּסף‬

§ When Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina came from the south of Eretz Yisrael, from Judea, he brought a baraita with him that he received from the Sages there. It is written: “And the children of Aaron, the priests, will sound the trumpets” (Numbers 10:8). There is no need for the verse to state: “Shall sound,” as it is already stated: “And you shall sound the trumpets for your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings” (Numbers 10:10). And what then is the meaning when the verse states: “Shall sound”? It appears to be teaching a new halakha; it is all according to the additional offerings that one sounds trumpet blasts. The Gemara notes: Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina teaches the baraita, and he said its explanation:n The verse comes to say that one sounds trumpet blasts for each and every additional offering in and of itself.

Shabbat eve during the festival of Sukkot. Among those blasts were three sounded when pouring the water libation upon the altar. The Gemara infers: However, the mishna is not teaching that the trumpet blasts were sounded when the person carrying the water reached the tenth stair. According to whose opinion is the mishna? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as it is taught in a baraita: Three blasts were sounded when arriving at the tenth stair. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Three blasts were sounded when pouring the water libation upon the altar.n

notes

Three upon the altar – ‫של ֹׁש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬: ָ ׁ Some maintain that these blasts accompanied the bringing of the water to the altar, while others say that they accompanied the standing of the willow branch upright alongside the altar (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Ritva). See Rashi, who addresses this problem and maintains that both were performed simultaneously. Some note that this is the understanding of the Rambam as well. Some explain the reason for sounding the blasts to accompany the standing of the willow branch upright based on the Jerusalem Talmud: The blasts during the Festival were designed to publicize mitzvot not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, e.g.,

266 

Perek V . 54a . ‫דנ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

the water libation. The same holds true for standing the willow branch upright (see Emek Sukkot). He teaches the baraita, and he said its explanation – ‫הוּא‬ ‫תנֵי ָל ּה וְ הוּא ָא ַמר ָל ּה‬:ָּ During the amoraic period, and perhaps even earlier, there were two defined positions in the study hall; the tanna, who was expert in mishnayot and baraitot and who would cite ancient traditions, and the amora, who would explain and define the content of those traditions and compare and contrast them to other known traditions. However, there were also occasions such the one here, when the same Sage who cited the tradition also offered the explanation.

‫תֹוך ֶה ָח ג ָהי ּו‬ ְ ‫ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬:‫ְּתנַ ן‬ ,‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאם ִא‬.‫ׁ ָשם ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ו ׁ ְּשמֹנֶ ה‬ ‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחת‬,‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶה ָחג‬:‫יתנֵי‬ ְ ‫ִל‬ :‫ָל ּה ַח ְמ ׁ ִשין וְ ַחד! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ‫יחת ׁ ְש ָע ִרים‬ ַ ‫ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּת ְֹוק ִעין ִל ְפ ִת‬ .‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

‫ ַמאן ָהא דְּ ָלא ָח ׁש‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ .‫״ב ָכל יֹום״ ְּתנַ ן‬ ּ ְ ְּ‫ ד‬:‫ימ ָחא? ֲח ָדא‬ ְ ‫ְל ִק‬ :‫יתנֵי‬ ְ ‫ ִל‬,ּ‫ ִאי נַ ִמי ַּכ ֲה ָד ֵדי נִינְ הו‬:‫וְ עֹוד‬ ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶה ָחג ָהי ּו ׁ ָשם ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ‫ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת‬:‫ דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ִמ ָּינ ּה ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬,‫ו ׁ ְּשמֹנֶ ה‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ָּת‬,‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ָּינ ּה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫ִמ ָּינ ּה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א‬

The Gemara asks: We learned in the mishna: On Shabbat eve during the festival of Sukkot there were forty-eight blasts, and that was the highest number of blasts sounded on any day in the Temple. And if it is so, Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina says: Let the mishna teach the case of Shabbat during the Festival, when you find that there are fifty-one blasts, including additional blasts for the additional offerings of Shabbat. Rabbi Zeira said: Although based on the baraita taught by Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina there would indeed be additional blasts for the additional offerings of Shabbat, they would total forty-eight blasts, because one does not sound the three blasts for the opening of the gates on Shabbat; those blasts were merely a signal. Rava said: Who is this who is not concerned about the flourn that his mill is producing, i.e., who is making unconsidered statements? First, the mishna contradicts the explanation of Rabbi Zeira, as, with regard to the order of the blasts, including those for the opening of the gates, we learned that this was the practice each day, including Shabbat. And furthermore, even if they are equal to each other, i.e., the same number of blasts were sounded on Shabbat during the Festival and on Friday during the Festival, let the mishna teach: On Shabbat during the Festival there are forty-eight blasts. You would learn two matters from that case: You would learn from it that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov that the trumpets are not sounded at the tenth step but when pouring the water libation upon the altar. And you would learn from it that halakha of Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina, that the trumpet is sounded for each and every additional offering.

‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּת ְֹוק ִעין‬:‫ֶא ָלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ְל ִמ‬ .‫ דְּ ָבצְ ִרי טו ָּבא‬,‫ילוּי ַמיִ ם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות‬ ׁ ‫ ר‬:‫וְ ִל ְיתנֵי נַ ִמי‬ :‫יכא ְּת ָל ָתא מו ָּס ִפין‬ ָּ ‫ דְּ ָהא ִא‬,‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ מו ָּסף דְּ ר‬,‫ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬ ׁ ‫מו ָּסף דְּ ר‬ !‫ מו ָּסף דְּ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬,‫חֹוד ׁש‬ ֶ

Rather, Rava said: The reason that the number of offerings on Shabbat during the Festival does not exceed forty-eight is because one does not sound the trumpet for filling the vessels with water on Shabbat,h as the mishna stated that they did not draw water from the Siloam pool on Shabbat. Therefore, the blasts sounded on Shabbat during the Festival were considerably fewer than those sounded on Friday. The Gemara asks: And let the mishna also teach the case of Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat, as in that case there are three additional offerings: The additional offering of Rosh HaShana, the additional offering of the New Moon, and the additional offering of Shabbat. The total would be forty-eight blasts. The fact that the mishna did not cite this case indicates that it is contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina.

‫יך‬ ְ ‫תֹוך ֶה ָחג ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬ ְ ‫ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬ ‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ַא ׁ ְש ְמ ִעינַ ן ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫יתנֵי ָהא וְ ָלא‬ ְ ‫ ַא ּט ּו ִמי ָק ָא ַמר ִל‬.‫יַ ֲעקֹב‬ !‫יתנֵי ָהא‬ ְ ‫יתנֵי ָהא וְ ִל‬ ְ ‫יתנֵי ָהא? ִל‬ ְ ‫ִל‬ ?‫ ַמאי ׁ ִשּיֵ יר דְּ ַהאי ׁ ִשּיֵ יר‬.‫ָּתנָ א וְ ׁ ִשּיֵ יר‬

The Gemara rejects that conclusion. The reason that the mishna did not cite the case of Rosh HaShana is that the tanna held that the case of Shabbat eve during the Festival is necessary in order to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov that one does not sound the trumpet at the tenth stair. The Gemara asks: Is anyone saying: Let the tanna teach this case and let him not teach that case? Let him teach this case and let him teach that case, as there is a novel element in each. The Gemara answers: The tanna did not list all the possible cases; he taught one case and omitted others. The Gemara asks: What other case did he omit, that he omitted this casen of Rosh HaShana as well? While the tanna does not typically list all relevant cases, if there are only two that are relevant, he typically cites them in the mishna.

notes

Who is this who is not concerned about the flour – ‫ַמאן ָהא דְּ ָלא‬ ‫ימ ָחא‬ ְ ‫ח ׁש ְל ִק‬:ָ This expression can be explained in various ways. Some explain that it is referring to food that one eats; what he eats is wasted on him, as he does not study the Torah properly (Arukh). There is a variant reading in which the letter ĥet is omitted and rather than one who is unaware of the flour [lekimĥa], it is one who is unaware of that which is before him [lekammei]. He does not pay attention and perceive even matters that are directly before him (ge’onim). What other case did he omit that he omitted this case – ‫ַמאי‬ ‫שּיֵ יר דְּ ַהאי ׁ ִשּיֵ יר‬: ִ ׁ The general assumption is that a tanna who compiles a list will make it comprehensive. But that is not always the case. On occasion the Gemara asks: Will the tanna continue counting like a peddler? In order to establish a principle, it is sufficient to cite several examples and there is no need to cite an exhaustive list. However, in any case where the list is not comprehensive if only one item is omitted from the list, the conclusion is that the item was excluded because it does not belong on the list. However, if two or more items were omitted, this indicates that the omissions were stylistic and not substantive. That is why the Gemara must prove that the omission was merely stylistic and not an indication that the omitted case does not meet the criteria for the principle being established. In order to demonstrate this, we must find at least one additional case that was omitted for a similar reason. halakha

Filling vessels with water on Shabbat – ‫מ ּילוּי ַמיִ ם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ִ There were no blasts sounded on Shabbat to accompany the filling of vessels with water, as they did not draw water on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 7:6).

.‫ ׁ ִשּיֵ יר ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬The Gemara answers: He omitted the case of Passover eve. The Paschal lamb was sacrificed in three shifts. When the Paschal lamb was sacrificed they would recite hallel, and the recitation of hallel was accompanied by three blasts. Due to the great number of Paschal lambs sacrificed, they would often recite hallel three times during each shift. Consequently, there could be as many as twenty-seven additional blasts sounded on that day. Added to the twenty-one blasts sounded each day, the total is forty-eight blasts. 

‫דנ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 54a 

267

Perek V Daf 54 Amud b notes

Passover eve – ‫ע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:ֶ Some say that the halakha is that the trumpets accompany the first shift alone and not all three shifts, and so in reality there are not many additional blasts sounded on this day (Ritva; Me’iri). Postponement of Rosh HaShana – ‫ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬ ׁ ‫דְּ ִחּיַ ת ר‬: According to the calendar in use today, which is no longer based on eyewitness testimony, Rosh HaShana and the first day of Sukkot can never occur on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday. The reason that it does not occur on Wednesday or Friday is to ensure that Yom Kippur does not occur on Sunday or Friday, which would result in having two consecutive days when there is a severe prohibition against performing labor. Based on several sources, apparently, even when the months were established by eyewitness testimony, there were efforts to prevent Yom Kippur from occurring on Friday or Sunday. Nevertheless, even according to those who disagree with Aĥerim, on rare occasions Yom Kippur did occur on one of these two days. This is because Rosh HaShana cannot be postponed or advanced indefinitely, as a month must have either twenty-nine or thirty days. In our calendar, there are years when due to two accumulated postponements, a discrepancy of two days could arise between the appearance of the moon and Rosh HaShana. The Rambam adds that these postponements serve an additional purpose. After intercalating the year by adding a month seven times every nineteen years to synchronize the solar year and the lunar year, a minor discrepancy remains. These postponements resolve that discrepancy.

‫ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – ָלאו ׁ ִשּיו ָּרא‬ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ דְּ ָהא ַמ ּנִי – ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ִהיא‬,‫הוּא‬ ‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ישית ל ֹא ִה ִ ּג‬ ִ ׁ ‫יהם ׁ ֶשל ַּכת ׁ ְש ִל‬ ֶ ‫ימ‬ ֵ ‫ִמ‬ ‫״א ַה ְב ִּתי ִּכי יִ ׁ ְש ַמע ה׳״ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬ ָ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ .‫ַע ָּמ ּה מו ָּע ִטין‬

The Gemara rejects this answer. If it is due to the case of Passover eve,n that is not an omission, as who is the tanna of this mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Although there were three shifts in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, never in the all the days of the third shift did it reach the point in hallel to recite: “I love that the Lord hears my voice” (Psalms 116:1), which is the second paragraph of hallel, because the people participating in the third shift were few. Therefore, when they reached that section of hallel they had already completed the slaughter of all the offerings, and consequently only one set of blasts was sounded during this shift, for a total of forty-two.

!‫ימנָ א) דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה‬ ְ ‫אֹוק‬ ִ ‫(הא‬ ָ The Gemara wonders: But didn’t we establish that the mishna is ‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכו‬not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The ּ ‫ות‬ .‫יה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא‬ ּ ‫ ו ָּפ ִליג ֲע ֵל‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲח ָדא‬Gemara answers: And perhaps this tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with his opinion in one case, with regard to the third shift on Passover eve, and disagrees with him in one case, with regard to tallying the number of blasts. ‫ ַמאי ׁ ִשּיֵ יר דְּ ַהאי ׁ ִשּיֵ יר? ׁ ִשּיֵ יר ֶע ֶרב‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬But the question remains: What other case did he omit, that he ‫ ַא ּ ֵפיק‬,‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬omitted this case of Rosh HaShana as well? The Gemara answers: .‫ ׁ ִשית וְ ָעּיֵ יל ׁ ִשית‬He omitted the case of Passover eve that occurs on Shabbat eve, in which case you eliminate six blasts of the third shift and incorporate six blasts sounded each Friday. The total is forty-eight blasts. .‫יפין ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ּו ׁ ְשמֹנֶ ה״‬ ִ ‫מֹוס‬ ִ ‫ § ״וְ ֵאין‬The mishna continues: And one sounds no more than forty‫יכא ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָחל‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ל ֹא? וְ ָהא ִא‬eight trumpet blasts on any given day. The Gemara wonders: And ‫ דְּ ִאי ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה – ַח ְמ ׁ ִשין‬,‫ ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬are there no more than forty-eight on any day? But isn’t there Passover eve that occurs on Shabbat, where if it is according to !‫ ִאי ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן – ַח ְמ ׁ ִשין וָ ׁ ֶש ַבע‬,‫וַ ֲח ָדא‬ Rabbi Yehuda, there would be fifty-one blasts, i.e., twenty-one daily blasts, nine for the additional offering of Shabbat, nine for the hallel of each of the first two shifts sacrificing the Paschal lamb, and three for the third shift; and if it is according to the Rabbis, who hold that nine blasts were sounded for the third shift as well, there would be fifty-seven blasts? According to both opinions, there are more than forty-eight. ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬,‫יה ְ ּב ָכל ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ ּ ‫ִּכי ָק ָתנֵי – ִמידֵּ י דְּ ִא ֵית‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ דְּ ֵל‬,‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫ ַא ּט ּו ֶע ֶרב‬.‫ְ ּב ָכל ׁ ָשנָ ה וְ ׁ ָשנָ ה – ָלא ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫יה ְ ּב ָכל‬ ֵ ‫תֹוך ֶה ָח ג ִמי ִא‬ ְ ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵה‬,‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫ׁ ָשנָ ה? ז‬ ּ ‫ימנִין דְּ ָלא ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחת ֵל‬ ‫אשֹון ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב‬ ׁ ‫דָּ ֵמי – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָחל יֹום טֹוב ִר‬ .‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬

The Gemara answers: When the tanna teaches the mishna, he is teaching matters that occur every year; the case of Passover eve that occurs on Shabbat, which is a matter that does not occur each and every year, he does not teach. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Shabbat eve during the Festival occurs every year? There are times when you do not find a Friday during the intermediate days of Sukkot. And what are the circumstances? It is a case where the first Festival day occurs on Shabbat eve, and therefore the following Friday is the Eighth Day of Assembly.

