Sukkah, Daf Kaf, Part 1
Introduction
The last daf we finished ended with Rava’s interpretation of the mishnah concerning using mats as skhakh. Rava said that the basic disagreement was over a small mat made without specific intention. The first opinion held that a small mat was usually made for reclining and therefore could not be used as skhakh. R. Eliezer held that a small mat was generally used for covering and therefore could be used as skhakh. Our daf opens with a difficulty that Abaye had on that position.
אמר ליה אביי: אי הכי, רבי אליעזר אומר אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה? אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה מיבעי ליה! ועוד: כי פליגי – בגדולה הוא דפליגי, ורבי אליעזר לחומרא. דתניא: מחצלת הקנים, בגדולה מסככין בה, רבי אליעזר אומר: אם אינה מקבלת טומאה – מסככין בה.
Abaye said to him, If so, [instead of] R. Eliezer says, whether it is small or large, it ought to read, Whether it is large or small?
Furthermore, is it not in fact with regard to a large mat that they are in dispute, and it is R. Eliezer who takes the stricter view, for it was taught: A large mat of reeds is valid for skhakh. R. Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, it is valid for skhakh.
Abaye raises two difficulties. The first is the order of the way R. Eliezer lists "small or large." R. Eliezer is in essence saying that a small mat has the same rules as a large one. So, Abaye argues, it should read "large or small" which emphasizes that the small mat has the same rules as the large. [We should note that it is not at all clear which should in reality come first, and Rashi seems to be aware of several different versions of this line in the mishnah and gemara.]
The second difficulty is more substantive. Abaye uses a baraita to prove that R. Eliezer holds that even a large mat can be susceptible to impurity if made without any specific intended use in mind. The first opinion in this baraita holds that a large mat can be used as skhakh. R. Eliezer says that this is so only if it is not susceptible to impurity, meaning if he made it for a covering. But, R. Eliezer would hold, if he made it with no specific intent, then it is susceptible to impurity and cannot be used as skhakh. Thus R. Eliezer and the other sages disagree about a large mat.
אלא אמר רב פפא: בקטנה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דסתמא לשכיבה. כי פליגי – בגדולה. תנא קמא סבר: סתם גדולה לסיכוך, ורבי אליעזר סבר: סתם גדולה נמי לשכיבה. ומאי עשאה לשכיבה דקאמר – הכי קאמר: סתם עשייתה נמי לשכיבה, עד דעביד לסיכוך.
Rather R. Papa said: With regard to a small [mat], all agree that ordinarily it is intended for reclining upon.
About what do they disagree? About a large one. The first Tanna is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended for a covering, while R. Eliezer is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended also for reclining. And what is meant by if it was made for reclining’? It is this that was meant: Ordinarily also its manufacture is assumed to be for the purpose of reclining upon unless one made it specifically for a covering.
R. Papa, who lived a generation after Abaye now offers another reinterpretation of the mishnah. The first tanna and R. Eliezer agree that a small mat is usually made for reclining and cannot be used for skhakh (unless specifically made for covering). The first opinion holds that usually a large mat is made for covering and therefore can be used for skhakh if made without any specific intent. R. Eliezer holds that a large mat is also made for reclining. When he says, "if it was made for reclining" then it can’t be used as skhakh what he really meant to say is that a large mat is normally is made for reclining and can’t be used for skhakh. It could only be used for skhakh if it was made specifically with the intent of using it for a covering, the same rule that applies to a small mat.