Sukkah, Daf Yod Tet, Part 6

Sukkah, Daf Yod Tet, Part 6

 

Introduction

This section continues the analysis of the mishnah from yesterday’s section, again addressing the question of whether the mat can be used as skhakh if it was made without any intention as to how to use it.

 

(בשלמא לרבנן לא קשיא, אלא לרבי אליעזר קשיא, דתנן) +מסורת הש"ס: [אימא סיפא]+ רבי אליעזר אומר: אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה, עשאה לשכיבה – מקבלת טומאה ואין מסככין בה. טעמא – דעשאה לשכיבה, הא סתמא – לסיכוך. אימא סיפא: עשאה לסיכוך – מסככין בה ואינה מקבלת טומאה, טעמא – דעשאה לסיכוך, הא סתמא – לשכיבה!

 

But read the latter portion [of the Mishnah].^[1] R Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that he made it for reclining, but if made without a specific purpose it can be used as skhakh.

But [again] read the later portion [of the Mishnah] If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

If made for a covering, it is valid as skhakh and is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.The reason then is that it was made specifically for covering, but if made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for reclining upon?

 

The Talmud now applies the same logic it did in yesterday’s section to R. Eliezer’s opinion. In the first half of his words R. Eliezer says that if one made the mat to recline upon is susceptible to impurity. But without any designated purpose, it is not susceptible to impurity.

But in the second half he says the opposite. If he made it specifically for covering, it can be used as skhakh. But if he had no purpose in mind when he made it, then we can assume he was going to use it for reclining and it is invalid as skhakh.

 

אלא אמר רבא: בגדולה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דסתמא לסיכוך, כי פליגי – בקטנה. תנא קמא סבר: סתם קטנה לשכיבה, ורבי אליעזר סבר: סתם קטנה נמי לסיכוך.

והכי קאמר: מחצלת הקנים גדולה, עשאה לשכיבה – מקבלת טומאה ואין מסככין בה. טעמא – דעשאה לשכיבה, הא סתמא – נעשה כמי שעשאה לסיכוך, מסככין בה. (קטנה, עשאה לסיכוך – מסככין בה, טעמא – דעשאה לסיכוך, הא סתמא – נעשה כמי שעשאה לשכיבה, ואין מסככין בה). ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר: אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה, סתמא כשרה לסיכוך.

 

Rather Rava said: In the case of a large [mat] all agree that if made without specific purpose [it is assumed to be intended] for a covering. They only differ in the case of a small [mat]. The first Tanna holds that ordinarily a small one is for reclining upon, and R. Eliezer holds that ordinarily a small one is for a covering as well.

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a

covering, and is valid as skhakh.

A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna]

And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

 

Rava resolves this difficulty and explains the entire mishnah. When it comes to a large mat, which is usually used for covering, both opinions agree that if he makes it with no intent, it can be used as skhakh. No intent implies that it will be used in its normal fashion. They disagree concerning a small mat. The first opinion in the mishnah holds that a small mat is usually made for reclining. Therefore, if he has no intent when he makes it, he cannot use it for skhakh. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that a small mat is usually made for a covering as well. Therefore it too can be used as skhakh unless it was specifically made to be used for reclining.