‫אשֹון ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב‬ ׁ ‫ִּכי ִמ ְק ַל ִעינַ ן יֹום טֹוב ִר‬ – ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַמ ְד ֵחי דָּ ִחינַן ֵל‬,‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬ ׁ ‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִא ְיק ַלע יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ‫ימת‬ ַ ‫ יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים ֵא‬,‫ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ִה ְל ָּכךְ דָּ ֵחינָן ֵל‬,‫ָהוֵ י? ְ ּב ַחד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

The Gemara answers: That cannot be, as when the first Festival day of Sukkot would happen to occur on Shabbat eve, we postpone it by adding a day to the month of Elul and observing both Rosh HaShana and the first day of Sukkot on Shabbat.n What is the reason for doing so? The reason is: Since if the first Festival day occurs on Shabbat eve, when is Yom Kippur that year? It is on Sunday. Therefore, in order to avoid two consecutive days, Shabbat and Yom Kippur, when there is a severe prohibition against performing labor, we postpone Rosh HaShana. The first Festival day never coincides with Friday.

‫ ֶח ְל ֵבי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫יה? וְ ָהא ְּתנַ ן‬ ּ ‫ ו ִּמי דָּ ֵחינָ ן ֵל‬The Gemara asks: And do we postpone it to prevent Yom Kippur ,‫ ְק ֵר ִיבין ְ ּביֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬from occurring on Sunday? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: The fats of the offerings slaughtered and sacrificed on Shabbat that were not yet burned on the altar may be sacrificed on Yom Kippur that begins at the conclusion of Shabbat?

268 

Perek V . 54b . ‫דנ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

‫ ִּכי ָהוֵ ינַ ן ֵ ּבי ַרב‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ‫ יֹום‬:‫ ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬:‫ ֲהוָ ה ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ְ ּב ָב ֶבל‬ ‫ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ ו ְּבמֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ל ֹא‬,‫ל ֹא ָהי ּו ּת ְֹוק ִעין‬ ‫ ִּכי‬.‫ָהי ּו ַמ ְבדִּ ִילין – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ִהיא‬ ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫ְס ִל‬ ּ ‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ְח ֵּת‬,‫יקית ְל ָה ָתם‬ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ּ ָפזִ י‬ ּ ‫יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ֵר‬ !‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ִהיא‬:‫דְּ יָ ֵתיב וְ ָק ָא ַמר‬

And Rabbi Zeira said: When we were studying in the school of Rav in Babylonia, they said with regard to that which was taught in the baraita: On Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat eve they did not sound the trumpets to stop the people from their labor and signify the onset of Shabbat, and if it occurred at the conclusion of Shabbat they would not recite havdala after Shabbat, that it is undisputed, as everyone agrees to that halakha. However, when I ascended to there, to Eretz Yisrael, I found Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, who was sitting and saying that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and the other Sages disagree. From both of these sources, it is apparent that Yom Kippur can occur both before and after Shabbat.h The question remains: Why did the tanna cite a case that does not occur every year?

‫ ָהא – ֲא ֵח ִרים‬,‫ ָהא – ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the mishna, from .‫ ִהיא‬which it is understood that there will always be a Friday during the Festival, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that Rosh HaShana is postponed to ensure that Yom Kippur will not occur adjacent to Shabbat. However, this mishna, which teaches that the fats of Shabbat may be sacrificed at the conclusion of Shabbat on Yom Kippur, and Rosh HaShana is not postponed, is in accordance with the opinion of Aĥerim,n who maintain that there are a fixed number of days in a year and a fixed number of days in a month. ‫ ֵאין ֵ ּבין‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬,‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ וְ ֵאין ֵ ּבין ר‬,‫ֲע ֶצ ֶרת ַל ֲע ֶצ ֶרת‬ ‫ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה יָ ִמים‬ ׁ ‫ְלר‬ – ‫ וְ ִאם ָהיְ ָתה ׁ ָשנָ ה ְמעו ֶ ּּב ֶרת‬,‫ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ .‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬

halakha

Shabbat trumpet blasts and Yom Kippur – ‫ְּת ִקיעֹות ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ יֹום‬ ‫ה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:ַ When Yom Kippur occurred on Friday, the standard Friday trumpet blasts were not sounded in the Temple. When it occurred at the conclusion of Shabbat, they would neither sound any trumpet blasts nor recite havdala. This was possible during the Temple era, when the months were set based upon eyewitness testimony. In the fixed calendar in use since the fourth century CE, Yom Kippur cannot occur on Friday or Sunday (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:21). The song of the New Moon supersedes the song of Shabbat – ‫ֹוחה ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש ד‬ ׁ ‫שיר ׁ ֶשל ר‬: ִ ׁ On the New Moon that coincides with Shabbat, the song for the New Moon takes precedence in order to publicize that it is the New Moon that day This is in accordance with the baraita and contrary to the answer provided by Rav Safra, which was based upon the rejected view of Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina (Rambam, Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 6:10 and Kesef Mishne there).

As it is taught in a baraita: Aĥerim say: Between the festival of Shavuot one year and the festival of Shavuot the following year, and similarly, between Rosh HaShana one year and Rosh HaShana the following year, there is a difference of only four days of the week. And if it was a leap year there is a difference of five days between them. The 354 days in the year are divided among twelve months; six months are thirty days long and six months are twenty-nine days long. Since according to Aĥerim the number of days is constant, Rosh HaShana could occur on any day of the week.

‫ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות‬ ׁ ‫ ר‬:‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ § ֵמ‬The Gemara returns to analyze the opinion of Rabbi Aĥa bar ‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש ד‬ ׁ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ר‬Ĥanina, who holds that the trumpet was sounded for each addi‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יתא – ֵל‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאי ִא‬.‫ ׁ ִשיר ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬tional offering sacrificed on a given day. The Gemara raises an objection: In the case of the New Moon that occurs on Shabbat, !‫ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש‬ ׁ ‫ימא דְּ ר‬ ָ ‫דְּ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ֵל‬ the song of the New Moon supersedes the song of Shabbat.h And if it is so, as Rabbi Aĥa asserts, let us recite the song of Shabbat and let us recite the song of the New Moon. Since only one song is recited, apparently only one set of blasts is sounded. ‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹוחה – ד‬ ֶ ּ‫ ַמאי ד‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬Rav Safra said: What is the meaning of supersedes? Supersedes – ‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי? ָּת ִדיר וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָּת ִדיר‬.‫ ְל ַקדֵּ ם‬means to precede, and the song for the New Moon would precede !‫קֹודם‬ ֵ ‫ ָּת ִדיר‬the song of Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And why does the song of the New Moon precede that of Shabbat? Doesn’t the principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedencen over the infrequent practice, dictate that the song of Shabbat should be recited first?

notes

The opinion of Aĥerim – ‫יטת ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ ַּ ‫ש‬: ִ ׁ There is certain flexibility in halakha with regard to the determination of full, i.e., thirty-day months, and deficient, i.e., twenty-nine-day months, although the attempt is made to avoid more than eight full or eight deficient months per year. However, according to Aĥerim, the number of days in each given month remains constant, alternating between thirty and twentynine-day months. Therefore, the day of the week on which a Festival occurs changes at a fixed rate from one year to the next. Tosafot raise a problem with the opinion of Aĥerim. Since the lunar month is not precisely 29½ days but is 793 parts [ĥalakim] of an hour, i.e., approximately two-thirds of an



hour, longer, a discrepancy accumulates over the course of time, gradually creating a distance between the date and the appearance of the moon. Therefore, Aĥerim have no alternative but to occasionally add a day to a month to prevent the discrepancy from growing. When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence – ‫ָּת ִדיר וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָּת ִדיר‬ ‫קֹודם‬ ֵ ‫ת ִדיר‬:ָּ There are set principles for determining precedence with regard to offerings and blessings, although there are exceptions to those principles. In general, there are two principles: Frequent takes precedence over less frequent, and sacred over less sacred. ‫דנ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 54b 

269

notes

To inform the people that the New Moon was established – ‫ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש‬ ׁ ‫ל ַידע ׁ ֶשהו ְּק ַ ּבע ר‬:ֵ This notice was especially crucial then, when the new month was established based upon eyewitness testimony. If the New Moon was established on the thirty-first day, when the moon was clearly visible to all, no additional publicity was necessary. However, when the court established the New Moon on the thirtieth day, it was necessary to publicize that the new month was already set (see Arukh LaNer).

‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ ֵל ַידע ׁ ֶשהו ְּק ַ ּבע ר‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ?‫יכ ָירא ָע ְב ִדינַן‬ ֵּ ‫ וְ ַהאי ֶה‬.‫ח ֶֹד ׁש ִ ּבזְ ַמנּ ֹו‬ ,‫יתא ָע ְב ִד ינַ ן‬ ָ ‫יכ ָירא ַא ֲח ִר‬ ֵּ ‫ָה א ֶה‬ ‫נִיתנִין‬ ָּ ‫ ֶח ְל ֵבי ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַחר‬:)‫(דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל‬,‫ֵמ ֲחצִ י ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ו ְּל ַמ ָּטה ַ ּב ִּמזְ ָרח‬ ‫נִיתנִין ֵמ ֲחצִ י ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ו ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬ ָּ ‫מו ָּס ִפין‬ ‫נִיתנִין ַּת ַחת‬ ָּ ‫ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש‬ ׁ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל ר‬,‫ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ָרב‬ .‫ַּכ ְר ּכֹוב ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ו ְּל ַמ ָּטה‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said, the New Moon takes precedence here, contrary to the general principle, in order to inform the people that the New Moon was establishedn at its proper time by the court. The Gemara asks: And is that the indicator that we implement to indicate that the month was established at its proper time? Don’t we implement a different indicator, as it is taught in a mishna: In order to avoid confusion between the fats of earlier offerings and the fats of later offerings, prior to be being placed on the altar the fats of the daily morning offering were placed from the midpoint of the ramp and below on the east side of the ramp, and those of the additional offerings were placed from the midpoint of the ramp and below on the west side of the ramp. And the fats of the offerings of the New Moon offering were placed under the surrounding ledge of the altar and slightly beneath it.h halakha

Place for the placement of limbs and portions of sacrifice to be burned on the altar – ‫מקֹום ַה ָּנ ַחת ֵא ָיב ִרים וְ ֵאימו ִּרים‬:ְ After removing the portions to be burned on the altar from the offerings, each priest to whom a limb from the offering was assigned would take it up the ramp. The fats and limbs of the daily offering were placed from the midpoint of the ramp and below on the east side, and the fats and limbs of the additional offerings

Witnesses testifying to the New Moon

were placed from the midpoint of the ramp and below on the west side. However, when the New Moon was determined at its proper time, the fats and limbs of the additional offering for the New Moon were placed up on the altar proper in order to publicize that the month had been properly set (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 6:3, based on a variant reading of the Gemara).

Perek V Daf 55 Amud a halakha

Trumpet blasts and additional offerings – ‫ת ִקיעֹות וּמו ָּס ִפים‬:ְּ In the Temple, nine trumpet blasts were sounded for the additional offerings. Even if several additional offerings were sacrificed on a given day, no additional blasts were sounded, in accordance with the baraita (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 7:5).

270 

Perek V . 55a . ‫הנ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ ֵל ַידע ׁ ֶשהו ְּק ַ ּבע ר‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Why was it placed in this manner? It was as an indicator for the people to know that the New Moon was ,‫יכ ָירא ָע ְב ִדינַ ן‬ ֶ ֵּ ‫ ְּת ֵרי ֶה‬.‫חֹוד ׁש ִ ּבזְ ַמנּ ֹו‬ .‫ וְ ָחזֵ י ְ ּב ַהאי – ָחזֵ י‬,‫ דְּ ָחזֵ י ַהאי – ָחזֵ י‬established at its proper time, after the twenty-ninth day of the previous month. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as they implemented two indicators: One who saw this one, i.e., the sequence of the songs, saw it; and one who saw that one, i.e., where the fats were placed, saw it, and there is no contradiction. ‫ יָ כֹול‬:‫ דְּ ָתנֵי ָר ָבא ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ּת ְֹוק ִעין ַעל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬ ‫ ָּכךְ יִ ְהי ּו‬,‫ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬ ׁ ‫וְ ַעל ר‬ ‫ּת ְֹוק ִעין ַעל ָּכל מו ָּסף וּמו ָּסף – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫יכם״! ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ ֶ ‫אשי ָח ְד ׁ ֵש‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ״ו ְּב ָר‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ .‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬,‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא‬

The Gemara raises another objection to the opinion of Rabbi Aĥa, as Rava bar Shmuel taught this baraita: I might have thought that just as when Shabbat and the New Moon do not coincide they sound the trumpets for the additional Shabbat offering in and of itself, and for the additional New Moon offering in and of itself, so too would they sound the trumpets for each and every additional offering when the days coincide. Therefore, the verse states: “And on the day of your rejoicing, and at your appointed times, and on your New Moons, and you shall sound the trumpets for your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings, and they will be a memorial for you before your God. I am the Lord your God” (Numbers 10:10), indicating that one blast is sounded for all.h The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Aĥa. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

‫ ָא ַמר‬:‫ַמאי ַּת ְלמו ָּדא? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫יכם״ – הו ְּק ׁש ּו‬ ֶ ‫אשי ָח ְד ׁ ֵש‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ״ו ְּב ָר‬:‫ְק ָרא‬ ‫ ַרב‬.‫ָּכל ֲח ָד ׁ ִשים ּכ ּו ָּל ם זֶ ה ָל זֶ ה‬ ‫״ח ְד ׁ ֵש ֶכם״ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬:‫ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬ ‫ וְ ֵאיזֶ ה ח ֶֹד ׁש ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי‬.‫אשי״‬ ֵ ׁ ‫״ו ְּב ָר‬ ,‫ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬ ׁ ‫אֹומר זֶ ה ר‬ ֵ ‫אשים – ֱהוֵ י‬ ִ ׁ ‫ָר‬ .‫״ח ְד ׁ ֵש ֶכם״ – ַחד ִהיא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬

Since the baraita was cited, the Gemara asks: What is the derivation cited in this baraita? How does the phrase: And on your New Moons, prove that the trumpets are sounded once for all the additional offerings? Abaye said: The verse states: “And on your New Moons,” in plural, indicating that all the months are equated to each other, and just as on a typical New Moon the trumpets are sounded once for the additional offering, so too when Shabbat and the New Moon coincide the trumpets are sounded once and no more. Rav Ashi said that in this verse it is written: Your moon [ĥodshekhem], without a yod, in the singular, and in the same verse it is written: “And on your new [uverashei],” in the plural. And which is the month that has two new beginnings? You must say it is Rosh HaShana, which is the beginning of both the new year and the new month. And yet the Merciful One says: Your moon, in the singular, indicating it is one and the trumpets are sounded once.

‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ָ ּב ִר‬,‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּבחוּלֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ ַּתנְיָא‬,‫וְ עֹוד‬ ,‫״הב ּו ַלה׳ ְ ּבנֵי ֵא ִלים״‬ ָ ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֶמה ָהי ּו‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים – ״וְ ָל ָר ׁ ָשע ָא ַמר‬ ְ ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ֶמה ָהי ּו‬ – ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ישי ֶמה ָהי ּו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִל‬,‫ֱאל ִֹהים״‬ ,‫״מי יָ קוּם ִלי ִעם ְמ ֵר ִעים״‬ ִ

And furthermore, contrary to the statement of Rabbi Aĥa, it was taught in a baraita: On the intermediate days of the Festival,n on the first day, what would they sayn as the song accompanying the offering on that day? “Ascribe [havu] unto the Lord, O you sons of might” (Psalms 29:1). On the second day, what would they say? The psalm that contains the verse: “But unto the wicked [velarasha] God says: What have you to do to declare My statutes?” (Psalms 50:16). On the third day, what would they say? The psalm containing the verse: “Who [mi] will rise up for me against the evildoers?” (Psalms 94:16).

