Sukkah, Daf Kaf Aleph, Part 6

 

Introduction

This section begins to deal with a new mishnah.

 

משנה. הסומך סוכתו בכרעי המטה – כשרה. רבי יהודה אומר: אם אינה יכולה לעמוד בפני עצמה – פסולה.

 

Mishnah: One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid.

Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid.

 

The person uses his bedposts to support the sukkah. The sages and R. Judah dispute whether this sukkah is valid if it cannot stand without the support from the bedposts.

 

גמרא. מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? פליגי בה רבי זירא ורבי אבא בר ממל. חד אמר: מפני שאין לה קבע, וחד אמר: מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה.

 

GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Judah?

R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree. One says, It is because the Sukkah has no permanence, and the other says, It is because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

 

The Talmud tries to explain why R. Judah disqualifies such a sukkah. There are two amoraic opinions, but as sometimes happens, the Talmud doesn’t know which statement goes with which amora. In any case, one amora holds that R. Judah disqualifies the sukkah because it is not permanent enough. As we have seen a few times, the amoraim say that R. Judah requires that the sukkah have a relatively high degree of permanence. The other opinion holds that the problem is that the sukkah is propped up on something that is susceptible to impurity, namely the bed.

The Talmud will now explore the ramifications of the differences between these two opinions.

 

מאי בינייהו – כגון שנעץ שפודין של ברזל וסיכך עליהם. למאן דאמר לפי שאין לה קבע – הרי יש לה קבע, ומאן דאמר מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה – הרי מעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה.

 

What [case] differentiates between them?

If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes [in the ground] and covered them with skhakh.

According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

 

These two opinions would differ if someone made a sukkah by sticking four iron stakes in the ground and using them to hold up the skhakh. The sukkah would be directly supported by something that receives impurity, and therefore the amora who explains that R. Judah disqualifies a sukkah propped up by something susceptible to impurity would also hold that R. Judah would disqualify this sukkah. However, this sukkah is permanent, or at least more permanent than one supported by a bed. So the other amora would say that R. Judah allows this sukkah.

 

אמר אביי: לא שנו אלא סמך, אבל סיכך על גב המטה – כשרה. מאי טעמא, למאן דאמר לפי שאין לה קבע – הרי יש לה קבע, למאן דאמר מפני שמעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה – הרי אין מעמידה בדבר המקבל טומאה.

 

Abaye said: They taught this only if he supported it, but if he placed skhkah above a bed, it is valid.

What is the reason? According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, here he does not prop it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

 

Abaye limits R. Judah’s disqualification to a case where he supported the skhakh with the bedposts. If he, props up the skhakh in another way (such as putting iron posts into the ground), but the beds serve as walls of the sukkah the sukkah is valid. This sukkah is permanent because it is not attached to the bed nor is it propped up by the bed.