Sukkah, Daf Kaf Daled, Part 6
Introduction
Today’s section continues to deal with the issue of whether a partition that sways to and fro counts as a partition.
תא שמע: אילן המיסך על הארץ, אם אין נופו גבוה מן הארץ שלשה טפחים – מטלטלין תחתיו,
אמאי? הא קא אזיל ואתי!
התם נמי, דעביד ליה בהוצא ודפנא.
Come and hear: If a tree casts a shadow on the ground, it if the ends of its branches are not three handbreadths high above the ground it is permitted to carry underneath it.
But why? Does not the tree sway to and fro?
Here also it is a case where one plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.
The Talmud raises yet another difficulty from a baraita that seems to allow one to consider a tree to be a partition. In this case, the issue is carrying under the tree during Shabbat. As long as the tree’s branches are within three handbreadths of the ground, one may carry underneath it.
Again, as it we saw in yesterday’s section, the resolution is that he made the tree’s partition more solid by plaiting it with shrubs and trees. Without having done so, the Talmud rules that he would not be able to consider the branches to be a partition.
אי הכי ניטלטל בכוליה! אלמה אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: אין מטלטלין בו אלא בית סאתים
משום דהוי דירה שתשמישיה לאויר, וכל דירה שתשמישיה לאויר אין מטלטלין בו אלא סאתים.
But if so, it should be permitted to carry objects over its whole area; why then did R. Huna the son of R. Joshua say: One may not carry any objects there except where its area was not bigger than two bet se’ah?
The reason is that it is an abode made to serve the open air and in every abode that is made to serve the open air objects may be moved in it only if its area is no more than two beth se’ah.
If underneath the trees is considered a private domain for its partitions are real partitions, then why did R. Huna son of R. Joshua limit carrying there to an area of "two bet se’ah" which according to a book I have is about 1500 square yards.
The answer is that the people who wish to dwell under these trees don’t really want to be there just to spend their Shabbat under the tree. This is not a real "abode." Rather, they are there on Shabbat because they are doing something outside, assumedly guarding fields. Whenever an abode is set up for something outside of it, such as a guard hut, one can carry within only if it is smaller than 1500 square yards.
תא שמע: שבת בתל שהוא גבוה עשרה והוא מארבע אמות עד בית סאתים, וכן בנקע שהוא עמוק עשרה והוא מארבע אמות עד בית סאתים, וכן קמה קצורה ושבולות מקיפות אותה – מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה, אף על גב דקאזיל ואתי!
התם נמי דעביד ליה בהוצא ודפנא.
Come and hear: If one made his Shabbat resting place on a mound which is ten [handbreadths] high and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se’ah and so also with a cavity in the ground which is ten [handbreadths] deep, and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se’ah and so also with a harvested spot of grain that was surrounded by ears of grain, he may walk throughout its whole extent and two thousand cubits outside it [on the Sabbath].
[Now is not this permitted] even although it sways to and fro?
There also it refers to where he plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.
This baraita says that an area that is raised ten handbreadths above the normal height of a field, or is ten handbreadths below ground level, or is surrounded by stalks that are ten handbreadths, one can count it as an enclosed area. One can walk through this entire area as if it were all four cubits in length and width. His "Shabbat border" the distance he is allowed to leave his town on Shabbat is reckoned from the end of the area. Had we not considered this his Shabbat area, he would be limited to 2000 cubits from the exact point at which he begins Shabbat.
Again, the point of bringing this baraita here is that we have another case where vegetation that sways to and fro can count as a partition the stalks of grain.
And again, the Talmud resolves the difficulty by saying that he had plaited the stalks with shrubs and bay-trees to make a more solid partition.
This concludes our sugya about using considering swaying partitions to be halakhically valid. We should note that the tannaitic texts, the baraitot that the Talmud cites over and over, quite simply allow one to use such partitions even though they sway. The Talmud, the commentary and reaction to the Mishnah, rule more strictly. Formally speaking, however, the amoraim are not allowed to disagree with the Mishnah. But we can see here an excellent example of how the Talmud reacts when they do disagree with the Mishnah. They explain the Mishnah such that it accords with their opinion. Thus we might say that while formally, the authority lies with the earlier traditions, in reality, the later interpreters can do with these earlier traditions as they see fit.