‫ֹוע ִרים‬ ֲ ‫״בינ ּו ּב‬ ּ ִ – ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫יעי ֶמה ָהי ּו‬ ִ ‫ָ ּב ְר ִב‬ – ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ישי ֶמה ָהי ּו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַ ּב ֲח ִמ‬,‫ָ ּב ָעם״‬ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ּ ִשי ֶמה ָהי ּו‬,‫ירֹותי ִמ ֵּס ֶבל ׁ ִש ְכמֹו״‬ ִ ‫״ה ִס‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ִאם‬.‫מֹוס ֵדי ָא ֶרץ״‬ ְ ‫אֹומ ִרים – ״יִ ּמֹוט ּו ָּכל‬ ְ .‫ָחל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהם – ״יִ ּמֹוטוּ״ יִ דָּ ֶחה‬

On the fourth day, what would they say? “Consider [binu], you brutish among the people” (Psalms 94:8). On the fifth day, what would they say? “I removed [hasiroti] his shoulder from the burden” (Psalms 81:7). On the sixth day, what would they say? “All the foundations of the earth are moved [yimotu]” (Psalms 82:5). And if Shabbat occurred on any of the intermediate days of the Festival, since Shabbat has its own song (Psalms 92), the last of the songs of the intermediate days, i.e., “All the foundations of the earth are moved,” is superseded, and all the other songs are recited in their proper sequence.

halakha

Song for the Festival of Sukkot – ‫שיר ׁ ֶשל ַחג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות‬: ִ ׁ On each day of Sukkot a unique song accompanied the additional offering. During the intermediate days of the Festival they would recite the psalms designated in the baraita in the sequence prescribed by Rav Safra. On the first of the intermediate days they would say: “Ascribe unto the Lord, O you sons of the might”; on the second day: “But unto the wicked God says: What have you to do to declare My statutes?”; on the third day: “Who will rise up for me against the evildoers?”; on the fourth day: “Consider, you brutish among the people”; on the fifth day: “I removed his shoulder from the burden”; and on the sixth day: “All the foundations of the earth are moved.” When one of the intermediate days coincides with Shabbat, the psalm for Shabbat is recited and the psalm of the sixth day is omitted (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 10:11). language

Convoy [ambuha] – ‫א ְמ ּבו ָּהא‬: ַ Apparently from the Middle Persian anbuh, meaning crowd.

,‫ הומבה״י‬:‫ימנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא ַמ ַּנח ְ ּבה ּו ִס‬Rav Safra established a mnemonic for the sequence of the psalms h .‫ הומהב״י‬:‫ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ַמ ַּנח ְ ּבה ּו ִס ָמנָ א‬recited during the intermediate days of the Festival: Heh, vav, mem, beit, heh, yod, the first letters of the transliterated word in .‫ ַא ְמ ּבו ָּהא דְּ ָס ְפ ֵרי‬: ְ‫ימנָ ך‬ ָ ‫וְ ִס‬ the verses cited. Rav Pappa established a different mnemonic for a different sequence of the Psalms: Heh, vav, mem, heh, beit, yod, as in his opinion, the psalm containing: “I removed” is recited before the psalm containing: “Consider.”n The Gemara notes: A mnemonic to identify which amora established which mnemonic is the expression: Convoy [ambuha]l of scribes [desafrei], as the spelling of ambuha is like the mnemonic of Rav Safra. .‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬,‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א‬The Gemara concludes: This baraita is a conclusive refutation of ‫נִיתא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א ְק ָרא ו ַּמ ְת‬the opinion of Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina, as on Shabbat the song !‫ ָק ָא ַמר‬for Shabbat was recited alone without the song for the Festival, and similarly, separate trumpet blasts are not sounded for the various additional offerings. Rabbi Aĥa’s opinion was rejected based on several sources. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Aĥa say a verse and a baraita in support of his opinion? How can those citations be rejected? .‫לֹומר ׁ ֶש ַּמ ֲא ִר ִיכין ִ ּב ְת ִקיעֹות‬ ַ :‫ ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬Ravina said: The verse and the baraita that he cited do not teach :‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָ ‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן דְּ ֵק‬that trumpet blasts were sounded for each additional offering. ּ ‫יס ִרי ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ Rather, they come to say that one extends the duration of the .‫לֹומר ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְר ֶ ּבה ַ ּב ּת ְֹוק ִעין‬ ַ blasts to honor the added additional offerings, but does not sound even one additional blast. The Sages of Caesarea, in the name of Rabbi Aĥa, said: The verse and the baraita cited by Rabbi Aĥa come to say that one increases the number of trumpeters to honor the added additional offerings, but not the number of blasts sounded. notes

On the intermediate days of the Festival – ‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫בחוּלֹו ׁ ֶשל‬: ְּ The psalms sung on the first and eighth days of the Festival are not listed here. In tractate Soferim, it is stated that on the first Festival day they would recite Psalm 76: “In Salem also is set His sukka,” and on the eighth day Psalm 12: “For the Leader; on the Eighth” (see Arukh LaNer). On the first day what would they say – ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫אשֹון ֶמה ָהי ּו‬ ׁ ‫ב ִר‬:ּ ָ There is a dispute among the early commentaries. Rashi says that each day they would sing the entire psalm designated, and on the third and fourth days, both of whose songs were contained in Psalms 94, they divided the psalm into two. The Ritva says that each day they began singing from the specific verse cited in the Gemara and continued to the end of the psalm. The sequence of the psalms – ‫מֹורים‬ ִ ְ‫ס ֶדר ַה ִּמז‬:ֵ The choice of these particular psalms for the intermediate days has been explained in several ways. The Me’iri explains that the first day’s



psalm was chosen because it contains the verse: “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters” (Psalms 29:3), alluding to the water libation. The second day’s psalm contains the verse: “And pay your vows unto the Most High” (Psalms 50:14), and Sukkot is a period when many vow and gift offerings are brought to be sacrificed. On the third and fourth days they sang Psalm 94, which mentions divine vengeance against the wickedness of the nations, because in the Second Temple era they were subjugated to the nations, and Sukkot is a period when the nations are judged. On the fifth day they sang Psalm 81, both for its mention of the redemption of Joseph from prison and for its words of blessing for an abundant yield of produce, which is dependent on the supply of water, for which the world is judged on Sukkot: “And He fed him with the fat of wheat.” On the sixth day they sang Psalm 82 for the verse: “God stands in the congregation of God” (Psalms 82:1), alluding to God as Judge, as it is the final day of Sukkot, during which the world is judged with regard to the water supply for the coming year. ‫הנ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 55a 

271

?‫ ֵה ִיכי ָע ְב ִדינַן‬,‫יֹומי‬ ֵ ‫ וַ ֲאנַן דְּ ִאית ָלן ְּת ֵרי‬Apropos the psalms recited during the Festival, the Gemara asks: And n ,‫ ׁ ֵשנִי יִ דָּ ֶחה‬:‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬we, outside Eretz Yisrael, who have two days of Festival due to the uncertainty, as well as uncertainty with regard to each of the inter­ mediate days, how do we conduct ourselves with regard to the mention of the additional offerings in the additional prayer of the Festival during the intermediate days, and with regard to Torah reading on those days?h Abaye said: Mention of the second day will be superseded. Since the first of the intermediate days outside Eretz Yisrael is the third day of the Festival in Eretz Yisrael, the additional offering for the third day alone is mentioned, and the offerings for the fourth day on the fourth day, etc. No mention is made of the second day outside Eretz Yisrael. ‫יה‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ְש ִב‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬Rava said: Mention of the seventh day will be superseded. On the ּ ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכוָ ֵת‬.‫יעי יִ דָּ ֶחה‬ ‫ ִאם ָחל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ֶא ָחד‬:‫ דְּ ָר ָבא‬first of the intermediate days outside Eretz Yisrael, the third day of the .‫ ֵמ ֶהן – ״יִ ּמֹוטוּ״ יִ דָּ ֶחה‬Festival, the passage beginning “And on the second day” (Numbers 29:17) is mentioned in the additional Amida prayer and read in the Torah, and on each succeeding day the succeeding passage is mentioned and read. There is no mention of the seventh day on the eighth day, as that is no longer Sukkot but rather the Eighth Day of Assembly. The Gemara notes: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rava: And if Shabbat occurs on any of the intermediate days of the Festival, the song of the seventh day of Sukkot: “All the foundations of the earth are moved,” is superseded. ‫ימר ִ ּבנְ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא דִּ ְמ ַד ְלגִ י‬ ָ ‫ ַא ְת ִקין ַא ֵמ‬The Gemara cites a third opinion: Ameimar instituted in his city .‫ דִּ לּ וּגֵ י‬of Neharde’a that during the intermediate days, one repeats the second of the additional offerings that he mentioned the day before and adds the additional offerings of the subsequent day. On the first of the intermediate days in the Diaspora, one mentions the additional offerings of both the second and third days of Sukkot. On the second of the intermediate days, one repeats the verses of the third day of Sukkot and adds the verses of the fourth day.

notes

And we who have two days – ‫יֹומי‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲאנַן דְּ ִאית ָלן ְּת ֵרי‬: This question echoes the previous discussion in the Gemara: How is one psalm or Torah portion designated for a day that, due to uncertainty, has potentially two different levels of sanctity? Outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is uncertainty whether the second day of the Festival is actually the first of the intermediate days. Indeed, later in the Gemara, proof is brought from the sequence of the psalms to the sequence of Torah readings. However, the comparison between the two is not precise, as the conclusion of

the Gemara is that in the Temple only one psalm was sung each day, while it is possible to read two different passages in one Torah reading. Rashi explains that nevertheless it is inappropriate to mention intermediate days in the Torah readings on a Festival, as people may come to question the sanctity of the day. The Ritva, in contrast, says that it would have been appropriate to include readings for both days on the second day of the Festival, but he notes that this never became the custom.

halakha

The Torah reading during the intermediate days of the festival of Sukkot – ‫ֹועד סו ּּכֹות‬ ֵ ‫יאת ַה ּת ָֹורה ְ ּבחֹול ַה ּמ‬ ַ ‫ק ִר‬:ְ In Eretz Yisrael, the custom is for the first person called to the Torah to read the passage that mentions the additional offerings sacrificed on that day. For example, on the first of the intermediate days, the first person called to the Torah reads: “And on the second day” (Numbers 29:17). The next three people called to the Torah read the same passage. Outside Eretz Yisrael, where there is uncertainty with regard to when the Festival starts, the Torah reading consists of the passage from Numbers, chapter 29, read on the previous day in Eretz Yisrael, as well as the passage read in Eretz Yisrael on that day. According to the Beit Yosef, on the first of the intermediate days, i.e., the third day of the Festival, the first person called to the Torah reads “And on the second day”; the second reads “And

272 

Perek V . 55a . ‫הנ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

on the third day”; the third repeats “And on the third day”; and the fourth reads both “And on the second day” and “And on the third day.” That is the procedure for the rest of the intermediate days of the Festival (Rif; Ran; Rosh). The Rema rules that on the first of the intermediate days, the first person called to the Torah reads: “And on the second day”; the second reads: “And on the third day”; the third reads: “And on the fourth day”; and the fourth reads: “And on the second day” and: “And on the third day.” On the seventh day the first person called to the Torah reads: “And on the fifth day”; the second reads: “And on the sixth day”; the third reads: “And on the seventh day”; and the fourth reads: “And on the sixth day” and: “And on the seventh day” (the teachers of Rashi; Mahari Weil; and others). That is the Ashkenazic custom (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 663:1).

Perek V Daf 55 Amud b ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג ָהי ּו‬ ׁ ‫מתני׳ יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ,‫ ֵא ִילים ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬,‫ׁ ָשם ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָע ָ ׂשר ּ ָפ ִרים‬ ‫נִש ַּתּיְ יר ּו ׁ ָשם ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ְ ׁ .‫וְ ָ ׂש ִעיר ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ ְ ּביֹום‬.‫ָע ָ ׂשר ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים ִל ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה ִמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות‬ ,‫אשֹון – ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ַמ ְק ִר ִיבין ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ .‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר ֶא ָחד ֶא ָחד‬

‫יבין ׁ ְשנַ יִ ם‬ ִ ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִ י – ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ַמ ְק ִר‬ – ‫ישי‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִל‬.‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם – וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר ֶא ָחד ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר‬,‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַמ ְק ִר ִיבין ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ .‫ֶא ָחד ֶא ָחד‬

mishna 

On the first Festival day of Sukkot there were thirteen bulls, two rams, and one goat there. The mishna proceeds to discuss the division of labor for the Festival offerings among the twenty-four priestly watches,n all of which serve in the Temple on the pilgrimage Festivals. The sixteen offerings mentioned above were divided among six­teen priestly watches, one offering per watch. Fourteen sheepn remained to be divided among the eight remaining watches. On the first dayh of the Festival, six of the eight remaining watches sacrifice two sheep each for a total of twelve, and the remaining two watches sacrifice one sheep each.

On the second day of the Festival, i.e., the first day of the intermediate days, when twelve bulls were sacrificed, fifteen of the priestly watches sacrifice the bulls, rams, and goat, five of the remaining watches sacrifice two sheep each, and the remaining four watches sacrifice one sheep each. On the third day of the Festival, when eleven bulls were sacrificed, fourteen of the priestly watches sacrifice the bulls, rams, and goat, four of the remaining watches sacrifice two sheep each, and the remaining six watches sacrifice one sheep each.

,‫יעי – ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַמ ְק ִר ִיבין ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ִ ‫ָ ּב ְר ִב‬ ‫ישי – ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַ ּב ֲח ִמ‬.‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר ֶא ָחד ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר ֶא ָחד‬,‫ַמ ְק ִר ִיבין ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ,‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ִשי – ֶא ָחד ַמ ְק ִריב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬.‫ֶא ָחד‬ .‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָאר ֶא ָחד ֶא ָחד‬

On the fourth day of the Festival, when ten bulls were sacrificed, thirteen of the priestly watches sacrifice the bulls, rams, and goat, three of the remaining watches sacrifice two sheep each, and the remaining eight watches sacrifice one sheep each. On the fifth day, when nine bulls were sacrificed, twelve watches sacrifice the bulls, rams, and goat, two of the twelve remaining watches sacrifice two sheep each, and the remaining ten watches sacrifice one sheep each. On the sixth day, when eight bulls were sacrificed, eleven watches sacrifice the bulls, rams, and goat, one of the remaining watches sacrifices two sheep, and the remaining twelve watches sacrifice one sheep each.

‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי – ָחזְ ר ּו‬.‫יעי – ּכו ָּּלן ׁ ָשוִ ין‬ ִ ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו – ִמי ׁ ֶש ִה ְק ִריב‬.‫ְל ּ ַפיִ יס ְּכ ַב ְרגָ ִלים‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ּ ָפ ִרים ַהּיֹום ל ֹא יַ ְק ִריב ְל ָמ ָחר‬ .‫חֹוזְ ִרין ֲח ִל ָילה‬

On the seventh day they are all equal and bring one offering each. On the eighth day, when there was a completely different configuration of offerings, they returned to the standard lotteryhb system used to determine which of the priestly watches would sacrifice the offerings, as they did on the other pilgrimage Festivals, which do not have as many offerings as does Sukkot. They said about the ordering of the priestly watches: One who sacrificed bulls todayn will not sacrifice bulls tomorrow; rather, they will sacrifice one of the other types of offerings. They rotate, so that each of the watches will have the opportunity to sacrifice bulls as well as other animals.

