Sukkah, Daf Kaf, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today’s section cites a different mishnah that also has to deal with the purity of mats (I know this is your favorite topic).

 

תנן התם: כל החוצלות מטמאין טמא מת, דברי רבי דוסא, וחכמים אומרים: מדרס.

 

We have learned elsewhere: All [hotzlot] mats are [liable to become] impure by corpse impurity, the words of Rabbi Dosa.

But the Sages say: [Also by] midras impurity.

 

Rabbi Dosa and the Sages disagree with regards to the susceptibility of mats to midras impurity. Midras impurity is a type of impurity which is received by a zav (one who has an unnatural genital discharge, not semen or menstruation) sitting or lying down on an object even if he/she doesn’t touch it. Only things that are typically sat on or lied down upon can receive this type of impurity. According to Rabbi Dosa, mats can receive corpse impurity by coming into contact with a dead body, or a part thereof. However, since the mats under discussion are not used for sitting or for lying down, they cannot receive midras impurity. The Sages hold that they can, since they are occasionally used for such a purpose.

 

מדרס – אין, טמא מת – לא?והא אנן תנן: כל המטמא מדרס מטמא טמא מת!

אימא: אף מדרס.

 

[Can it mean] to the uncleanliness of midras but not to that of a corpse! But haven’t we learned: Whatever is susceptible to uncleanliness of midras is also susceptible to uncleanliness from a corpse?

Say rather also to the uncleanliness of midras.

 

The Talmud begins by offering a slight emendation to the sages’ words. These mats are susceptible, according to the sages, even to midras impurity. They are obviously also susceptible to the more conveyable type of impurity, corpse impurity.

 

מאי חוצלות? – אמר רב אבדימי בר המדורי: מרזובלי.

מאי מרזובלי? אמר רבי אבא: מזבלי.

 

What is meant by "hotzlot"? R. Abdimi b. Hamduri said marzublei. What is marzublei? R. Abba said, Bags filled with foliage.

 

The word used in the mishnah for "mats" is unusual. Here it is explained first with a strange word "marzbulei," but that word is also not so clear. Ultimately it is interpreted as "bags filled with foliage." Evidently, these were used as mats. Sounds somewhat comfy and very eco-friendly!

רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר: מחצלות ממש. ואזדא ריש לקיש לטעמיה, דאמר ריש לקיש: הריני כפרת רבי חייא ובניו. שבתחלה כשנשתכחה תורה מישראל עלה עזרא מבבל ויסדה, חזרה ונשתכחה עלה הלל הבבלי ויסדה, חזרה ונשתכחה עלו רבי חייא ובניו ויסדוה. וכן אמר רבי חייא ובניו: לא נחלקו רבי דוסא וחכמים על מחצלות של אושא שהן טמאות, ושל טבריא שהן טהורות. על מה נחלקו – על שאר מקומות. מר סבר: כיון דליכא דיתיב עלייהו – כדטבריא דמיין, ומר סבר: כיון דמקרי ויתבי עלייהו – כדאושא דמיין.

 

R. Shimon b. Lakish said: Real mats. And Resh Lakish is consistent with his own view, since Resh Lakish said, May I be atonement for R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it. And thus said R. Hiyya and his sons: R. Dosa and the Sages did not dispute about reed-mats of Usha, that they are susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, or of Tiberias that they are not susceptible. About what do they dispute? About those of other places. One Master is of the opinion that since they are not [as a rule] used for sitting upon, they are like those of Tiberias, and the Masters are of the opinion that since it sometimes happens that they are used for sitting upon, they are like those of Usha.

 

 

R. Shimon ben Lakish, otherwise known as Resh Lakish, says that the hotzlot of this mishnah are real mats, not bags of foliage. This matches what he says in another statement. In this statement R. Hiyya (who was Babylonian and restored proper Torah learning to the land of Israel) explains the mishnah. R. Dosa and the sages agree that reed-mats from Usha (a place in the Galilee) are susceptible because they are made for sitting upon. Reed-mats from Tiberias are not made for sitting upon, so they are not susceptible. They only dispute reed-mats from other places. R. Dosa holds that since they are not usually used for sitting upon, they are not susceptible, like those of Tiberias. The other sages hold that since they sometimes are used for sitting upon they are susceptible. Note that this matches our discussion on previous pages. The issue is how to deal with mats made without any specific purpose in mind.

 

אמר מר: כל החוצלות מטמאין טמא מת, דברי רבי דוסא.

והתניא: וכן היה רבי דוסא אומר כדבריו!

לא קשיא: הא – דאית ליה גדנפא, הא דלית ליה גדנפא.

 

The Master said: All reed mats are susceptible to corpse uncleanliness. These are the words of R. Dosa .

But was it not taught: And R. Dosa also said according to his words ? -This is no difficulty. The former refers to one that has a rim, the latter to one that has no rim.

 

The Talmud now notes that what R. Dosa says here contradicts what he said above, in the previous section. There R. Dosa agreed with R. Yose that one could use such mats for skhakh. This implies that they are not susceptible to impurity. But here he says that the mats are susceptible to corpse impurity.

The resolution is that mats that have a rim are susceptible to impurity, whereas mats that don’t have a rim are not. Again, the more formed something is, the more susceptible it is to impurity.