,‫נִיתין ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא וְ ָלא ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ִ ‫נֵימא ַמ ְת‬ ָ ‫גמ׳‬ ‫ ּ ַפר ַה ָ ּבא ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי – ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּילה‬:‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ְמ ַפּיְ ִסין ָע ָליו‬ ‫ ַא ַחת ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵּתי ִמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות דְּ ל ֹא‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ !‫עֹושה אֹותֹו‬ ׂ ָ ‫ׁ ִש ְּל ׁש ּו ַ ּב ּ ָפ ִרים‬

notes

The division of labor among the priestly watches – ‫ִס ְד ֵרי‬ ‫ה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות‬:ַ The mishna itself does not specify the order in which the different watches served in the Temple on the festival of Sukkot, and this subject is debated among the early authorities. Rashi, Ramban, and others maintain that the watches served in the sequence delineated in the Bible (I Chronicles, chapter 24). The Ritva and others hold that they employed a lottery to determine which watch would sacrifice first on the first Festival day, and the rotation through the rest of the watches would continue from there in the above-mentioned sequence. There is a tannaitic dispute in the Tosefta about this same issue. Goat and sheep – ‫ש ִעיר ו ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים‬: ׂ ָ Based on the order of the offerings, apparently the goat offering was more significant than the sheep offerings. At first glance this is difficult: Why would the offering of a year-old male goat be more significant than the offering of a year-old male sheep? Perhaps the goat was deemed to have greater sanctity because it was a sin-offering (Rashash). One who sacrificed bulls today – ‫מי ׁ ֶש ִה ְק ִריב ּ ָפ ִרים ַהּיֹום‬:ִ The Ritva and others note that this principle is not absolute, as members of the first watch returned and sacrificed a bull on the second day. It is only from the second day that this principle is absolute. halakha

The order of the additional offerings during the festival of Sukkot – ‫ס ֶדר ַה ּמו ָּס ִפים ְ ּב ַחג ַה ּסו ּּכֹות‬:ֵ During the festival of Sukkot, all watches shared equally in sacrificing the additional Festival offerings, and each had an opportunity to sacrifice the bulls, the rams, the goat, and the sheep, as explained in the mishna. The Rambam agrees with Rashi that each watch sacrifices in the order cited in the book of Chronicles, and there was no special lottery (see Arukh LaNer; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 10:12). Lottery on the eighth day – ‫פיִ יס ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬:ַ ּ On the eighth day lots were drawn to determine which of the watches would be privileged to sacrifice the additional offerings of the Eighth Day of Assembly (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 10:13). background

Lottery – ‫פיִ יס‬:ַ ּ

gemara 

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna that says that on the eighth day they returned to the standard lottery of the other pilgrimage Festivals is according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not according to the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: To determine the priestly watch that would sacrifice the bull that comes as an additional offering on the Eighth Day of Assembly, they draw lots over it from the beginning; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: One of the two watches that did not sacrifice three bulls during Sukkot sacrifices it. Only two of the twenty-four watches sacrifices two bulls over the course of Sukkot. Each of the other watches sacrifices three bulls. Since the mishna mentions that a lottery was held, apparently the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Temple lottery

‫ ַא ּט ּו ׁ ְש ֵּתי ִמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות‬,‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that it is in ?‫ ָלא ֲאפו ֵּסי ָ ּב ֵעי‬accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, is that to say that the two remaining priestly watches are not required to draw lots to determine which will merit sacrificing the bull? 

‫הנ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 55b 

273

notes

Bulls corresponding to nations – ‫פ ִרים ְּכנֶ גֶ ד אוּמֹות‬:ָ ּ Rashi explains that it is specifically on Sukkot that special offerings are sacrificed on behalf of the nations, since on Sukkot the world is judged with regard to water, an issue relevant to the entire world. See Zechariah, chapter 14, which speaks of the future, in which all the nations of the world will make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem on Sukkot.

‫ ָּכל ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות‬:‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ,‫ חוּץ ִמ ׁ ּ ְשנֵי ִמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות‬,‫ׁשֹונֹות ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְּל ׁשֹות‬ ‫נֵימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ .‫ׁ ֶש ׁ ּשֹונֹות וְ ֵאין ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ׁשֹות‬ ‫ ַמאי ל ֹא‬,‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫וְ ָלא ַר ָ ּבנַן! ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬ .‫ׁ ִש ְּל ׁש ּו – ְ ּב ָפ ֵרי ֶה ָחג‬

Prepare me a small feast – ‫ע ֵ ׂשה ִלי ְסעוּדָּ ה ְק ַט ָּנה‬:ֲ In various commentaries, this parable is cited in a slightly different form. First the king invites all the honored dignitaries to a large feast, and, subsequently, he tells his beloved: Now, let us prepare a small feast just for the two of us (see Arukh LaNer). The altar atones for them – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫זְב ַח ְמ ַכ ּ ֵפר ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ֵ ‫מ‬:ִ It has been noted that this refers specifically to the Temple and the altar within it, as halakha permits the nations of the world to bring offerings to God anywhere, even nowadays. However, offerings brought outside the Temple do not atone for the sins of the nations in the manner that the Temple offerings mandated by the Torah do. Here is matza for you, here is leavened bread for you – ‫ה ָיל ְך ַמ ָ ּצה ֵה ָיל ְך ָח ֵמץ‬:ֵ Tanna’im disagree in the Tosefta whether the shewbread and the two loaves were distributed directly to the individual priests or whether they were distributed to the head of each watch, who would then distribute them to the members of his watch. In any case, the priest was required to say: Here is matza for you, here is leavened bread for you, to each individual priest; as they were not distributed simultaneously, the priest must know what he has received and what he has yet to receive. halakha

Offerings that come during the Festival – ‫ָ ּק ְר ָ ּבנֹות ַה ָ ּב ִאים‬ ‫ב ֶרגֶ ל‬:ּ ָ Offerings sacrificed during the Festival that are unrelated to the Festival, e.g., the daily offerings, and personal offerings such as vows, are sacrificed by the watch scheduled to perform the Temple service that week. That watch receives the portions and the hides of the animals (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 4:5).

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: All of the priestly watches sacrifice a bull twice and three times, except for two watches that sacrifice a bull twice and do not sacrifice a bull three times? Let us say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as they hold that one of those watches sacrifices a third bull on the Eighth Day of Assembly. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; what is the meaning of the phrase: They did not sacrifice a bull three times? It means that with regard to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot they did not sacrifice a bull three times.

‫ ו ַּמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara asks: With regard to the bulls sacrificed on Sukkot, what ‫ ָלן; ִמי ׁ ֶש ִה ְק ִריב ּ ָפ ִרים ַהּיֹום ל ֹא יַ ְק ִריב‬does the baraita teach us? It is a simple calculation that seventy bulls .‫ ֶא ָּלא חֹוזְ ִרין ֲח ִל ָילה‬,‫ ְל ָמ ָחר‬divided by twenty-four watches leaves two watches that sacrificed only two bulls. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita comes to teach us: One who sacrificed bulls today will not sacrifice bulls tomorrow; rather, they rotate. Therefore, each watch sacrifices at least two bulls, and most of them sacrifice three. ‫ ָהנֵי ׁ ִש ְב ִעים ּ ָפ ִרים‬:)‫(א ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Elazar said: These seventy bulls that are sacrificed as addi‫ ּ ַפר‬.‫ ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ִמי – ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ׁ ִש ְב ִעים או ּּמֹות‬tional offerings over the course of the seven days of Sukkot, to what n .‫ יְ ִח ִידי ָל ָּמה – ְּכנֶ גֶ ד או ָּּמה יְ ִח ָידה‬do they correspond? They correspond to the seventy nations of the world, and are brought to atone for their sins and to hasten world peace. Why is a single bull sacrificed on the Eighth Day of Assembly? It corresponds to the singular nation, Israel. :‫ָמ ׁ ָשל ְל ֶמ ֶלךְ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ַל ֲע ָב ָדיו‬ ‫ ְליֹום ַא ֲחרֹון‬.‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ֲע ׂש ּו ִלי ְסעוּדָּ ה ְ ּג‬ ,‫ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִלי ְסעוּדָּ ה ְק ַט ָּנה‬:‫אֹוהבֹו‬ ֲ ‫ָא ַמר ְל‬ . ָ‫ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ֶא ֱהנֶ ה ִמ ְּמך‬

The Gemara cites a parable about a king of flesh and blood who said to his servants: Prepare me a great feast that will last for several days. When the feast concluded, on the last day, he said to his beloved servant: Prepare me a small feastn so that I can derive pleasure from you alone.

‫ אֹוי ֶהם ְלגֹויִ ים ׁ ֶש ִא ְ ּבד ּו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית‬,ּ‫יֹוד ִעין ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ִא ְ ּבדו‬ ְ ‫וְ ֵאין‬ ,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים – ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ְמ ַכ ּ ֵפר ֲע ֵל‬ ?‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו ִמי ְמ ַכ ּ ֵפר ֲע ֵל‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Woe unto the nations of the world that lost something and do not know what they lost. When the Temple is standing, the seventy bulls sacrificed on the altar during the festival of Sukkot atones for them.n And now that the Temple is destroyed, who atones for them?

mishna 

At three times during the year, all twenty‫מתני׳ ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ָהי ּו‬ four priestly watches have equal status, in ,‫ ְ ּב ֵאימו ֵּרי ָה ְרגָ ִלים‬:‫ָּכל ִמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות ׁ ָשוֹות‬ that all receive a share in the Temple service independent of the .‫ ו ְּב ִחילּ וּק ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬standard order of the watches and all receive a share in the accompanying gifts of the priesthood: In the portions of the offerings of the Festivals sacrificed on the altar and in the distribution of the shewbread on Shabbat during the Festivals. ‫ ֵה ָיל ְך ַמ ָ ּצה ֵה ָיל ְך‬:‫אֹומר לֹו‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּב ֲע ֶצ ֶרת‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ָמר ׁ ֶשּזְ ַמנּ ֹו ָקבו ַּע הוּא ַמ ְק ִריב‬.‫ָח ֵמץ‬ ‫ְּת ִמ ִידין נְ ָד ִרים וּנְ ָדבֹות ו ׁ ְּש ָאר ָק ְר ְ ּבנֹות‬ .‫צִ ּבוּר – ו ַּמ ְק ִריב ֶאת ַה ּכֹל‬

!ּ‫בֹוה נִינְ הו‬ ַּ ‫גמ׳ ֵאימו ֵּרי ָה ְרגָ ִלים?! ׁ ֶשל ָ ּג‬ .‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָאמוּר ָ ּב ְרגָ ִלים‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬

274 

Perek V . 55b . ‫הנ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

On Shavuot that coincides with Shabbat, when the two loaves offered on Shavuot would be distributed together with the distribution of the shewbread, the priest charged with the distribution says to each priest: Here is matza from the shewbread for you, and here is leavened bread from the two loaves for you.n The principle is that the priestly watch whose time is fixed during the Festival sacrifices the daily offerings during the Festival, as well as vow-offerings, free-will offerings, and all other communal offerings. And that watch sacrifices all of them even during the Festival,h when other aspects of the service are shared by all the watches.

gemara 

The Gemara wonders: How is it that the priests divide those portions of the Festival offerings? Don’t they belong to God, and must be placed on the altar? How do the priestly watches share these portions? Rav Ĥisda said: The mishna is referring not to portions sacrificed on the altar [eimurim] but to what was stated [amur] with regard to the pilgrimage Festivals, all those portions of the offerings that the Torah commanded to sacrifice at the Temple that are not burnt on the altar and are shared by the priests, e.g., hides of the burnt-offerings of appearance and the breast and thigh of the Festival peace-offerings.

‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ָּכל ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות ׁ ָשוֹות‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ְ ּב ֵאימו ֵּרי ָה ְרגָ ִלים – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ יָ כֹול‬.‫״ו ָּבא ְ ּב ָכל ַא ַּות נַ ְפ ׁשֹו וְ ׁ ֵש ֵרת״‬ ‫ַאף ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר יְ מֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ֵּכן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫״מ ַא ַחד ׁ ְש ָע ֶריךָ ״ ל ֹא ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי‬ ֵ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָּכל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל נִ ְכנָ ִסין‬ .‫ְ ּב ׁ ַש ַער ֶא ָחד‬

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that all of the priestly watches have equal status in the portions of the Festi­ val offerings?h The verse states: “And if a Levite comes from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he sojourns, and comes with all the desire of his soul unto the place that the Lord shall choose; then he shall minister…as all his brethren…They shall have like portions to eat, besides the transactions of their fathers’ houses” (Deuteronomy 18:6–8). Based on these verses, one might have thought that this is the case even on the rest of the days of the year and the priestly watches would have equal status. Therefore, the verse states: From one of your gates. I said that all have equal status only when all of Israel enters through one gate, i.e., on a pilgrimage Festival.

halakha

Distribution of the portions of the offerings on the pilgrimage Festival – ‫ח ֻל ַ ּקת ָה ֵאימו ִּרים ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬:ֲ All the watches shared the Festival offerings equally during the pilgrimage Festivals. Likewise, they shared the two loaves on Shavuot equally (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 4:4–5). Distribution of the shewbread on the pilgrimage Festival – ‫ח ֻל ַ ּקת ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬:ֲ When one of the Festival’s days coincided with Shabbat, all watches shared equally in the distribution of the shewbread (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 4:5, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 4:12).

:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫ ״ו ְּב ִחילּ וּק ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים״ כו׳‬The mishna continues: And in the distribution of the shewh ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ָּכל ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות ׁ ָשוֹות ְ ּב ִחילּ וּק‬bread on the three pilgrimage Festivals, all twenty-four priest– ‫ ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬ly watches have equal status. The Sages taught: From where is it derived that all of the priestly watches have equal status in the distribution of the shewbread?

Perek V Daf 56 Amud a ,‫ֹאכלוּ״‬ ֵ ‫״ח ֶלק ְּכ ֵח ֶלק י‬ ֵ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ ו ַּמאי‬.‫בֹודה ָּכךְ ֵח ֶלק ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ָ ‫ְּכ ֵח ֶלק ֲע‬ ‫ימא ָק ְר ָ ּבנֹות – ֵמ ָה ָתם‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִכ ָילה? ִא ֵיל‬ ‫אֹות ּה לֹו‬ ָ ‫״ל ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ַּמ ְק ִריב‬ ַ :‫נָ ְפ ָקא‬ .‫ ֶא ָּלא – ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬.‫ִּת ְהיֶ ה״‬

The verse states: “They shall have like portions to eat”n (Deuter­onomy 18:8); just as all the watches receive an equal portion of the service, so too all the watches receive an equal portion in the eating. The Gemara asks: What is the eating mentioned in this verse? If you say it is the eating of offerings, the verse is superfluous, as it is derived from there: “And every meal-offering…shall be the priest’s that offers it” (Leviticus 7:9), which, although it was written with regard to meal-offerings, applies to all offerings. Moreover, it teaches that a priest who participates in the sacrifice of the offering shares in eating the offering. Rather, the verse is referring to the shewbread that was not part of the service this Shabbat, as it was baked the previous Shabbat.

‫יָ כֹול ַאף ְ ּבחֹובֹות ַה ָ ּבאֹות ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ֵמ ֲח ַמת ָה ֶרגֶ ל ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ ַמה ָּמ ְכר ּו‬.‫״ל ַבד ִמ ְמ ָּכ ָריו ַעל ָה ָאבֹות״‬ ְ ‫ָה ָאבֹות זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה – ֲאנִי ְ ּב ׁ ַש ַ ּב ִּתי וְ ַא ָּתה‬ . ָ‫ְ ּב ׁ ַש ַ ּב ְּתך‬

One might have thought that all the watches should be equal even with regard to obligations that come not due to the Festival but are brought on the Festival nevertheless, as there were many vow-offerings and free-will offerings brought to the Temple that were not part of the Festival rite, but simply the result of people taking advantage of their presence in Jerusalem to fulfill their outstanding obligations. Therefore, the verse states: “Besides the transactions of their fathers’ houses” (Deuteronomy 18:8). What did the forefathers of each watch sell each other? They agreed with regard to the service of the watches: I will serve during my week, and you will serve during your week. Each watch has the right to perform the Temple service during its appointed weeks and to receive all priestly gifts offered during those weeks.

notes

They shall have like portions to eat – ‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ֵ ‫ח ֶלק ְּכ ֵח ֶלק י‬:ֵ The Rambam proves that the reference is to priests and not to Levites from the fact that the verse mentions eating, and in the Temple, Levites do not receive any gifts that are eaten. Priests partake in the offerings and the shewbread.

.‫יל ְך ״ וכו׳‬ ָ ‫אֹומר לֹו ֵה‬ ֵ ‫״ב ֲע ֶצ ֶרת‬ ּ ַ §  The mishna continues: On Shavuot that coincides with ‫ סו ָּּכה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬Shabbat the priest charged with the distribution says to each ‫ זְ ַמן וְ ַא ַחר‬:‫ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר‬,‫ זְ ַמן‬priest: Here is matza from the shewbread for you, and here is leavened bread from the two loaves for you. It was stated that .‫ָּכךְ סו ָּּכה‬ there is a dispute between the amora’im, and Rav said: When one enters the sukka, he recites the blessing of the sukka: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to sit in the sukka, and then the blessing of time: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. Rabba bar bar Ĥana said: One recites the blessing of time, and then the blessing of the sukka. 

‫ונ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 56a 

275

halakha

The order of the blessings in kiddush during Sukkot – ‫ֵס ֶדר‬ ‫ה ִּקידּ ו ּׁש ְ ּב ּסו ּּכֹות‬:ַ The order of the blessings in kiddush during Sukkot is: The blessing over wine is recited first, followed by the sanctification of the day. Then one recites the blessing on the sukka, followed by the blessing of time. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav and the conclusion of the Gemara. On the second night of the Festival in the Diaspora, some rule that the order of the last two blessings is reversed and the blessing of time precedes the blessing of the sukka (Shulĥan Arukh and Rema, based on the Rosh). Many of the later authorities disagree and maintain that the order recited on the first night is maintained on the second night as well (Baĥ; see Be’er Heitev and Sha’ar HaTziyyun; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 643:1, 661:1). The order of the blessings in kiddush on Shabbat – ‫ֵס ֶדר‬ ‫ה ִּקידּ ו ּׁש ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ַ When reciting kiddush on Shabbat or on a Festival, the blessing over wine is recited first, followed by the sanctification of the day (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:10). notes

Let us say they disagree in the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel – ‫א…ב ְפלוּגְ ָּתא דְּ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית‬ ּ ִ ‫ימ‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ה ֵּלל ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬:ִ It must be that the one who raised the question understood that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel each cite only one reason for their opinion, concerning the relationship between the sanctity of the day and the mitzva unique to that day. However, based on the conclusion of the Gemara in tractate Berakhot it is apparent that each cites two independent reasons for their opinion. Therefore, the amoraic dispute here cannot be parallel to the tannaitic dispute (Arukh LaNer).

‫ ִחּיו ָּבא‬,‫ סו ָּּכה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך זְ ַמן‬:‫ַרב ָא ַמר‬ ‫ זְ ַמן‬:‫ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר‬.‫יֹומא ָע ִדיף‬ ָ ְּ‫ד‬ – ‫ ָּת ִדיר וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָּת ִדיר‬,‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ סו ָּּכה‬ .‫קֹודם‬ ֵ ‫ָּת ִדיר‬

The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that one recites the blessing of sukka and then the blessing of time because the obligation of the day takes precedence. Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that one recites the blessing of time and then the blessing of the sukkah because when a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice, and the blessing of time is recited more frequently.

‫ימא ַרב וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ִ ּב ְפלוּגְ ָּתא‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ‫דְּ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; דְּ ָתנ ּו‬ ‫ דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬:‫ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬:‫ַ ּב ְּסעוּדָּ ה‬ ‫ ו ֵּבית‬,‫ַעל ַהּיֹום וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ְ‫ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ִה ֵּלל‬ .‫ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיֹום‬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Rabba bar bar Ĥana disagree in the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.n As the Sages taught in a baraita: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal. Beit Shammai say: When one recites kiddush over wine, he recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and then recites a blessing over the wine. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the wine and then recites a blessing over the day.h

‫ ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ַעל ַהּיֹום‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן – ׁ ֶש ַהּיֹום ּג ֵֹורם‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ָבר ִקידֵּ ׁש ַהּיֹום וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין יַ יִ ן‬,‫ַלּיַ יִ ן ׁ ֶשּיָ בֹא‬ ‫ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫ל ֹא ָ ּבא‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַהּיַ יִ ן‬.‫ַהּיַ יִ ן וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיֹום‬ :‫ דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫גּ ֵֹורם ְל ִקידּ ּו ׁ ָשא ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָא ֵמר‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְר ַּכת ַהּיֹום ֵאינָ ּה‬,‫ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַהּיַ יִ ן ְּת ִד ָירה‬ ‫ ָּת ִדיר וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָּת ִדיר – ָּת ִדיר‬,‫ְּת ִד ָירה‬ .‫קֹודם‬ ֵ

The Gemara elaborates: Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and then recites a blessing over the wine, as the day causes the wine to come before the meal. And Beit Shammai offer an additional reason: The day has already been sanctified and the wine has not yet come. Since Shabbat was sanctified first, it should likewise be mentioned first. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the wine and then recites a blessing over the day, as the wine causes the kiddush to be recited. Were there no wine, kiddush would not be recited. Alternatively, Beit Hillel say: The blessing over wine is recited frequently, and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and when a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice.

‫ימא ַרב דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it was Rav who stated his !‫ ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ֵבית ִה ֵּלל‬opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that the blessing over the sanctification of the day takes precedence over the blessing over the wine, and it was Rabba bar bar Ĥana who stated his opinion in accordance with Beit Hillel, i.e., that the frequent blessing takes precedence.

276 

Perek V . 56a . ‫ונ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

‫ ֲאנָ א דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ֵבית‬:‫ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב‬ ‫ ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ָק ָא ְמ ִרי ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ִה ֵּלל‬ ‫ָה ָתם – ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ַהּיַ יִ ן גּ ֵֹורם ְל ִקידּ ּו ׁ ָשא‬ ‫ ִמי‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא – ִאי ָלאו זְ ַמן‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָא ֵמר‬ ?‫ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן סו ָּּכה‬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. Rav could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as Beit Hillel stated their opinion there in the case of kiddush only due to the additional reason that the wine causes the kiddush to be recited. But here there is no similar connection between the two blessings, and if there was no blessing on time, wouldn’t we recite the blessing of the sukka anyway? The fact is that the blessing on the sukka is recited throughout the week of the Festival, when no blessing on time is recited.

‫ ֲאנָ א דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬: ָ‫וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ְלך‬ ‫ ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ָה ָתם – ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ַהּיֹום גּ ֵֹורם‬ ,‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא – ִאי ָלאו סו ָּּכה‬,‫ַלּיַ יִ ן ׁ ֶשּיָ בֹא‬ ?‫ִמי ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן זְ ַמן‬

And Rabba bar bar Ĥana could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as Beit Shammai only stated their opinion there in the case of kiddush, and only due to the additional reason that the day causes the wine to come before the meal. However, here, if there was no blessing of sukka, wouldn’t we recite the blessing of time even without sitting in the sukka, simply due to the onset of the Festival?

ְ‫ ֵה ָילךְ ַמ ָ ּצה ֵה ָילך‬:‫אֹומר לֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּב ֲע ֶצ ֶרת‬:‫ְּתנַן‬ ּ ָ ‫ דְּ ָח ֵמץ ִע‬,‫ וְ ָהא ָה ָכא‬.‫ָח ֵמץ‬ ‫יקר ו ַּמ ָ ּצה‬ ,‫ ֵה ָיל ְך ַמ ָ ּצה וְ ֵה ָיל ְך ָח ֵמץ‬:‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ָט ֵפל‬ !‫ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב‬

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: On Shavuot the priest charged with the distribution of the shewbread and the two loaves says to each priest: Here is matza for you, here is leavened bread for you. But here, where the ĥametz is primary and the matza is subordinate to it, as it is the festival of Shavuot when the two loaves of leavened bread are the offering of the day, and yet the mishna teaches: Here is matza for you, and here is leavened bread for you, it accords precedence to the frequent shewbread over the obligation of the day. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav.

ְ‫ ֵה ָילך‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב‬The Gemara responds that Rav could have said to you: This matter is :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ָ ּבא ׁ ָשאוּל‬,‫ ַמ ָ ּצה ֵה ָיל ְך ָח ֵמץ‬a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that the priest .‫ ֵה ָילךְ ָח ֵמץ ֵה ָילךְ ַמ ָ ּצה‬charged with distribution says: Here is matza for you, here is leavened bread for you. Abba Shaul says that he would say: Here is leavened bread for you, here is matza for you.n ‫ ל ֹא ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי‬:‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ :‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ַרב דְּ ָא ַמר סו ָּּכה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך זְ ַמן‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ְ ּב ֵר‬.‫זְ ַמן וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ סו ָּּכה‬ .‫ סו ָּּכה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך זְ ַמן‬:‫דְּ ַרב ִא ִידי ָא ַמר‬ .‫ סו ָּּכה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ זְ ַמן‬:‫וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬

With regard to the final halakhic decision: Rav Naĥman bar Rav Ĥisda taught: The halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rav, who said: One recites the blessing of sukka and then the blessing of time; rather, one recites the blessing of time and then the blessing of sukka. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: One recites the blessing of sukka and then the blessing of time, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. And the Gemara concludes that the halakha is: One recites the blessing of sukka and then the blessing of time.

‫ § ִמ ׁ ְש ָמר ׁ ֶשּזְ ַמנּ ֹו ָקב ּו ַע [וכו׳] ּו ׁ ְש ָאר‬The mishna continues: The priestly watch whose time is sched‫ ְל ַא ּתוּיֵ י ַמאי? ְל ַא ּתוּיֵ י‬.‫ ָק ְר ְ ּבנֹות צִ ּבוּר״‬uled during the Festival, sacrifices the daily offerings during the Fes‫ ּו ְ ׂש ִע ֵירי‬,‫ ּ ַפר ֶה ְע ֵלם דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשל צִ ּב ּור‬tival, as well as vow-offerings, free-will offerings, and all other communal offerings. The Gemara asks: What additional communal .‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬ ָ ‫ֲע‬ offerings does the mishna come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a bull brought for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought by the community due to a transgression committed by the community as a whole as a result of an erroneous halakhic decision issued by the Great Sanhedrin, although it has no fixed time and need not be brought during the Festival; and it includes goats brought for the unwitting transgression of the prohibition against idol worship. If these offerings are brought during the Festival, they are sacrificed by members of the watch whose shift is scheduled for that week. ?‫ ְל ַא ּתוּיֵ י ַמאי‬.‫ ״וְ הוּא ַמ ְק ִריב ֶאת ַה ּכֹל״‬The mishna concludes: And that watch sacrifices all of them. The .‫ ְל ַא ּתוּיֵ י ַקּיִ יץ ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬Gemara asks: What does this phrase come to include? The Gemara explains: It comes to include the summer fruits of the altar. Whenever the altar was inactive, special burnt-offerings were sacrificed as communal donations in deference to the Divine Presence so that the altar would not remain empty. These offerings were sacrificed by the scheduled watch. ,‫מתני׳ יֹום טֹוב ַה ָּסמ ּו ְך ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ ָהי ּו ָּכל‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫נֶיה ֵ ּבין ְל ַא ֲח ֶר‬ ָ ‫ֵ ּבין ִמ ְּל ָפ‬ .‫ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָמרֹות ׁ ָשוֹות ְ ּב ִחילּ וּק ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬ ,‫ָחל ִל ְהיֹות יֹום ֶא ָחד ְ[ל ַה ְפ ִסיק] ֵ ּבינְ ַתיִ ם‬ ‫נֹוטל ֶע ֶ ׂשר‬ ֵ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ָמר ׁ ֶשּזְ ַמנּ ֹו ָקבו ַּע – ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ ו ִּב ׁ ְש ָאר‬.‫נֹוטל ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ִּמ ְת ַע ֵּכב‬,‫ַחלּ ֹות‬ ‫נֹוטל ׁ ֵש ׁש וְ ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬ ֵ ‫יְ מֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה – ַה ִּנ ְכנָס‬ ‫ ַה ִּנ ְכנָ ס‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫נֹוטל ׁ ֵש ׁש‬ ֵ .‫נֹוטל ָח ֵמ ׁש‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬,‫נֹוטל ׁ ֶש ַבע‬ ֵ

mishna 

In the case of a Festival that occurs adjacent to Shabbat, both when it occurs preceding it and when it occurs following it, all the watches that arrived early or remained late to serve in the Temple were of equal status in the distribution of the shewbreadh on that Shabbat. If one day happened to separate between the Festival and Shabbat, the watch whose time was scheduled would take ten of the twelve loaves of shewbread, and the watch that was detainedn after the Festival because there was insufficient time to get home before Shabbat takes two loaves. And during the rest of the days of the year,b when the changing of the watches takes place on Shabbat, the incoming watch takes six loaves and the outgoing watch takes six loaves. Rabbi Yehuda says: The incoming watch takes seven loaves and the outgoing takes five.

‫חֹול ִקין ַ ּב ָ ּצפֹון וְ ַה ּיֹוצְ ִא ין‬ ְ ‫ ַה ִּנ ְכנָ ִסין‬The standard procedure was that the members of the incoming watch n ,‫חֹול ֶקת ַ ּבדָּ רֹום‬ ֶ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ְיל ָ ּגה ְל‬.‫ ַ ּבדָּ רֹום‬divide the shewbread in the north section of the courtyard, and the outgoing watch in the south. However, there was one exception: The .‫ וְ ַחלּ ֹונָ ּה ְסתו ָּמה‬,‫וְ ַט ַ ּב ְע ָּת ּה ְקבו ָּעה‬ watch of Bilga, due to a penalty imposed upon it, always divides the shewbread to its members in the south, even when it is the incoming watch. And its ring used to facilitate slaughter of the animals was fixedn in place, rendering it useless, and its niche among the niches in the wall of the Chamber of Knives, where the priests would store their knives and other vessels, was sealed.n

notes

Here is leavened bread for you, here is matza for you – ‫ה ָיל ְך ָח ֵמץ ֵה ָיל ְך ַמ ָ ּצה‬:ֵ In the Jerusalem Talmud the dispute is whether the frequent or the preferred takes precedence. The watch that was detained – ‫מ ׁ ְש ָמר ַה ִּמ ְת ַע ֵּכב‬:ִ Rashi explains that this is referring to the outgoing watch that did not yet depart (see the difficulty raised in Tosefot Yom Tov). The Rambam explains in his Commentary on the Mishna that this is referring to a leisurely, indolent watch, whose members are in no hurry to serve in the Temple. Neither the watch scheduled to arrive the Shabbat prior to the Festival nor the watch that remains the Shabbat after the Festival will have the exclusive right to perform the service for only one day. Therefore, only few of its member priests arrive for duty, and two loaves suffice for those who come to serve. Members of the incoming watch divide the shewbread in the north – ‫חֹול ִקין ַ ּב ָ ּצפֹון‬ ְ ‫נָסין‬ ִ ‫ה ִּנ ְכ‬:ַ Some explain that the north is more significant because the majority of offerings are sacrificed there. In the Jerusalem Talmud, this is based on the principle that in the Temple one enters to the right and exits to the left. Since the Temple faced west, the result was that when they entered, the north was to the right. Its ring was fixed – ‫ט ַ ּב ְע ָּת ּה ְקבו ָּעה‬:ַ Rashi explains that the members of this watch were humiliated by being forced to use the rings of other watches. Others explain that they were not permitted to use the rings at all, and were forced to expend great effort to tie and slaughter the animals without use of a ring. Its niche was sealed – ‫חלּ ֹונָ ּה ְסתו ָּמה‬:ַ Rashi explains that the Gemara is referring to a niche in the Chamber of Knives where they would store their knives (see Jerusalem Talmud). The Rambam explains in his Commentary on the Mishna that it was a niche in which the watch stored its priestly vestments. Rabbeinu Yehonatan explains that there were windows in the Temple walls that illuminated the areas of the courtyard where the different watches performed their service. The window aligned with Bilga’s area was sealed (Me’iri). halakha

The distribution of the shewbread – ‫ח ֻל ַ ּקת ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬:ֲ On Shabbat throughout the year, the incoming watch receives six loaves and the outgoing watch receives six loaves. On Shabbat during Festivals, whether Shabbat coincides with the Festival day or whether it is on one of the intermediate days, and on Shabbat that occurs the day preceding or following the Festival day, all the watches share equally in the loaves. If there is one day between the Festival and Shabbat, the regularly scheduled outgoing watch receives ten loaves, and the incoming watch receives two. The Ra’avad and Rashi comment that all the watches that arrive early or whose departure is delayed share the two loaves (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 4:12–13). background

During the rest of the year – ‫ב ׁ ְש ָאר יְ מֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬:ּ ִ

gemara 

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning in the ?‫יה‬ ָ ‫נֶיה ו ַּמאי ִמ ְּל ַא ֲח ֶר‬ ָ ‫גמ׳ ַמאי ִמ ְּל ָפ‬ mishna of preceding it and what is the mean,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫נֶיה – יֹום טֹוב ִר‬ ָ ‫ימא ְל ָפ‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ֵ ‫ִא‬ ing of following it? If we say preceding it is referring to the first ‫ ַהיְ ינ ּו ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬,‫יה – יֹום טֹוב ַא ֲחרֹון‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַא ֲח ֶר‬Festival day preceding Shabbat and following it is referring to the !‫ ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֶה ָחג‬last day of the Festival following Shabbat, then this is the case of Shabbat that is during the Festival, and that is how the mishna should have presented it. 

Additional offering and shewbread on a typical Shabbat

‫ונ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 56a 

277

– ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַא ֲח ֶר‬,‫נֶיה – יֹום טֹוב ַא ֲחרֹון‬ ָ ‫ ְל ָפ‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָהנֵי‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫יֹום טֹוב ִר‬ ְּ ‫ְמ ַקדְּ ִמי וְ ָהנֵי ְמ ַא ֲח ִרי – ִּת‬ ,‫יקנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬ .‫נִיכל ּו ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי‬ ְ ְּ‫יכי ד‬ ִ ‫ִּכי ֵה‬

Rather, preceding it is referring to the last day of the Festival that precedes Shabbat and following it is referring to the first Festival day that follows Shabbat. What is the reason that the watches share equally in these cases? Since these are coming early, as the arriving watch cannot arrive after Shabbat because the Festival begins right away, and these remain late, as the outgoing watch cannot leave at the end of the Festival due to the immediate onset of Shabbat, the Sages instituted this matter so that they would eat the shewbread together.

.‫״חל יֹום ֶא ָחד״‬ ָ The mishna continues: If one day happened. During the rest of the days of the year, the incoming watch takes six loaves and the outgoing watch takes six loaves. Rabbi Yehuda says: The incoming watch takes seven loaves and the outgoing takes five.

Perek V Daf 56 Amud b notes

Locking the doors – ‫הגָ ַפת דְּ ָלתֹות‬:ֲ The Me’iri explains that the incoming watch would assist the outgoing watch in opening the doors because they needed help, as the Temple service needed to be performed at the same time, However, they locked the doors alone, as there was no similar pressure at that time. Remove [dal] and they will remove – ‫דַּ ל ְ ּב ַדל‬: Rabbeinu Ĥananel explains that these words are contractions for mine [dili] and yours [dilakh]. Each watch says to the next: Relinquish mine so that next Shabbat they will not take yours. A ripe cucumber now is better than a gourd that has yet to ripen – ‫בוּצִ ינָ א ָט ָבא ִמ ָ ּק ָרא‬:ּ This colloquial expression appears several times in the Gemara. Rashi understands that both vegetables are pumpkins of different sizes. According to this approach, this expression is part of an exchange between people. One offers another a choice between picking a small pumpkin now while it is still growing, and waiting until it grows larger; the advice is to pick it now, as perhaps it will not be available later. Rabbeinu Tam disagrees with Rashi, arguing that it is clear from many sources that these are two different types of vegetables; one is a pumpkin and the other one is a cucumber. His explanation is: Although the cucumber is smaller than the pumpkin, it ripens more quickly. Therefore, one prefers an already ripe cucumber to a pumpkin whose potentially larger size may never be realized. The Me’iri adds that according to this approach, the cucumber is preferred only if it can be picked immediately. If there is a need to wait even a short time for the cucumber to ripen, preference is given to a longer wait and a greater return. halakha

Division of labor on Shabbat – ‫בֹודה ְ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ‫ח ֻל ַ ּקת ַה ֲע‬:ֲ The outgoing watch sacrifices the daily morning offering and the additional offerings of the day, while the incoming watch sacrifices the daily afternoon offering and performs the service of the vessels of frankincense (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 4:9).

278 

Perek V . 56b . ‫ונ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ה‬

‫וְ ָהנֵי ַּת ְר ֵּתי ַמאי ֲע ִב ְיד ַּתיְ יהוּ? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫נֵימא‬ ָ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ ִ ּב ְ ׂש ַכר ֲהגָ ַפת דְּ ָלתֹות‬:‫יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ ּבוּצִ ינָ א ָט ָבא‬:‫ דַּ ל ְ ּב ַדל! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ִמ ָ ּק ָרא‬

The Gemara asks: And these two extra loaves received by the incoming watch, what is their purpose? Rabbi Yitzĥak says: They are as compensation for locking the doorsn of the Temple. The Gemara asks: Let the outgoing watch say to the incoming one: Remove your claim to the extra loaves this week and divide the loaves equally and next week’s incoming watch will removen its claim next week. Abaye said: A ripe cucumber now is better than a gourd that has yet to ripen.n A small, immediate profit is preferable to a large, potential profit.

.‫חֹול ִקין‬ ְ ‫ ו ַּב ּמ ּו ָס ִפין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ ה ּו ָדה‬ ‫עֹושה ָּת ִמיד‬ ׂ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ָמ ָרה ַהּיֹוצֵ את‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ָמ ָרה ַה ִּנ ְכנֶ ֶסת‬.‫ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַחר ּומו ָּס ִפין‬ .‫יכין‬ ִ ִ‫עֹושה ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ְר ַ ּביִ ם ו ָּבז‬ ָׂ ‫חֹול ִקין ָלא ָק ָתנֵי! ַהאי ַּת ָּנא‬ ְ ‫וְ ִאילּ ּו מו ָּס ִפין‬ .‫ַ ּב ֲחלו ָּקה ָלא ָקא ַמיְ ִירי‬

Rav Yehuda said: And they divide the hides of the additional offerings between them. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The outgoing watch performs the rite of the daily morning offering and the additional offerings, and the incoming watch performs the rite of the daily afternoon offering and the service of the vessels of frankincense for the shewbread.h And the baraita teaches nothing about dividing the hides of the additional offerings. The Gemara answers: This tanna is not speaking of division of the hides, but is addressing the division of the Temple service, so sharing the hides is not mentioned.

‫ דְּ ַמיְ ִירי‬,‫ וְ ָהא ַּת ָּנא דְּ ֵבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ,‫חֹול ִקין ָלא ָק ָתנֵי‬ ְ ‫ ו ַּב ּמו ָּס ִפין‬,‫ַ ּב ֲחלו ָּקה‬ – ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ָמ ָרה ַהּיֹוצֵ את‬:‫דְּ ָתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫עֹושה ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַחר וּמו ָּס ִפין – ִמ ׁ ְש ָמ ָרה‬ ָׂ ‫עֹושה ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ְר ַ ּביִ ם‬ ׂ ָ – ‫נֶסת‬ ֶ ‫ַה ִּנ ְכ‬ ,‫נָסין ׁ ָשם‬ ִ ‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכ ֲֹהנִים ָהי ּו נִ ְכ‬.‫יכין‬ ִ ִ‫ו ָּבז‬ ,‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ִמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ָמר זֹו ּו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ִמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ָמר זֹו‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִא‬.‫חֹול ִקין ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬ ‫יל ּו ְ ּבמו ָּס ִפין‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ !‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫חֹול ִקין ָלא ָק ָתנֵי‬ ְ .‫ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬

Rava said: But didn’t the tanna of the school of Shmuel, who speaks of division between the incoming and the outgoing watches, fail to teach division of the hides of the additional offerings mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda, as the school of Shmuel taught: The outgoing watch performs the daily morning offering and the additional offerings; the incoming watch performs the daily afternoon offerings and the service of the vessels. And how was this service performed? Four priests would enter the Sanctuary, two from this outgoing watch and two from that incoming watch, and they divide the shewbread. But it teaches nothing about dividing the hides of the additional offerings. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫חֹול ִקין ַ ּב ָ ּצפֹון״‬ ְ ‫״ה ִּנ ְכנָ ִסין‬ ַ § The mishna continues: Members of the incoming watch di‫חֹול ִקין ַ ּב ָ ּצפֹון – ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ָרא ּו ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬ ְ ‫נָסין‬ ִ ‫ ַה ִּנ ְכ‬vide the shewbread in the north section of the courtyard, and ‫חֹול ִקין ַ ּבדָּ רֹום – ְּכ ֵדי‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַהּיֹוצְ ִאין‬,‫נָסין‬ ִ ‫ נִ ְכ‬members of the outgoing watch in the south. The Sages taught in a baraita: Members of the incoming watch divide the shew.‫ׁ ֶשּיֵ ָרא ּו ׁ ֶש ֵהן יֹוצְ ִאין‬ bread in the north, which was an area of greater sanctity in the Temple courtyard, so that it would be seen that they are incoming, and members of the outgoing watch divide the shewbread in the south, so it would be seen that they are outgoing.

.‫חֹול ֶקת ַ ּבדָּ רֹום״‬ ֶ ‫עֹול ם‬ ָ ‫יל ָ ּגה ְל‬ ְ ‫״ב‬ ִּ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ִמ ְריָ ם ַ ּבת ִ ּב ְיל ָ ּגה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ וְ ָה ְל ָכה וְ נִ ּ ֵ ׂשאת‬, ‫ׁ ֶש ֵה ִמ ָירה דָּ ָת ּה‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכנְס ּו‬.‫ְל ַס ְר ְדיֹוט ֶא ָחד ִמ ַּמ ְל ֵכי יְ וָ ונִים‬ ‫יכל ָהיְ ָתה ְמ ַב ֶע ֶטת ְ ּב ַסנְ דָּ ָל ּה‬ ָ ‫יְ וָ ונִים ַל ֵה‬ ,‫ לֹוקֹוס לֹוקֹוס‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ָרה‬,‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמ‬ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ׂ ְ ‫ַעד ָמ ַתי ַא ָּתה ְמ ַכ ֶּלה ָממֹונָן ׁ ֶשל‬ !‫יהם ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַהדְּ ָחק‬ ֶ ‫עֹומד ֲע ֵל‬ ֵ ‫וְ ִאי ַא ָּתה‬ ‫ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ְמע ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ַ ּבדָּ ָבר ָק ְבע ּו ֶאת‬ .‫ וְ ָס ְתמ ּו ֶאת ַחלּ ֹונָ ּה‬,‫ַט ַ ּב ְע ָּת ּה‬

We learned in the mishna that Bilga always divides the shewbread in the south,n even when it is the incoming watch. The Gemara elaborates: The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Miriam, the daughter of a member of the Bilga watch, who apostatized and went and married a soldier [sardeyot]l serving in the army of the Greek kings. When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, she entered with them and was kicking with her sandal on the altar and said: Wolf, wolf [lokos],nl until when will you consume the property of the Jewish people, and yet you do not stand with them when they face exigent circumstances? And after the victory of the Hasmoneans over the Greeks, when the Sages heard about this matter and how she denigrated the altar, they fixed the ring of the Bilga watch in place, rendering it nonfunctional, and sealed its niche.n

,‫ֹוהה ָלבֹא‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ַמ ְר ּתֹו ׁש‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וְ יֵ ׁש‬ ‫ימ ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ וְ ׁ ִש‬,‫וְ נִ ְכנָ ס יְ ׁ ֵש ָב ב ָא ִחיו ִע ּמֹו‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ֵכינֵי ָה ְר ׁ ָש ִעים‬.‫ַּת ְח ָּתיו‬ ,ּ‫נִש ַּת ְּכרו‬ ׂ ְ ‫נִש ַּת ְּכר ּו – ׁ ְש ֵכינֵי ִ ּב ְיל ָ ּגה‬ ׂ ְ ‫ל ֹא‬ ‫יש ָבב‬ ֵ ׁ ִ‫חֹול ֶקת ַ ּבדָּ רֹום ו‬ ֶ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְיל ָ ּגה ְל‬ .‫ָא ִחיו ַ ּב ָ ּצפֹון‬

And some say that the watch was penalized for a different reason. It happened once that some members of the Bilga watch tarried in arrivingn at the Temple. The members of the previous watch, the watch of Yeshevav, his brother, entered together with the members of the Bilga watch who had arrived, and served in the place of the absent members of his brother’s watch. The Gemara notes: Although neighbors of the wicked do not typically profit, according to the principle: Woe unto the wicked, woe unto his neighbor, Bilga’s neighbors profited, as Bilga always divides the shewbread in the south, even when the watch is incoming, and his brother Yeshevav always divides in the north, even when the watch is outgoing.

‫ֹוהה‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ְש ַמ ְר ּתֹו ׁש‬ ,‫נְסינַן ְלכו ָּּלה ִמ ׁ ְש ָמר‬ ִ ‫ָלבֹא – ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָק‬ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ְריָ ם ַ ּבת ִ ּב ְיל ָ ּגה‬ ‫נְסינַן‬ ִ ‫יה ָק‬ ּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּב ַר ֵּת‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵה ִמ ָירה דָּ ָת ּה‬ ‫ ִּכ ְד ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ ִאין‬:‫יה? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ִד ֵיד‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ אֹו‬,‫ ׁשו ָּתא דִּ ינו ָּקא ְ ּב ׁשו ָּקא‬:‫ינָשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֱא‬ .‫יה‬ ֵּ ‫דַּ ֲאבו ּּה אֹו דְּ ִא‬ ּ ‫ימ‬

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to the one who said that Bilga was penalized because members of his watch tarried in arriving at the Temple; that is why the entire watch is penalized. However, according to the one who said it is due to Miriam, daughter of Bilga, who apostatized, do we penalize the entire watch of Bilga because of his daughter?n Abaye said: Yes, as people say, the speech of a child in the marketplace is learned either from that of his father or from that of his mother. Miriam would never have said such things had she not heard talk of that kind in her parents’ home.

‫נְסינַן ְלכו ָּּל ּה‬ ִ ‫יה ָק‬ ֵּ ‫ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲאבו ּּה וְ ִא‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ‫ אֹוי ָל ָר ׁ ָשע אֹוי‬:‫ִמ ׁ ְש ָמ ָרה? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ,‫ טֹוב ַל ַ ּצדִּ יק טֹוב ִל ׁ ְש ֵכינֹו‬,‫ִל ׁ ְש ֵכינֹו‬ ‫״א ְמר ּו צַ דִּ יק ִּכי טֹוב ִּכי ְפ ִרי‬ ִ :‫[ש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ֶׁ .]‫ֹאכלוּ״‬ ֵ ‫יהם י‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ַע ְל ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: And due to Miriam’s father and mother, do we penalize an entire watch? Abaye said: Woe unto the wicked, woe unto his neighbor. To conclude the tractate on a positive note, the Gemara says: Good for the righteous, good for his neighbor, as it is stated: “Say you of the righteous that it shall be good for him,n for they shall eat the fruit of their doings” (Isaiah 3:10); the neighbors of a righteous man who witness and acknowledge the good that befalls him will benefit from their proximity to him.

‫הדרן עלך החליל‬ ‫וסליקא לה מסכת סוכה‬



notes

Bilga always divides in the south – ‫חֹול ֶקת ַ ּבדָּ רֹום‬ ֶ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ב ְיל ָ ּגה ְל‬:ּ ִ They instituted several conventions to create the constant impression that the departure of this watch was imminent: They were situated in the south, their niche was sealed, and their ring was fixed in place (Melekhet Shlomo). Wolf, wolf – ‫לֹוקֹוס לֹוקֹוס‬: She likened the altar to a wolf because it preys on sheep, just as the altar consumes the sheep of the daily offerings (Maharsha). The penalty for Bilga’s watch – ‫קנַס ִמ ׁ ְש ָמר ִ ּב ְל ָ ּגה‬:ְ In the Jerusalem Talmud, the question was raised: Why didn’t they simply eliminate the Bilga watch? They answered: An established family lineage may not be eliminated. In addition, changing the total number of watches from twenty-four to twenty-three would have ramifications with regard to many related matters. The watch tarried in arriving – ‫ֹוהה ָלבֹא‬ ָ ‫מ ׁ ְש ַמ ְר ּתֹו ׁש‬:ִ Apparently, it was not that the entire watch arrived late together. Some of the members of the watch arrived on time, and therefore the watch of his brother Yeshevav entered together with the members of Bilga’s watch who arrived on time. Do we penalize the entire watch of Bilga because of his daughter – ‫יה‬ ִ ‫יה ָק‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ִד ֵיד‬ ּ ‫נְסינַן ֵל‬ ּ ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם ְ ּב ַר ֵּת‬:ִ Even though it is written with regard to a priest’s daughter who commits adultery: “She profanes her father” (Leviticus 21:9), that is referring to the fact that she dishonored him, not that he was penalized in any way. In this case, beyond the humiliation aspect of the punishment, sealing the niche increased the workload of the rest of the members of Bilga’s watch. Therefore, the Gemara explains that the forebears of this watch were also to blame for the daughter’s conduct (Maharsha). Say you of the righteous that it shall be good for him – ‫ִא ְמר ּו‬ ‫צַ דִּ יק ִּכי טֹוב‬: Even though this verse is not directly related to the discussion, the principle is that one does not conclude on a negative note. Others explain that “say you of the righteous that it shall be good for him” means that the neighbors praise the righteous; “for they shall eat the fruit of their doings” means that the good deeds performed by the righteous benefit their neighbors (Arukh LaNer). language

Soldier [sardeyot] – ‫ס ְר ְדיֹוט‬:ַ From the Greek στρατιώτης, stratiotès, meaning soldier, military officer. Wolf [lokos] – ‫לֹוקֹוס‬: From the Greek λύκος, lukos, meaning wolf.

‫ונ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Perek V . 56b 

279

Summary of Perek V This chapter was devoted completely to the customs practiced in the Temple during the seven days of the festival of Sukkot. The Celebration of Drawing Water was a public event accompanied by great pomp and ceremony. To facilitate that cele­bration and to ensure that it did not cross the line into immorality, the Sages undertook several special practices to achieve separation between men and women and to ensure that those singing and dancing were prominent Torah luminaries. In the discussion of the Celebration of Drawing Water, the general procedures for playing music in the Temple were also discussed. The conclusion was that there are three types of music. Music in the context of the Celebration of Drawing Water, which is to promote extreme rejoicing, was played only during the week, and anyone could participate in playing the musical instruments. Music that accompanied the sacrificial service was played every day, even on Shabbat and Festivals, because it was for the purpose of sacrificing the offerings, and all the more so, the sounding of the shofar and the trumpets for the various offerings were performed, as they are a Torah obligation. Since the chapter dealt with the music played at the Celebration of Drawing Water, it also discussed the shofar and trumpet blasts that accompanied the offerings throughout the Festival, as well as the blasts sounded throughout the year during the week on Shabbat and Festival eves and at their conclusion. Another topic dealt with in this chapter was the division of the additional offerings. The additional offerings on Sukkot are more numerous than those on any other Festival; in addition, unlike on other Festivals, the number of offerings sacrificed vary from day to day. Therefore, a special division of labor was required by means of which all the priestly watches, who ascended to Jerusalem to serve during the pilgrim Festivals, would divide the additional offerings among themselves. The objective was to ensure that all the priestly watches would sacrifice an equal number of each type of offering. On a related note, also addressed were several matters concerning the division of the Temple service among the priestly watches on Shabbat and Festivals throughout the year.

281

61…Thorns [hizmei] – ‫ִהיזְ ֵמי‬ 159…Oleander – ‫ִה ְירדּ וּף‬

‫א‬ 193…Usha – ‫או ׁ ָּשא‬ 62…Hyssop – ‫ֵאזֹוב‬

‫ו‬ And they would come and – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫אֹותן ְ ּבצִ דֵּ י ַה ִּמ‬ ָ ‫זֹוק ִפין‬ ְ ְ‫ו ָּב ִאין ו‬ 219…stand them upright at the sides of the altar And since the sukka is spacious – ‫יכא צֵ ל‬ ָ ִ‫וְ ֵכיוָ ן דִּ ְרו‬ ָּ ‫יחא ִא‬ 10…there is shade

‫ז‬ 109…Zuz and istera – ‫יס ְּת ָרא‬ ְ ‫זוּז וְ ִא‬ 159…The olive tree – ‫זֵ ָיתא‬

A tree whose branches reach down – ‫יס ְך ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ֵ ‫ִא ָילן ַה ֵּמ‬ 117…and cover the ground 176…Issar coin – ‫יסר‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ 19…Platform in the center of the sukka – ‫ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא ְ ּב ֶא ְמצָ ִע ָית ּה‬

Index of Background

Platform opposite – ‫ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא ְּכנֶ גֶ ד דּ ֶֹופן ָה ֶא ְמצָ ִעי‬ 18…the middle wall 18…Platform along the side wall – ‫ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא ִמן ַה ַ ּצד‬ 85…A portico in a field – ‫ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה ְ ּב ִב ְק ָעה‬ 254…Alexander the Great of Macedonia – ‫מֹוקדֹן‬ ְ ‫ֲא ֶל ְּכ ַסנְדְּ רֹוס‬

‫ח‬ 56…Festival peace-offering – ‫ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬

200…One thousand zuz – ‫ֶא ֶלף זוּז‬ 250…Emma’um – ‫ֶא ָּמאוּם‬

155…Broom – ‫חו ְּפיָא‬ 59…Convex and concave arrow shafts – ‫יצים זְ ָכ ִרים וּנְ ֵקבֹות‬ ּ ִ ‫ִח‬

7…Cubit [ama] – ‫ַא ָּמה‬

173…Ĥalla – ‫ַח ָּלה‬

241…The poison of a snake – ‫ֶא ֶרס נָ ָח ׁש‬

A courtyard that is surrounded – ‫ָחצֵ ר ׁ ֶש ִהיא מו ֶ ּּק ֶפת ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬ 78…on three sides by a portico

177…A twin etrog – ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג ַה ְּתיֹום‬

Dug out an area inside the – ‫ימ ּה ַל ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ָח ַקק ָ ּב ּה ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִל‬ sukka in order to complete the sukka 20…to ten handbreadths

21…Posts in the center of the roof – ‫ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ַ ּגג‬

155…The hardened branch – ‫ָחרו ָּתא‬

192…Etrog – ‫ֶא ְתרֹוג‬

‫ב‬ 73…With the long boards of the bed – ‫ַ ּב ֲארוּכֹות ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ 16…Huts – ‫ּבו ְּר ָ ּגנִין‬

121…The groom and the groomsmen – ‫ֹוש ִבינִין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ָח ָתן וְ ַה ׁש‬

214…Boethusians – ‫יתֹוסין‬ ִ ְ‫ַ ּבי‬

‫ט‬

232…First fruits – ‫יכו ִּרים‬ ּ ‫ִ ּב‬

128…Tiberias – ‫ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א‬ 20…Handbreadth – ‫ֶט ַפח‬ Handbreadth with the form – ‫ֶט ַפח ִעם צו ַּרת ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח‬ 32…of a doorway

227…Twilight – ‫ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות‬ 78…A house that was breached – ‫ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַחת‬ In the time it takes – ‫ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי ֲא ִכ ַילת ּ ְפ ָרס‬ 204…to eat a half-loaf of bread 186…In the West, Eretz Yisrael – ‫ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא‬

‫י‬ 146…Despair – ‫יֵאו ּׁש‬ 147…A dry lulav – ‫ֵיָב ׁש‬ 22…Grooved and split – ‫יֵ ָח ְקק ּו וְ יֵ ָח ְלק ּו‬

‫כ‬ 37…Furnace – ‫ִּכ ְב ׁ ָשן‬ 27…Dried fig-bulk – ‫ִּכגְ רֹוגֶ ֶרת‬ 183…Spindle – ‫ּכו ּׁש‬ 40…Samaritans [Kutim] – ‫ּכו ִּתים‬ 28…Olive-bulk – ‫ַּכזַ ּיִ ת‬ 51…Bridal canopy – ‫ִּכ ַּילת ֲח ָתנִים‬ 28…Large date-bulk – ‫כֹות ֶבת ַה ַ ּג ָּסה‬ ֶ ‫ְּכ‬ 83…Opposite the skylight – ‫ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲארו ָ ּּבה‬ 31…Opposite the wall that emerges – ‫ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַהּיֹוצֵ א‬ Opposite the wall that emerges like the – ‫ֹאש ּתֹור‬ ׁ ‫ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ר‬ 31…diagonal line formed by the end of the furrows 218…Small fried fish – ‫ָּכ ָסא דְּ ַה ְר ְסנָ א‬ 152…Leek green – ‫ַּכ ְר ִּתי‬

‫ל‬ 11…Lod – ‫לֹוד‬ 151…A lulav requires binding – ‫לו ָּלב צָ ִריךְ ֶאגֶ ד‬ Cast upon – ‫ִל ׁ ְשנֵי ְק ָרנֹות ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת‬ 53…two corners simultaneously

‫מ‬ 220…Motza – ‫מֹוצָ א‬ 75…Partitions in a cistern – ‫ְמ ִחיצּ ֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּבֹור‬ 91…Mats – ‫ַמ ְחצָ לֹות‬ A mat that is – ‫ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬ 77…four handbreadths and a bit wide 170…Second tithe – ‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬

25…Bar Yokhani – ‫יֹוכנִי‬ ָ ‫ַ ּבר‬ 277…During the rest of the year – ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר יְ מֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬ 122…On the Shabbat of the Festival – ‫ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא דְּ ִרגְ ָלא‬

‫ג‬ 111…Covering for a grave – ‫גּ ֵֹולל ַל ֶ ּק ֶבר‬ 211…Verbal analogy – ‫ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ָשוָ ה‬ 156…Valley of ben Hinnom – ‫ֵ ּגיא ֶ ּבן ִה ָּנם‬ 92…Bulrushes [gemi] – ‫ֶ ּג ִמי‬

‫ד‬ 159…Oriental plane tree – ‫דּ ו ְּל ָבא‬ 19…Curved wall – ‫דּ ֶֹופן ֲעקו ָּּמה‬ When Rav Dimi came from – ‫ימי‬ ִ ִּ‫דְּ ִכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬ 76…Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia 44…Gourd – ‫דְּ ַל ַעת‬ 170…Doubtfully tithed produce [demai] – ‫דְּ ַמאי‬ 154…That grew with one leaf – ‫דְּ ָס ֵליק ְ ּב ַחד הוּצָ א‬ 179…Many planks – ‫דַּ ּ ֵפי ַד ּ ֵפי‬

‫ה‬ 175…The etrog and its parts – ‫ָה ֶא ְתרֹוג וַ ֲח ָל ָקיו‬ 89…One lifted it…one handbreadth – ‫…ט ַפח‬ ֶ ‫יה ּה‬ ָ ‫ִהגְ ִ ּב‬ 102…When they reached the Siloam pool – ‫ִה ִ ּגיע ּו ַל ׁ ּ ִשילּ ַֹוח‬ 54…Myrtle branch – ‫ֲה ַדס‬ 160…Three-fold myrtle branch – ‫ֲה ַדס ְמ ׁ ֻש ָּל ׁש‬ 160…Wild myrtle branch – ‫ֹוטה‬ ֶ ‫ֲה ַדס ׁש‬ 74…One who hollows out a stack of grain – ‫חֹוטט ַ ּב ָ ּג ִד ׁיש‬ ֵ ‫ַה‬ 61…Shrubs – ‫ִהיגֵ י‬ If the upper boards – ‫ָהי ּו ָה ֶע ְליֹונֹות ְּכ ֵבין ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונֹות‬ 107…are spaced between the lower boards Its berries were more numerous – ‫ָהי ּו ֲענָ ָביו ְמרו ִ ּּבין ֵמ ָע ָליו‬ 163…than its leaves

 

283

Index of Background

24…Frontplate – ‫צִ יץ‬ 234…Jug – ‫לֹוחית‬ ִ ְ‫צ‬ 63…Huts made of willow branches – ‫צְ ִר ֵיפי דְּ או ְּר ָ ּבנֵי‬

81…Neharde’a – ‫נְ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא‬ 114…Wineskin – ‫נֹוד‬

‫ק‬ The height of – ‫קֹומת ַה ְּכרוּב ָה ֶא ָחד ֶע ֶ ׂשר ָ ּב ַא ָּמה‬ ַ 26…the first cherub was ten cubits

236…Poured on his feet – ‫נִיס ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַרגְ ָליו‬ ֵּ 70…A beam at the entrance of a sukka – ‫נֶסר ְ ּב ֶפ ַתח סו ָּּכה‬ ֶ

107…Boards that are aligned – ‫קֹורֹות ְמכ ּו ָּונֹות‬

50…Naklitin are two posts – ‫יטין ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ ִ ‫נַ ְק ִל‬

210…The establishment of the month – ‫יבו ָּעא דְּ יַ ְר ָחא‬ ּ ‫ִק‬

Visible from outside – ‫נִ ְר ֶאה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ וְ ׁ ָשוֶ ה ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬ 87…but even on the inside

50…Kinofot are four posts – ‫ִקינֹופֹות ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ 52…Ivy – ‫ִק ּיסֹוס‬ 123…Caesarea – ‫יס ִרי‬ ָ ‫ֵק‬ 130…Caesarea…Caesarion – ‫יס ְריֹון‬ ַ ‫י…ק‬ ֵ ‫יס ִר‬ ָ ‫ֵק‬

‫ר‬ 38…A square and its diagonal – ‫יבו ַּע וַ ֲא ַל ְכסֹון‬ ּ ‫ִר‬ 49…Exilarch – ‫ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬

‫ש‬ 190…Sabbatical Year – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ 60…Wormwood – ‫ׁ ְשוָ וצְ ֵרי‬ 60…Licorice [shushei] – ‫ׁשו ׁ ֵּשי‬ 137…Wicker basket – ‫ׁ ָש ִחיל‬ 87…Ulla’s opinion – ‫יטת עו ָּּלא‬ ַּ ‫ׁ ִש‬ 87…Rabba and Rav Yosef’s opinion – ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫יטת ַר ָ ּבה וְ ַרב‬ ַּ ‫ׁ ִש‬ 157…The opinion of Rabbi Tarfon – ‫יטת ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬ ַּ ‫ׁ ִש‬ 167…Teeth of a sickle – ‫ׁ ִשינֵי ַמ ָ ּגל‬ 167…Teeth of a saw – ‫ׁ ִשינֵי ַמ ּ ׂשֹור‬ 92…Papyrus [shifa] – ‫ׁ ִש ָיפה‬

‫ס‬ 77…A sheet on posts – ‫ָס ִדין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַע ּמו ִּדים‬ A sukka supported – ‫סו ָּּכה ַה ּנ ְִס ֶמ ֶכת ְ ּב ַכ ְר ֵעי ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ 105…on the legs of the bed 89…A sukka like a type of circular hut – ‫סו ָּּכה ְּכ ִמין צְ ִריף‬ 45…A sukka beneath another sukka – ‫סו ָּּכה ַּת ַחת סו ָּּכה‬ 86…Rav Kahana’s sukka – ‫סו ַּּכת ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ 63…Sura – ‫סו ָּרא‬ 219…Colonnade [setav] – ‫ְס ָטיו‬ 181…Fibers around the date palm – ‫ִסיב‬ 89…Rested it against a wall – ‫ְס ָמ ָכ ּה ַל ּכ ֶֹותל‬ 234…Libation basins – ‫ִס ְפ ֵלי ַה ּנ ִּסו ְּך‬

‫ע‬ 60…Processing flax – ‫יבוּד ַה ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן‬ ּ ‫ִע‬ A city whose residents were incited – ‫ִעיר ַה ּנִדַּ ַחת‬ 145…to idolatry 110…Atop a camel – ‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָ ּג ָמל‬ 21…Posts on the edge of the roof – ‫ַעל ְ ׂש ַפת ַה ַ ּגג‬

Two four-handbreadth stretches – ‫ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִלין ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬ 82…of waste in the middle 57…Senir – ‫ּ ְ ׂשנִיר‬

193…Reed leaves and vine leaves – ‫ֲע ֵלי ָקנִים וַ ֲע ֵלי גְ ָפנִים‬

138…Sackcloth – ‫ַ ׂשק‬

167…Willow branch and tzaftzafa – ‫ֲע ָר ָבה וְ צַ ְפצָ ָפה‬

May his Master – ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬ ּ ‫יה ָמ ֵר‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ָרא ֵל‬ 157…forgive Rabbi Tarfon 260…Two thighs – ‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי יְ ֵריכֹות‬ 40…Two craftsmen’s booths – ‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי סו ּּכֹות ׁ ֶשל יֹוצְ ִרים‬ 83…Two cross beams – ‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי קֹורֹות‬ 108…Two parallel beams – ‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי קֹורֹות ַמ ְת ִאימֹות‬

‫ת‬ 251…Conclusive refutation [teyuvta] – ‫ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ 122…Sky-blue dye – ‫ְּת ֵכ ֶלת‬ Attached them but – ‫אשי חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ְּת ָל ָאן וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ַסק ָר‬ 53…did not cut the ends of their strands

284

‫נ‬ 14…Leprosy of the house – ‫נִ גְ ֵעי ָב ִּתים‬

252…Poles and basins – ‫ַע ּמו ִּדים ו ְּס ָפ ִלים‬ 8…Ashterot Karnayim – ‫ַע ׁ ְש ְּתרֹות ַק ְרנַיִ ים‬ 66…Pitchfork – ‫ֶע ֶתר‬

‫פ‬ 273…Lottery – ‫ּ ַפיִ יס‬ 191…Sabbatical-Year produce – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ּ ֵפירֹות ׁ ְש ִב‬ 171…Pepper tree – ‫ּ ִפ ְל ּ ְפ ִלין‬ 35…Upright boards surrounding wells – ‫ּ ַפ ֵּסי ִב ָיראֹות‬ 131…Window shutter – ‫ּ ְפ ָקק ַה ַח ּלֹון‬ 171…Fruit of a beautiful tree – ‫ּ ְפ ִרי ֵעץ ָה ָדר‬

‫צ‬

257…Three parasangs – ‫ְּת ָל ָתא ּ ַפ ְר ֵסי‬

84…The small fish of the Bav River – ‫צַ ַחנְ ָּתא דְּ ַבב נַ ֲה ָרא‬

170…Teruma – ‫ְּתרו ָּמה‬ 113…Terumot and tithes – ‫ְּתרוּמֹות ו ַּמ ַע ְ ׂשרֹות‬

76…Tzippori – ‫צִ ּיפ ִֹורי‬ 25…Bird – ‫צִ ּ ָיפ ְר ָּתא‬

‫ל‬

‫א‬ 279…Wolf [lokos] – ‫לֹוקֹוס‬

84…Abramis [avroma] – ‫רֹומא‬ ָ ‫ַא ְב‬ 147…Merchants [avankarei] – ‫ֲאוַ ונְ ָּכ ֵרי‬

‫מ‬ 219…Branches [murbiyyot] – ‫מו ְּר ִ ּבּיֹות‬ 194…Remedy [melugma] – ‫ְמלוּגְ ָמא‬ 254…White marble [marmara] – ‫ַמ ְר ָמ ָרא‬

‫נ‬ 28…Hair [nima] – ‫נִימא‬ ָ 47…Two-post [naklitin] bed – ‫יטין‬ ִ ‫נַ ְק ִל‬

171…Water [idur] – ‫ִאידוּר‬ 49…Became wet [itamisha] – ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫יט ִמ‬ ַ ‫ִא‬ 176…Issar – ‫יסר‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ 209…Bench [itztaba] – ‫ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא‬

Index of Language

16…Portico [akhsadra] – ‫ַא ְכ ַס ְד ָרה‬ 174…Soldiers [akhsanya] – ‫ַא ְכ ַסנְיָא‬ 271…Convoy [ambuha] – ‫ַא ְמ ּבו ָּהא‬ 127…Steward [apotropos] – ‫רֹופֹוס‬ ְ ‫ַא ּפ‬ ּ ‫ֹוט‬

‫ס‬ 183…Cloth [sudara] – ‫סו ָּד ָרא‬ 219…Colonnade [setav] – ‫ְס ָטיו‬ 279…Soldier [sardeyot] – ‫ַס ְר ְדיֹוט‬

194…Emetic [apiktoizin] – ‫ַא ּ ִפ ְיקטֹויזִ ן‬

‫ב‬ 256…Web [bukhya] – ‫ּבו ְּכיָ א‬ 16…Huts [burganin] – ‫ּבו ְּר ָ ּגנִין‬

‫פ‬ 139…A fraudulent document [pelaster] – ‫ּ ְפ ַל ְס ֵּתר‬ 138…Lantern [panas] – ‫ּ ָפנָס‬

254…Basilica [basileki] – ‫ַ ּב ִס ֵיל ִקי‬ 30…In sukkot [basukkot] – ‫ַ ּב ֻּס ּכֹת‬ 123…Biting flies [baki] – ‫ָ ּב ִקי‬

235…Messenger [parvanka] – ‫ּ ַפ ְרוַ ונְ ָקא‬ 53…Garment [pirzuma] – ‫ּ ִפ ְרזו ָּמא‬ 48…Grape branches [parkilei] – ‫ּ ַפ ְר ִּכ ֵילי‬ 218…Parasang [parsa] – ‫רסה‬ ָ ‫ּ ַפ‬

‫צ‬ 84…Small fish [tzaĥanta] – ‫צַ ַחנְ ָּתא‬

‫ק‬ 21…Posts [kundeisin] – ‫יסין‬ ִ ֵּ‫קוּנְד‬ 12…Small rooms [kitoniyyot] – ‫ִקיטֹונִּיֹות‬ 47…Four-post [kinof ] bed – ‫ִקינֹוף‬ 52…Ivy [kissos] – ‫ִק ּיסֹוס‬

‫ג‬ 94…Sacks [gulkei] – ‫ּגו ְּל ֵקי‬ 255…Balcony [gezuztra] – ‫ְ ּגזוּזְ ְט ָרא‬ 133…Numerology [gimmatreyaot] – ‫ימ ְט ְריָ אֹות‬ ַּ ‫ִ ּג‬ 123…Earth [gargishta] – ‫יש ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ ִ‫ַ ּג ְרג‬ 43…Fringes [geradin] – ‫ְ ּג ָר ִדין‬

‫ד‬ 22…Double post [deyumad] – ‫דְּ יו ָּמד‬ 254…Great synagogue [deyofloston] – ‫יֹופל ְֹסטֹון‬ ְ ְּ‫ד‬

‫ה‬

136…Jug [kiton] – ‫ִקיתֹון‬

17…Ends of palm leaves [hutzin] – ‫הוּצִ ין‬

220…Colony [kelanya] – ‫ְק ָלנְיָא‬

154…Fork [heimanak] – ‫ימנָ ק‬ ָ ‫ֵה‬

254…Golden chairs [katedraot] – ‫ַק ֶּת ְד ָראֹות‬

‫ש‬ 69…Skewers [shapudin] – ‫ׁ ַש ּפו ִּדין‬

‫ת‬ 127…Delicacies [targima] – ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ַּת ְר ִ ּג‬

‫ט‬ 139…State treasury [timyon] – ‫ִט ְמיֹון‬

‫כ‬ 156…Branch of the date palm [kufra] – ‫ּכו ְּפ ָרא‬ 220…Tax [karga] – ‫ַּכ ְר ָ ּגא‬

285

Index of Personalities

129…Rabbi Eliezer – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬

200…Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya – ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ 93…Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons – ‫ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ו ָּבנָיו‬ 200…Rabbi Yehoshua – ‬‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַר ִ ּבי י‬ 125…Rabbi Tzadok – ‫ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬ 221…Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai – ‫יֹוחי‬ ַ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ 110…Rabban Gamliel – ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ 197…Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai – ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי‬ ָ ‫ַר ָ ּבן‬ 262…Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel – ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬

‫ש‬ 262…King Shapur – ‫ׁ ְשבֹור ַמ ְל ָּכא‬ 133…Shammai the Elder – ‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי ַהּזָ ֵקן‬

286

257…Abaye – ‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ 127…Agrippas – ‫ַאגְ ִר ּ ַיפס‬

129…Rabbi Elai – ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬

110…Rabbi Akiva – ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬

Image Credits

‫א‬

24…Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬

217…Aivu – ‫ַאיְ יב ּו‬

‫ה‬ 11…Queen Helene – ‫ֵה ֶילנִי ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬ 261…Hillel the Elder – ‫ִה ֵּלל ַהּזָ ֵקן‬

‫ט‬ 101…Tavi – ‫ָט ִבי‬

‫י‬ 132…Yonatan ben Uzziel – ‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫יֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן עוּּז‬

‫מ‬ 260…Marta, daughter of Baitos – ‫ָמ ְר ָתא ַ ּבת ַ ּביְ יתֹוס‬

‫ר‬ 149…Rav Naĥman – ‫ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ 182…Rabba – ‫ַר ָ ּבה‬

All images are copyright © Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd., except: p11 © Hanay; p16 © Longbow4u; p25 © El fosilmaníaco; p26 © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p37 1st image © Paul Cowen, www.shutterstock.com; p37 2nd image © MdeVicente; p40 2nd image © Keystone View Company; p44 © Jamain; p45 © Neot Kedumim – The Biblical Landscape Reserve in Israel, www.n-k.org.il; p52 1st image © chery; p52 2nd image © Neot Kedumim – The Biblical Landscape Reserve in Israel, www.n-k.org.il; p54 © Forest & Kim Starr; p57 © Adiel lo; p59 2nd image © Jastrow; p60 left image © Anneli Salo; p60 middle and right images © Prof. Dr. Otto Wilhelm Thomé Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz 1885, Gera, Germany – courtesy of Kurt Stueber; p61 both images © Sarah Gold, courtesy of Tzemaĥ HaSadeh, www.wildflowers.co.il; p62 © Kippi70; p73 © Mattes; p74 © Massimilianogalardi; p76 © Ori; p83 2nd image © NormanB; p84 © George Brown Goode (1887); p89 1st image © Michel Royon; p92 left image © pjt56; p92 right image © James Steakley; p102 1st image © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p102 2nd image © Ted Swedenburg; p110 © Alex Israel, courtesy of Neot Kedumim – The Biblical Landscape Reserve in Israel, www.n-k.org.il; p114 © Photographers of the American Colony in Jerusalem; p130 left image © EdoM; p130 right image © Deror Avi; p137 © McKay Savage; p151 © CNG coins; p154 1st image © Marie-Lan Nguyen; p155 1st image © rebe; p159 top image © Jebulon; p159 bottom left image © Georges Jansoone JoJan; p163 © Martynova Anna, www.shutterstock.com; p167 2nd image © MPF; p171 © Antti Kivivalli; p179 © Neot Kedumim – The Biblical Landscape Reserve in Israel, www.n-k.org.il; p183 © Clara Amit, Yoram Lehman, Yael Yolovitch, Miki Koren, and Mariana Salzberger, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Auth­ ority; p191 © Daniel Ventura; p219 2nd image © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p220 © Dr. Avishai Teicher; p234 1st image © Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn, Zurich; p234 2nd image © courtesy of the Temple Institute, with Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd.; p241 © Maria Dryfhout, www.shutterstock.com; p247 © Marie-Lan Nguyen; p250 © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p252 © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p254 © Jerzy Strzelecki; p257 © J. Smith; p262 © TruthBeethoven; p270 © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p273 © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p277 © courtesy of the Temple Institute